Abortion

MUW4Eva

Full Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2022
Messages
1,098
Then I've heard the other side, males. It's really interesting how some bring government into the discussion first and human welfare second. It's the duty of the federal government and government overall to ensure civilians can live in a safe environment and be protected at all times, for the most part.
Ban ALL guns then.....
 

TheRedDevil'sAdvocate

Full Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2013
Messages
2,684
Location
The rainbow's end
America is becoming an increasingly undesirable place, though is anybody surprised? I take it Biden cant just sign an Executive order on this? It just reinforces how religion and religious views should have no place in government.

The idea of banning abortions outright is ludicrous. Some people are not fit, or not ready to be parents. I was one of them many years ago. It would have screwed mine and the mother's life up, and I haven't seen her in years. How would life be for that kid now? How many kids will be brought into messed up, unprepared situations and grow up to be another burden or victim of society?

If they wanted to pander to the religious right they should have just lowered the time limit. 15 weeks is pushing it but really a woman should know something is going on after 4 months of pregnancy. The 20 week scan would have been a better point.
You are wasting your time. When we get down to the brass tacks, most of these people don't really give two fecks about women and foetuses. Try to debate them with reasonable arguments, nuances and the desire for an honest compromise, and they'll keep beating around the bush (with silly quotes like the ones posted on this page) until they get their way. And don't think for a second that they are dumb and ignorant. They are not, they know very well what they are doing. What conservatives crave above all is the illusion that they are able to shape their world into their liking. All Christian churches, when they understood that their days of dictating what is moral and what is not were well behind them, played a blinder by attaching themselves to the right as vessels of tradition. In an age when moral relativity has become the norm in most aspects of life, it's ridiculous that some people like to treat it as an unassailable authority that transcends humans and their right to choose what is best for their own lives. Not on all matters, mind you. Oh, the same people will bend the moral rules whenever it fits the promotion of their goals (or their desires). Their personal right, for instance, to own guns is off the table despite the deaths and all the drama. They'll just cherry-pick certain topics, preferably the ones that don't touch them directly, so that they can say they are doing the "right thing in a world that has gone to hell". Because that's what they want: A moral hill to die upon. The church offers them the platform/agenda, and the right-wing politicians give them the ammunition. They are fine with a rigid and unfair system as long as they have someone to point the finger at. It's the same ones who have an orgasm whenever the likes of Peterson talk about "rules", "hierarchies" and "structured social pyramids".
 

Fingeredmouse

Full Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2014
Messages
5,079
Location
Glasgow
America is becoming an increasingly undesirable place, though is anybody surprised? I take it Biden cant just sign an Executive order on this? It just reinforces how religion and religious views should have no place in government.

The idea of banning abortions outright is ludicrous. Some people are not fit, or not ready to be parents. I was one of them many years ago. It would have screwed mine and the mother's life up, and I haven't seen her in years. How would life be for that kid now? How many kids will be brought into messed up, unprepared situations and grow up to be another burden or victim of society?

If they wanted to pander to the religious right they should have just lowered the time limit. 15 weeks is pushing it but really a woman should know something is going on after 4 months of pregnancy. The 20 week scan would have been a better point.
They're engineering a fully theocratic society and openly and actively dismantling the concept of secularism. That's all they care about.
 

Kaush949

Full Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2005
Messages
1,429
Location
Hargreaves' Hometown
Woman should simply have fulls rights to her body and the right to terminate her fetus at any stage of pregnancy until the day it is out of the womb.

It's her choice to keep or eliminate and she shouldn't be needing to 'justify it' due to rape or health implications. Period.

America is a joke. It's bad enough, that late term abortions need to be still justified across the world.
 

Penna

Kind Moderator (with a bit of a mean streak)
Staff
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
48,235
Location
Ubi caritas et amor, Deus ibi est.
Woman should simply have fulls rights to her body and the right to terminate her fetus at any stage of pregnancy until the day it is out of the womb.

It's her choice to keep or eliminate and she shouldn't be needing to 'justify it' due to rape or health implications. Period.

America is a joke. It's bad enough, that late term abortions need to be still justified across the world.
There is no justification for a healthy woman to abort a healthy foetus "at any stage of pregnancy." This is a completely unreasonable position to take. Have you ever been in an operating theatre and seen a breathing, fully-formed and probably-viable baby be removed from a woman's body? I have. I watched the baby die, too.

