Abortion

[Midnight Vultures]

Essentially, yes.

Which is why I find the bill confusing. Catholics draw the line at contraception, I draw the line at when the baby could be able to survive... when do you draw the line? Just before pregnancy? At 30 weeks? Whichever it is, it's an "arbitrary point".

24 weeks is confusing for me, because it is at a stage where the baby could survive, a weird "arbitrary point" if you like. Of course in life threatening situations it's reasonable, but I don't see how hard it is to decide a few weeks earlier when the baby is less developed.

Very few babies can live when born that premature, and those who do are often impaired for the rest of their lives.

If you are happy for the 'birth' to take place at this point regardless, then I trust you are also entirely against abortions performed due to congenital heart defects in the fetus, Down Syndrome etc?

My mother works with disabled children, so I've spent time with plenty, especially down syndrome kids. It's very fulfilling and I would hate to have denied them the life they deserve.

---

I'm not usually a moral crusader, and I'm not against abortion because I am well aware of the psychological reasons behind such acts and understand them. However, humans to me are creatures of life and when given the chance I think we should always fight to survive. To me a stage when the baby is able to survive outside the womb is an appropriate cut off period, and I don't see how that doesn't make sense to you.

 

[Midnight Vultures]

There is not cut off point for everyone, every abortion case should be dealt as a specific case by trained medical staff. Anyway, whats it to you when she has the abortion? It's not your business, I mean what if she doesn't want to have the child?

Agreed.

What's it to me? I can't help feeling uncomfortable about it.

 

[fairdinkum]

There is not cut off point for everyone, every abortion case should be dealt as a specific case by trained medical staff. Anyway, whats it to you when she has the abortion? It's not your business, I mean what if she doesn't want to have the child?

That is an invalid argument for this Bill and for abortion in general.

Do we as individuals have any right to want to see child abuse criminalised and punished? Of course we do, even when it isn't our kids being abused. Looking out for those who cannot defend themselves is noble and should be encouraged.

In the minds of the anti late-abortionists, they are looking out for the unborn fetus. And good for their concern. BUT they fail to understand the basic premise of pro late-abortionists like me isn't that late-term abortion is good (it isn't, I think it is disgusting), but that the 'cure' is worse than the disease - both in theory and in practice.

 

[fairdinkum]

Which is why I find the bill confusing. Catholics draw the line at contraception, I draw the line at when the baby could be able to survive... when do you draw the line? Just before pregnancy? At 30 weeks? Whichever it is, it's an "arbitrary point".

No arbitrary point for me - the mother should have full rights up until the live baby is born.

24 weeks is confusing for me, because it is at a stage where the baby could survive, a weird "arbitrary point" if you like.

But this is problematic, because there is no set point at which a premature fetus may live, and at which point severe impairments won't be present etc. Also, as science improves, fetuses will become viable at earlier and earlier stages of development.

Of course in life threatening situations it's reasonable, but I don't see how hard it is to decide a few weeks earlier when the baby is less developed.

Again, this logic is no better than the Catholics'. Why couldn't the woman have decided before she had sex?

My mother works with disabled children, so I've spent time with plenty, especially down syndrome kids. It's very fulfilling and I would hate to have denied them the life they deserve.

So you think it is not okay for a mother and father to terminate a pregnancy when there is a high chance the baby will be born with, for instance, a severe congenital heart defect (and will probably die by age three)? That is, they only find out about the defect at 6 months?

I'm not usually a moral crusader, and I'm not against abortion because I am well aware of the psychological reasons behind such acts and understand them. However, humans to me are creatures of life and when given the chance I think we should always fight to survive. To me a stage when the baby is able to survive outside the womb is an appropriate cut off period, and I don't see how that doesn't make sense to you.

I can see your point and admire your cause, but your position (and you are in an overwhelming majority in this nation, if that makes you feel better) is inherently flawed philosophically.

 

[Midnight Vultures]

I can see your point and admire your cause, but your position (and you are in an overwhelming majority in this nation, if that makes you feel better) is inherently flawed philosophically.

In your opinion. "Flawed philosophically" is a nothing statement. But OK, you also don't need to wrap me in cotton wool. You appear to care more about the mother's rights, and it doesn't make your argument any less or more correct. All I'm putting across is my unease with the bill, derived from my usually sensible logic.

 

[Karl Pilkington]

That argument is frighteningly similar to the Catholic argument.

The Catholic would say that she should have made her decision before she had sex, and should now be forced to carry the baby to full term, [or abort it herself if she is so inclined].

You (and many, many others) would say that she made her decision to keep the baby before four months (or whatever arbitrary length of time you deem appropriate) and she must now be made to carry it to full term [or abort it herself if she is so inclined].

Anybody with a modicum of common sense can see the problem with this.

Yeah except 'before she had sex' or even 'up to three months' doesn't involve the killing of a developed human life. At 24 weeks a baby is capable of breathing, feeling pain and life outside the womb.

 

[fairdinkum]

Yeah except 'before she had sex' or even 'up to three months' doesn't involve the killing of a developed human life. At 24 weeks a baby is capable of breathing, feeling pain and life outside the womb.

