Where does Awimb stand on abortion?

[Monty92]

I’m really not sure how I feel about it.

Both sides of the divide are so militantly bogged down in ideology - pro-life being rooted in religious nuttery and pro-choice in feminist dogma – the actual real-life consequences are almost forgotten.

[Sir C]

I’m really not sure how I feel about it.

Both sides of the divide are so militantly bogged down in ideology - pro-life being rooted in religious nuttery and pro-choice in feminist dogma – the actual real-life consequences are almost forgotten.

I suppose objectively, up until the point that the wossit, foetus becomes sentient, it's the same as contraception; but as you say, it's such an emotive subject that you're never going to get an objective discussion.

It does seem to be one of those areas where the left have chosen to give Trump a kicking by telling lies about him. 'Trump wants women puniched for having abortions!' they shriek. As I understand it, he was asked if women should be puniched for having an abortion if abortion were illegal. Quite logically, he said 'yes', because, you know, there are punishments for breaking the law, but this is ignored by the hysterical termagents and lying ****erati.

[Pokster]

I’m really not sure how I feel about it.

Both sides of the divide are so militantly bogged down in ideology - pro-life being rooted in religious nuttery and pro-choice in feminist dogma – the actual real-life consequences are almost forgotten.

token, shame your parents didn't consider it

[Ash]

I’m really not sure how I feel about it.

Both sides of the divide are so militantly bogged down in ideology - pro-life being rooted in religious nuttery and pro-choice in feminist dogma – the actual real-life consequences are almost forgotten.

I'm all for it. Up to at least about five or six years of age.

[World's End Stella]

There is such a divided opinion with so many different viewpoints that I struggle to understand how someone who believes in a secular democracy wouldn't agree that abortion should be legalized and women and men allowed to take decisions which are consistent with their beliefs.

Anyone who thinks otherwise is a c*nt. :-)

[Monty92]

There is such a divided opinion with so many different viewpoints that I struggle to understand how someone who believes in a secular democracy wouldn't agree that abortion should be legalized and women and men allowed to take decisions which are consistent with their beliefs.

Anyone who thinks otherwise is a c*nt. :-)

My missus says she would be in favour of legalised abortion up until the moment of birth. Do you too?

[Burney]

I’m really not sure how I feel about it.

Both sides of the divide are so militantly bogged down in ideology - pro-life being rooted in religious nuttery and pro-choice in feminist dogma – the actual real-life consequences are almost forgotten.

It's a necessary evil. Nothing more, nothing less. I believe it must be legal and available within certain limits, but at the same time, I believe it's important to remember that it is the destruction of human life and ought to be treated with the moral and intellectual seriousness that fact merits.
Ultimately, I believe that in an awful lot of cases it is profoundly immoral, but must be available for fear of the alternative.

[Burney]

My missus says she would be in favour of legalised abortion up until the moment of birth. Do you too?

Why not go the whole hog and allow post-natal abortion while you're at it? After all, what ultimately is the moral difference?

[World's End Stella]

My missus says she would be in favour of legalised abortion up until the moment of birth. Do you too?

No, I think the physician should decide whether the foetus is viable if pregnancy were induced and, if so, the woman should give birth and then take her decision with regard to adoption or not.

You have to be careful with this issue though, Monty. It's such a complicated one that you can easily talk yourself in moral circles and end up nowhere.

[Monty92]

Why not go the whole hog and allow post-natal abortion while you're at it? After all, what ultimately is the moral difference?

S'what I said :shrug:

But could the same question not be asked of your position? If legal at 24 weeks, why not 40?

[Burney]

S'what I said :shrug:

But then could the same question not be asked of your position? If legal at 15 weeks, why not 40?

The irrational argument is aesthetic and emotional and instinctive, I suppose. A foetus at 15 weeks doesn't look like a baby, while one at 40 weeks does - because it is. A more rational argument, however, is viability. If a child is viable outside the womb and you kill it, there can be no mistake that you are taking the life of a human being whose right to life ought to be vouchsafed by the law.

[Burney]

No, I think the physician should decide whether the foetus is viable if pregnancy were induced and, if so, the woman should give birth and then take her decision with regard to adoption or not.