The time limit for abortion has been reduced over the years. It used to be 28 weeks in the UK - now it's 24 weeks, because many babies are able to survive and thrive at 28 weeks of gestation, due to advances in neonatal care.
 

Drainy

Full Member
Joined
May 5, 2009
Messages
13,335
Location
Dissin' Your Flygirl
There is no justification for a healthy woman to abort a healthy foetus "at any stage of pregnancy." This is a completely unreasonable position to take. Have you ever been in an operating theatre and seen a breathing, fully-formed and probably-viable baby be removed from a woman's body? I have. I watched the baby die, too.

The time limit for abortion has been reduced over the years. It used to be 28 weeks in the UK - now it's 24 weeks, because many babies are able to survive and thrive at 28 weeks of gestation, due to advances in neonatal care.
I think if you approach it from the perspective that an individual has complete autonomy over their own body you are more likely to accept the absolute rights of the pregnant woman over the unborn child and see that as a justification in itself, as a principle.

Of course in reality you don't have autonomy and at some point the state will consider its interest in the unborn child - in the UK its decided as you say above.

Rowe v Wade always reminds me of a UK right to die case one of my bosses did a few years ago, as one of the grounds for the case was very similar.

The reasoning that case was unsuccessful was fairly similar to the overturning of Rowe v Wade too, at least from memory.
 
Last edited:

horsechoker

Sailor vee, this is a right off.
Joined
Apr 16, 2015
Messages
33,906
Location
The stable
Boris would absolutely outlaw abortion to prop himself up all while paying some toff bird he knocked up for the 38th time to have an abortion

The Sun and Daily Mail would report on Starmer wanking into a tissue accusing of genocide of sperm
 

MuFc_1992

Full Member
Joined
Apr 25, 2014
Messages
1,184
Reasonable belief of immanent death or great bodily harm is the standard. To yourself or another in all states, damage to property also in Texas.

By the nature of your scenario abortion would be legal in the state and the murder trial jurisdiction would be the blue state so obviously would be facing life in prison.

In red states I would imagine that the courts will decide that insofar as they have an interest in the life of the fetus its unreasonable to kill the pregnant woman. Doubly so since it would also terminate the fetus.
I'm not saying they can kill someone but they can stop someone from crossing state borders at gunpoint without breaking any laws, especially if they know the woman crossing the border is going there for abortion.
 

Blackwidow

Full Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2011
Messages
7,178
The power to decide should be the woman's.

But I am fine with a time limit from about 12 weeks to 5 months when there is no medical reason and that there might be a consultation (not morally or religiously but informative about e.g. financial helps by state etc.) and a short waiting period between decision and abortion.

The last points are in the interest of the women as the abortion is not reversible.
 

skeeta

Yet another rambling idiot
Joined
Mar 3, 2004
Messages
2,481
Location
Newton Heath (L&YR) F.C. 1878
Having a baby, carrying it to term, and raising it is a significant deterrent for socially mobile women. Those who do not trust their partner may avoid casual intercourse as a result, but it will almost certainly drive some women to unsafe abortions.
 

Kaush949

Full Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2005
Messages
1,429
Location
Hargreaves' Hometown
There is no justification for a healthy woman to abort a healthy foetus "at any stage of pregnancy." This is a completely unreasonable position to take. Have you ever been in an operating theatre and seen a breathing, fully-formed and probably-viable baby be removed from a woman's body? I have. I watched the baby die, too.

The time limit for abortion has been reduced over the years. It used to be 28 weeks in the UK - now it's 24 weeks, because many babies are able to survive and thrive at 28 weeks of gestation, due to advances in neonatal care.
It's the woman's choice. If she is okey with it, then it is how it is. Neither you or I should have any say in this matter.
 

Penna

Kind Moderator (with a bit of a mean streak)
Staff
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
48,235
Location
Ubi caritas et amor, Deus ibi est.
It's the woman's choice. If she is okey with it, then it is how it is. Neither you or I should have any say in this matter.
I'm sorry, but you're absolutely wrong on this one. You have no idea what you're suggesting.