Care to define 'developed human life'? When, according to you, does the fetus become 'human'?

 

[fairdinkum]

In your opinion. "Flawed philosophically" is a nothing statement. But OK, you also don't need to wrap me in cotton wool. You appear to care more about the mother's rights, and it doesn't make your argument any less or more correct. All I'm putting across is my unease with the bill, derived from my usually sensible logic.

Perhaps I should have used 'rationally' in place of philosophically.

It is not about having a 'correct' argument, but about having a sound one.

It is not 'logical' to grant a woman an abortion in a medical facility at time x but not at time x plus one week.

 

[Midnight Vultures]

It is not 'logical' to grant a woman an abortion in a medical facility at time x but not at time x plus one week.

The difference being "time x plus one week" is a crucial stage of the baby's development.

It's "flawed rationally" to not see the logic in that. And of course it would be judged on a case by case basis.

Do you often discount any differing opinion to your own as flawed or illogical? It's pretty egotistical.

 

[Karl Pilkington]

Care to define 'developed human life'? When, according to you, does the fetus become 'human'?

Technically its human at conception, but for the purposes of when I think it is unacceptable, is when it can survive outside the womb

 

[stimpy]

Of course. Who are you to decide when a mother should have made up her mind? There's a whole lot of issues with women and pregnancy, saying "oh she should have figured out as early as possible" is unrealistic. Anyway, I don't have any qualms with a woman aborting at 20 weeks.

That's five months pregnant

 

[fairdinkum]

The difference being "time x plus one week" is a crucial stage of the baby's development.

So 'time x' is not a 'crucial stage of the baby's development'?

It's "flawed rationally" to not see the logic in that. And of course it would be judged on a case by case basis.

Forget 'flawed rationally' and just use 'irrational'. It is irrational to say that a 4-month pregnant woman can have an abortion in a medical facility, but any woman a week past this point must do it herself.

Do you often discount any differing opinion to your own as flawed or illogical? It's pretty egotistical.

If a position is illogical, I dismiss it. That is not 'egotistical'.

 

[fairdinkum]

Technically its human at conception, but for the purposes of when I think it is unacceptable, is when it can survive outside the womb

As I have already explained, that is highly problematic. See post #329 of this thread.

 

[fairdinkum]

That's five months pregnant

The law now allows up to 24 weeks and beyond. You might want to get used to it.

 

[stimpy]

The law now allows up to 24 weeks and beyond. You might want to get used to it.

Serious?

I wonder why they changed it? who would want to abort a baby 6 months pregnant?

 

[Midnight Vultures]

It is irrational to say that a 4-month pregnant woman can have an abortion in a medical facility, but any woman a week past this point must do it herself.

Thus you believe that the 24 week is irrational, since any woman past this point must do it herself.

And I repeat, it's irrational in your inflated opinion. And I'm saying more around the 20 week mark, changing on a case by basis. If it's developed beyond a certain point, it shouldn't take place unless for medical reasons. 24 weeks IMO is too far gone.

And the same irrationality could be squared on your beliefs for the mother's rights, seeing as though you believe that a mother should have full rights up until birth, thus you believe in abortion up to 40 weeks. I won't call your opinion flawed or illogical, but I will firmly disagree with it.

 

[fairdinkum]

Thus you believe that the 24 week is irrational, since any woman past this point must do it herself.

And I repeat, it's irrational in your inflated opinion. And I'm saying more around the 20 week mark, changing on a case by basis. If it's developed beyond a certain point, it shouldn't take place unless for medical reasons. 24 weeks IMO is too far gone.

And the same irrationality could be squared on your beliefs for the mother's rights, seeing as though you believe that a mother should have full rights up until birth, thus you believe in abortion up to 40 weeks. I won't call your opinion flawed or illogical, but I will firmly disagree with it.

In order to say that a position is 'illogical', you should be able to point out a flaw in the reasoning behind it. You are yet to do that.

As for the bolded bit, you are opening yourself to a litany of problems.

'Case by case basis'? What does that mean? Who gets to decide? And on what basis?

'Around the 20 week mark'? Where is the cutoff? Again, who decides? And what of the women who fall outside this point?

'Medical reasons'? For the woman or for the baby? What if the woman threatens to commit suicide if she isn't given an abortion?

 

[Karl Pilkington]

So 'time x' is not a 'crucial stage of the baby's development'?

Forget 'flawed rationally' and just use 'irrational'. It is irrational to say that a 4-month pregnant woman can have an abortion in a medical facility, but any woman a week past this point must do it herself.

If a position is illogical, I dismiss it. That is not 'egotistical'.

It is not uncommon to have cutoff dates in law. There is a certain date every year, where those of us who work have to hand in our tax. If we don't hand it in by this date we risk being fined.

What is illogical about having a cutoff date/time for abortion when we use the same logic for many other things?

 

[Supernovae]

ABORTION IS MURDER!

You said it girly!