You have to be careful with this issue though, Monty. It's such a complicated one that you can easily talk yourself in moral circles and end up nowhere.

Oddly enough, it's not that complicated if you remember at all times that what you are talking about is a human life and its deliberate termination. I find that most of the complexity arises from sophistry designed to distract from or obscure that single, salient fact.

[Sir C]

Oddly enough, it's not that complicated if you remember at all times that what you are talking about is a human life and its deliberate termination. I find that most of the complexity arises from sophistry designed to distract from or obscure that single, salient fact.

You are the Pope and I claim my 5 euros.

[Monty92]

The irrational argument is aesthetic and emotional and instinctive, I suppose. A foetus at 15 weeks doesn't look like a baby, while one at 40 weeks does - because it is. A more rational argument, however, is viability. If a child is viable outside the womb and you kill it, there can be no mistake that you are taking the life of a human being whose right to life ought to be vouchsafed by the law.

In the UK, abortion is legal up to 24 weeks, yet babies are viable up to and even before this gestation period. So should I assume that you think the current laws allow "the taking the life of a human being whose right to life ought to be vouchsafed by the law" and are therefore wrong?

[Burney]

You are the Pope and I claim my 5 euros.

No. The Pope would say that it's a human life and therefore inviolable because God. I say it's a human life, but we have to do some morally repugnant Benthamite calculations before we decide on its violability.

[Pokster]

In the UK, abortion is legal up to 24 weeks, yet babies are viable up to and even before this gestation period. So should I assume that you think the current laws allow "the taking the life of a human being whose right to life ought to be vouchsafed by the law" and are therefore wrong?

Are they "viable" without medical intervention? a 40 wk old foetus should be able to survive without specialist care

[Ash]

You are the Pope and I claim my 5 euros.

:hehe: You can take the boy out of the convent etc

[Burney]

In the UK, abortion is legal up to 24 weeks, yet babies are viable up to and even before this gestation period. So should I assume that you think the current laws allow "the taking the life of a human being whose right to life ought to be vouchsafed by the law" and are therefore wrong?

Obviously an arbitrary limit must be set and in this case it's 24 weeks. Survivability up to that date is very low and the kid will probably be pretty fücked even if it makes it. If you have to set a limit, then I agree that the general principle of viability is how you have to set it and that 24 weeks is reasonable - even if there are exceptions who make it at that age. Maybe I'd go a week or two lower, but I'm understanding of the legislators' reasons for setting it where they do.

[Mo Britain less Europe]

Obviously an arbitrary limit must be set and in this case it's 24 weeks. Survivability up to that date is very low and the kid will probably be pretty fücked even if it makes it. If you have to set a limit, then I agree that the general principle of viability is how you have to set it and that 24 weeks is reasonable - even if there are exceptions who make it at that age. Maybe I'd go a week or two lower, but I'm understanding of the legislators' reasons for setting it where they do.

That's about right. Abortion should not be a form of contraception but the life of the mother must take absolute paramountcy over the life of the unborn foetus. Severely handicapped and product of rape and so forth should be aborted whenever, no limits. The religious crap about abortion is driven more by their desire to overpopulate the world so there's plenty of cash for them in this world and souls in the next and not due to the sanctity of life - they have been happy to behead, stone, burn and otherwise extinguish life over the centuries when it suits them. All of them.

[Burney]

:hehe: You can take the boy out of the convent etc

It's nothing to do with catholicism. Anyone who actually thinks seriously about it independently of all the political baggage knows damn well that human life begins at the point of conception, since anything else is just nonsensical. And, once you have accepted that fact, all your subsequent rationalisations must surely be made on that basis?

[Norn Iron]

It's a pretty big topic in Northern Ireland as it isn't legal here. Women face having to travel to England to get an abortion.

I don't agree with abortion on demand, but it should be available in rape & FFA cases.

[Ash]

It's nothing to do with catholicism. Anyone who actually thinks seriously about it independently of all the political baggage knows damn well that human life begins at the point of conception, since anything else is just nonsensical. And, once you have accepted that fact, all your subsequent rationalisations must surely be made on that basis?