How do you think a full-term baby would be "aborted"? It would be the same way as a full-term baby is born - via natural birth. So, how are you going to find a doctor who's willing to kill a perfectly-healthy baby in utero? Gynaecologists and obstetricians have the right to not perform abortions, and you might be surprised at how many of them decline this work.

This is a horrible and grotesque scenario.
 

KirkDuyt

Full Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2015
Messages
19,425
Location
Dutchland
Supports
Feyenoord
I'm sorry, but you're absolutely wrong on this one. You have no idea what you're suggesting.

How do you think a full-term baby would be "aborted"? It would be the same way as a full-term baby is born - via natural birth. So, how are you going to find a doctor who's willing to kill a perfectly-healthy baby in utero? Gynaecologists and obstetricians have the right to not perform abortions, and you might be surprised at how many of them decline this work.

This is a horrible and grotesque scenario.
I'd say at that late stage it should only be an option if they mother is in serious danger. For other reason a term limit until the fetus is viable (not the correct word I think) to survive on its own.

I find unrestrictes abortion until birth a rather extreme view.
 

Toblerone92

Full Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2017
Messages
452
Location
London
Unless you’re advocating for more reproductive rights for women, all the men here need to stop weighing in with their opinions about what women choose to do with their bodies.
 

Penna

Kind Moderator (with a bit of a mean streak)
Staff
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
48,235
Location
Ubi caritas et amor, Deus ibi est.
I'd say at that late stage it should only be an option if they mother is in serious danger. For other reason a term limit until the fetus is viable (not the correct word I think) to survive on its own.

I find unrestrictes abortion until birth a rather extreme view.
Viable is the correct word. And in that situation, where there was an imminent risk to the life of the woman, the baby would be delivered by caesarean section and would be fine, because it was already at a point where it could survive independently of the mother.

This actually is a pretty common scenario, where a woman is preeclamptic and has a dangerously high blood pressure. The baby is delivered by section (if it's really urgent) and the woman can then recover.
 

Moby

Dick
Joined
May 20, 2011
Messages
45,453
Location
Nicki Minaj's Secret Bedroom
Gynaecologists and obstetricians have the right to not perform abortions,
Which is fine, right? There shouldn't be a law to dictate any kind of time limit for an abortion. It should be let to the decision of the doctor and medical staff to take the call - and possibly there can be some strict guidelines for what they should be accepting and not. If a doctor thinks it's too late to abort and can provide a formal medical justification for the same which are in line with the general medical guidelines, there won't be a situation that you were alluding to. Conversely, if they think that despite being at a later stage there's a valid reason to carry out an abortion say a danger to the mother's life or anything else, then again they can provide a justification and carry it out.

Basically it's saying that we aren't just letting people go to an abortion clinic few days before birth and have the right to demand an abortion, but at the same time there cannot be a law stopping them from submitting a request and letting the doctor decide. Lawmakers don't need to have any say whatsoever in this entire process - it's between the parents and the medical authorities to make the decision and should be done strictly on the basis of medical justification with zero involvement of any religious/political agendas ever getting involved.
 

Moby

Dick
Joined
May 20, 2011
Messages
45,453
Location
Nicki Minaj's Secret Bedroom
Viable is the correct word. And in that situation, where there was an imminent risk to the life of the woman, the baby would be delivered by caesarean section and would be fine, because it was already at a point where it could survive independently of the mother.

This actually is a pretty common scenario, where a woman is preeclamptic and has a dangerously high blood pressure. The baby is delivered by section (if it's really urgent) and the woman can then recover.
Yeah, it was the same with my sister - and even after birth she did not have a heartbeat for a few minutes and it was actually a miracle that she survived - so despite there being quite a few medical complications everyone went ahead with the birth through surgical methods. However the point relevant to this thread/discussion is that the decision was taken as per the medical advise provided by a doctor and nothing else. I bet there would be a lot of cases where the doctors themselves cannot 100% predict how safe delivering a child even through surgical methods would be, and they inform the risk to the family and ask for their consent - something that happens in countless surgeries. The parents need to have an option in the scenario where the doctor is giving them an option even at a later stage to abort if that's what they feel is the best for their situation.