 

[Midnight Vultures]

Sigh. Obviously my attempts at making this clear to you aren't working. What I'm saying is there should be a cut off point bases on how developed the baby is. Whether that be a set # week cut off period or not.

What does that mean? Who gets to decide? And on what basis?

What the hell do you think it means? The basis being development of baby.

And what of the women who fall outside this point?

They should have made up their mind earlier. Perhaps a counselling service should be offered at 16 weeks for at risk mother's to help them make the decision.

For the woman or for the baby?

For both! Duhhh...

What if the woman threatens to commit suicide if she isn't given an abortion?

That's just an absurd statement. If I'm put on a waiting list for surgery at the hospital, I'll just threaten to kill myself unless it doesn't happen now. Now that's an illogical argument.

 

[fairdinkum]

It is not uncommon to have cutoff dates in law. There is a certain date every year, where those of us who work have to hand in our tax. If we don't hand it in by this date we risk being fined.

What is illogical about having a cutoff date/time for abortion when we use the same logic for many other things?

Trying to equate yearly tax returns to abortion is about as ridiculous a proposition as I have seen in this debate. I mean... seriously...

Anyway, since it seems to be too complicated for many to grasp, allow me to (quickly and briefly) put my argument into a more standard form.

-------

1) We allow abortions because, even though they are not a 'good' thing (for mother, fetus or society), to disallow them would lead to greater problems for mother and society.

2) By having a cut-off date for abortions, we undermine the very reasons we allow abortions in the first place.

SO, if we are going to allow abortions, we should not have a cut-off point.

------

If you want to argue that the above is inherently flawed in some way, I am all ears.

 

[fairdinkum]

Sigh. Obviously my attempts at making this clear to you aren't working. What I'm saying is there should be a cut off point bases on how developed the baby is. Whether that be a set # week cut off period or not.

So you don't like the current law, but cannot come up with a definable alternative. Okay.

What the hell do you think it means? The basis being development of baby.

Development of a baby? It is developing from the point of conception.

They should have made up their mind earlier. Perhaps a counselling service should be offered at 16 weeks for at risk mother's to help them make the decision.

Yes. Maybe they just shouldn't have had sex if they were not prepared to have a child.

For both! Duhhh...

So it is okay to kill the unborn baby if it has certain health problems? Okay.

That's just an absurd statement. If I'm put on a waiting list for surgery at the hospital, I'll just threaten to kill myself unless it doesn't happen now. Now that's an illogical argument.

So if (@ 25 weeks pregnancy) a woman is told she cannot have an abortion (under the sort of law you and your ilk would have) and she threatens to commit suicide if not given an abortion, you would have her kill both herself and her baby before giving her the abortion? Okay.

 

[Midnight Vultures]

If you want to argue that the above is inherently flawed in some way, I am all ears.

That's your problem, you're all about pointing out flaws in people's arguments / opinions.

2) By having a cut-off date for abortions, we undermine the very reasons we allow abortions in the first place.

How is it undermined? We've developed as humans to recognise that at a certain point babies are able to survive outside the womb. Seems appropriate and not illogical to me.

 

[Karl Pilkington]

Trying to equate yearly tax returns to abortion is about as ridiculous a proposition as I have seen in this debate. I mean... seriously...

Anyway, since it seems to be too complicated for many to grasp, allow me to (quickly and briefly) put my argument into a more standard form.

-------

1) We allow abortions because, even though they are not a 'good' thing (for mother, fetus or society), to disallow them would lead to greater problems for mother and society.

2) By having a cut-off date for abortions, we undermine the very reasons we allow abortions in the first place.

SO, if we are going to allow abortions, we should not have a cut-off point.

------

If you want to argue that the above is inherently flawed in some way, I am all ears.

Quite simply, the baby grows the odler it gets and is more capable of surviving outside the womb - at a certain point, abortion should stop becoming an option because not only are you killing a human, you're killing one that no longer needs the mother. At the very least a c-section should be offered in place of the abortion if the woman is so desperate to end the pregnancy.

 

[Midnight Vultures]

So you don't like the current law, but cannot come up with a definable alternative. Okay.

Why? Do I need to? It's not gonna change anything. I'm not an expert in this field.

Development of a baby? It is developing from the point of conception.

Hello captain obvious. If you don't get what I mean here then you're not worth debating with.

Yes. Maybe they just shouldn't have had sex if they were not prepared to have a child.

No, people can have sex. But if they get pregnant, they have 20 or so weeks to decide to abort it. Different kettle of fish.

So it is okay to kill the unborn baby if it has certain health problems? Okay.

Now you're just being flippant. For both, since a baby affecting a mother's health applies to both.

So if (@ 25 weeks pregnancy) a woman is told she cannot have an abortion (under the sort of law you and your ilk would have) and she threatens to commit suicide if not given an abortion, you would have her kill both herself and her baby before giving her the abortion? Okay.

First off, Aanswering your own questions with Okay is kinda lame and it hasn't had the irritating effect I assume you intended. If a woman who at 25 weeks threatens to kill herself, she obviously has a wealth of mental problems. Again, what do you say to the man on the waiting list threatening to kill himself? Irrelevent argument.