A bunch of dividing cells is not a human life.

[PSRB]

It's a necessary evil. Nothing more, nothing less. I believe it must be legal and available within certain limits, but at the same time, I believe it's important to remember that it is the destruction of human life and ought to be treated with the moral and intellectual seriousness that fact merits.
Ultimately, I believe that in an awful lot of cases it is profoundly immoral, but must be available for fear of the alternative.

As an adopted person, I'm rather glad my mother didn't choose the other option but then again without it I'd have an 18 yr old and 16 yr old with a psycho ex-girlfirend.....

[Ash]

As an adopted person, I'm rather glad my mother didn't choose the other option but then again without it I'd have an 18 yr old and 16 yr old with a psycho ex-girlfirend.....

Yes, sometimes we have to think of the children.

[Burney]

A bunch of dividing cells is not a human life.

Except of course in purely cold, hard, scientific terms it definitely is. :shrug: There is literally no other logical point from which you can determine the beginning of life than conception - which is why it's called conception, of course.
What I find interesting is how those who choose to argue otherwise - who would normally consider themselves to be rational and non-religious - start adopting quasi-religious ideas about when life truly begins when it comes to this issue in order to justify their position.

[World's End Stella]

It's nothing to do with catholicism. Anyone who actually thinks seriously about it independently of all the political baggage knows damn well that human life begins at the point of conception, since anything else is just nonsensical. And, once you have accepted that fact, all your subsequent rationalisations must surely be made on that basis?

No, I'm afraid I disagree. 'Human life' is a very nebulous concept when applied to a foetus. It isn't complicated because people don't think about it seriously, it's complicated because it's complicated.

And I haven't even gone down the 'what does human life have to do with the debate and why was it introduced in the first place?' line.

[Burney]

No, I'm afraid I disagree. 'Human life' is a very nebulous concept when applied to a foetus. It isn't complicated because people don't think about it seriously, it's complicated because it's complicated.

And I haven't even gone down the 'what does human life have to do with the debate and why was it introduced in the first place?' line.

It's complicated because people dishonestly try to hide from the brutal truth of what is being done - namely the termination of human life. Once you remove that dishonesty and obfuscation from the equation and treat it as a brutal, purely utilitarian proposition about the value of one life in relation to others, many of its complications fall away.

And the reason we introduce human life into the debate is because a/ that's what's happening here and b/ the right to life or its obverse the right to take it are pretty fundamental ones when it comes to questions of law and ethics.

[SWv2]

It's complicated because people dishonestly try to hide from the brutal truth of what is being done - namely the termination of human life. Once you remove that dishonesty and obfuscation from the equation and treat it as a brutal, purely utilitarian proposition about the value of one life in relation to others, many of its complications fall away.

And the reason we introduce human life into the debate is because a/ that's what's happening here and b/ the right to life or its obverse the right to take it are pretty fundamental ones when it comes to questions of law and ethics.

It is legal in your country and you are still arguing and debating. You want to see the **** that flies over here about this.

[Burney]

It is legal in your country and you are still arguing and debating. You want to see the **** that flies over here about this.

Crucially, though, I don't think any of us has suggested that it ought not to be legal. Making it illegal is just mental.

[World's End Stella]

It's complicated because people dishonestly try to hide from the brutal truth of what is being done - namely the termination of human life. Once you remove that dishonesty and obfuscation from the equation and treat it as a brutal, purely utilitarian proposition about the value of one life in relation to others, many of its complications fall away.

And the reason we introduce human life into the debate is because a/ that's what's happening here and b/ the right to life or its obverse the right to take it are pretty fundamental ones when it comes to questions of law and ethics.

In which case a person in a vegetative state without any active brain pattern is also a 'human life' and turning off the life support system is the moral equivalent of murder.

See how easily it gets complicated? The human life angle and conception were introduced because of the Catholic church's opposition to abortion. It isn't in anyway disingenuous or dishonest to question the definition of human life and argue that because it is impossible to define it therefore has no bearing on the argument.

Much of that confusion you mention goes away if that is your perspective as well.