Few days ago one of my friends who were pregnant heard few weeks into their pregnancy that the there was an abnormal condition where twice the number of chromosomes were supplied from the father and one one set from the mother (I think) which basically meant that there was a fair chance (let's say 30%) that the child will be born with abnormalities. That was fairly early but they were given a choice by the doctor and had to take the call. Unfortunately for them before they could decide, the heartbeat subsided and the pregnancy ended anyway but if that had not happened, they were in the position to make that decision and it would have been absolutely terrible if they never had the option to abort.
 

Penna

Kind Moderator (with a bit of a mean streak)
Staff
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
48,235
Location
Ubi caritas et amor, Deus ibi est.
Which is fine, right? There shouldn't be a law to dictate any kind of time limit for an abortion. It should be let to the decision of the doctor and medical staff to take the call - and possibly there can be some strict guidelines for what they should be accepting and not. If a doctor thinks it's too late to abort and can provide a formal medical justification for the same which are in line with the general medical guidelines, there won't be a situation that you were alluding to. Conversely, if they think that despite being at a later stage there's a valid reason to carry out an abortion say a danger to the mother's life or anything else, then again they can provide a justification and carry it out.
If a healthy foetus is over the legal limit for viability and the mother's health is in danger, there won't be an abortion, there'll be a birth.
 

Moby

Dick
Joined
May 20, 2011
Messages
45,453
Location
Nicki Minaj's Secret Bedroom
If a healthy foetus is over the legal limit for viability and the mother's health is in danger, there won't be an abortion, there'll be a birth.
There shouldn't be a 'legal' limit, there should be a 'medical' limit which is decided by the medical authorities. Lawmakers/Religious institutions/etc have zero role to play in this entire process.

There are medical guidelines that dictate literally every single medical procedure - which is what is doctors are taught throughout the time they are studying to become doctors and they apply that reasoning into every single decision they make. All of that is based on actual scientific logic and has been deduced and agreed upon by the entire community. The exact same needs to be applied here. No legal intervention is required.
 

RobinLFC

Cries when Liverpool doesn't get praised
Joined
May 20, 2014
Messages
18,048
Location
Belgium
Supports
Liverpool
There is no justification for a healthy woman to abort a healthy foetus "at any stage of pregnancy." This is a completely unreasonable position to take. Have you ever been in an operating theatre and seen a breathing, fully-formed and probably-viable baby be removed from a woman's body? I have. I watched the baby die, too.

The time limit for abortion has been reduced over the years. It used to be 28 weeks in the UK - now it's 24 weeks, because many babies are able to survive and thrive at 28 weeks of gestation, due to advances in neonatal care.
I think it's exceptional, but aren't there cases where women don't realize they are pregnant until they are already a few months into their pregnancy? Like, I think I've read about cases where someone continued to get her period whilst being pregnant, stuff like that. Since the viability of a foetus will continue to be earlier and earlier due to advanced technology, this could lead to (once again, likely exceptional) situations where a woman finds out she's pregnant but can't abort anymore.

The uniqueness of each case is what makes it so hard to codify something like abortion imo, because laws are usually pretty black or white, while this topic is anything but. As a man I don't want to impose anything whatsoever about what women should do with their own bodies. However, people who go on about "so we should just let a heavily pregnant woman go to the hospital for an abortion" are talking besides the point imo. If you want an abortion you'd have done it way earlier, I can't imagine a scenario where a mother-to-be carries a baby for up to 8 months, builds an emotional connection with it, then decides to have an abortion after that. Of course there are scenarios where the health of the mother is in jeopardy but like you say, that can/will be solved by giving birth rather than abortion.
 

adexkola

Arsenal supporter
Joined
Mar 17, 2008
Messages
43,721
Location
The CL is a glorified FA Cup set to music
Supports
orderly disembarking on planes
There shouldn't be a 'legal' limit, there should be a 'medical' limit which is decided by the medical authorities. Lawmakers/Religious institutions/etc have zero role to play in this entire process.

There are medical guidelines that dictate literally every single medical procedure - which is what is doctors are taught throughout the time they are studying to become doctors and they apply that reasoning into every single decision they make. All of that is based on actual scientific logic and has been deduced and agreed upon by the entire community. The exact same needs to be applied here. No legal intervention is required.
Medical practice has legal regulations generally and for good reason. Abortion is no exception. The decision to conduct an abortion should be between the woman and doctor, but I see no concern with a legal viability standard: if a doctor believes a fetus is viable outside of the womb and healthy, birth should be induced.