[Burney]

In which case a person in a vegetative state without any active brain pattern is also a 'human life' and turning off the life support system is the moral equivalent of murder.

See how easily it gets complicated? The human life angle and conception were introduced because of the Catholic church's opposition to abortion. It isn't in anyway disingenuous or dishonest to question the definition of human life and argue that because it is impossible to define it therefore has no bearing on the argument.

Much of that confusion you mention goes away if that is your perspective as well.

No, I'm sorry, but the significant difference here is of potential. The PVS victim has reached a point where life in terms of their brain activity has to all intents and purposes ceased and they can only be sustained artificially. They have no potential for improvement and are alive in name only. When you turn off the machine, nature takes its course.
An embryo, by contrast, is full of potential and to end it is to snuff all of that potential out by a deliberate act of killing. The two are qualitatively different in both ethical and medical terms. One is entirely justifiable in moral terms, while the other is highly morally dubious.
You seem to think that I'm arguing from a position whereby all human life is innately sacrosanct. I'm explicitly not arguing that. I'm arguing that we should acknowledge first of all that we're ending a human life and then work from there.

[World's End Stella]

No, I'm sorry, but the significant difference here is of potential. The PVS victim has reached a point where life in terms of their brain activity has to all intents and purposes ceased and they can only be sustained artificially. They have no potential for improvement and are alive in name only. When you turn off the machine, nature takes its course.
An embryo, by contrast, is full of potential and to end it is to snuff all of that potential out by a deliberate act of killing. The two are qualitatively different in both ethical and medical terms. One is entirely justifiable in moral terms, while the other is highly morally dubious.
You seem to think that I'm arguing from a position whereby all human life is innately sacrosanct. I'm explicitly not arguing that. I'm arguing that we should acknowledge first of all that we're ending a human life and then work from there.

In which case the embryo is only a 'potential human life' as you there is no certainty as to how it will develop.

The complexity of your reply sort of proves my point, Burney. There are so many angles to the 'human life' definition and debate that I fail to see how anyone can come up with anything definitive. And if you can't reach an agreement as to what is or is not 'human life' I also fail to see how it can be used in the argument.

The alternative is to simply be practical and not bother with nebulous definitions.

[Burney]

In which case the embryo is only a 'potential human life' as you there is no certainty as to how it will develop.

The complexity of your reply sort of proves my point, Burney. There are so many angles to the 'human life' definition and debate that I fail to see how anyone can come up with anything definitive. And if you can't reach an agreement as to what is or is not 'human life' I also fail to see how it can be used in the argument.

The alternative is to simply be practical and not bother with nebulous definitions.

No. It is not a 'potential human life'. It is a human life with potential. There's a fairly significant difference, there.

There is nothing at all nebulous about my definition - it is purely scientific. Human life starts at conception and ends at death.

[barrybueno]

I’m really not sure how I feel about it.

Both sides of the divide are so militantly bogged down in ideology - pro-life being rooted in religious nuttery and pro-choice in feminist dogma – the actual real-life consequences are almost forgotten.

We need more of it imo.

Even if it did cost me a weeks wages many moons ago, better than a lifes wages though I suppose.

[71 Guns - channeling the spirit of Mr Hat]

We need more of it imo.

Even if it did cost me a weeks wages many moons ago, better than a lifes wages though I suppose.

Ladyboys can't really get pregnant, baz.

[barrybueno]

Ladyboys can't really get pregnant, baz.

Well it looks like I was had over then, twice. :begbie:

[World's End Stella]

No. It is not a 'potential human life'. It is a human life with potential. There's a fairly significant difference, there.

There is nothing at all nebulous about my definition - it is purely scientific. Human life starts at conception and ends at death.

Well, that may be your view but my point is that there is no broad consensus on what defines human life and people could make a strong argument that there are serious flaws in your definition (a fully formed human being who had suffered a brain injury but was still capable of living and breathing is not a human life but a collection of dividing cells with no form or ability to feel or breath is?) as they could with pretty much every other definition.

As such, I fail to see how we can use the concept in any sensible way when attempting to address the issue with abortion. It is the complicated nature of this definition which causes the confusion, not the fact that people refuse to accept your particular definition.