Abortion

[fairdinkum]

Once again they aren't subordinate to all the mother's rights. As I have had to repeatedly repeat the foetus gains rights through it's development. Some of them do trump the mothers. (i.e. after 24 weeks she can't just decide to terminate. As you yourself said she may only terminate in - 'extenuating circumstances'

And extenuating circumstances include (correct me if I'm wrong) the woman threatening to kill herself.

At that point the child is fully formed. The only cause for termination left is if her life is in immediate danger.

See my previous sentence.

 

[Niximus]

And extenuating circumstances include (correct me if I'm wrong) the woman threatening to kill herself.



See my previous sentence.

Only if it is a legitimate threat then her life is in danger. It is simplistic and incorrect to portray it as all she would have to do is casually make a suicide threat and she gets an abortion.

 

[Richo83]

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.

Child abuse is not the same as abortion ever. Child abuse is a unnecessary action which causes pain and suffering, abortion is often a necessary action to avoid suffering. Always through the pregnancy, the child is still part of the mother and the mother has a choice over whether the child stays in her and survives.

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.

It's hardly a noble position, it's mainly based on a little moralizing, a little desire to tell people how to live and bad science. In my eyes, the unborn fetus' "rights" are always lesses than the mother. I think abortion can be justified on principle, it's an extension of mother's rights, how this is a bad thing I have no idea.

Just an idea for everyone, what if we were like some animals, who can voluntarily kill their unborn. Should we charge mothers who engaged in such practices with murder, or look down on them? Or should we accept that it's their body?

 

[fairdinkum]

Only if it is a legitimate threat then her life is in danger. It is simplistic and incorrect to portray it as all she would have to do is casually make a suicide threat and she gets an abortion.

Again, you are missing the point.

So long as there are any circumstances in which the unborn baby may be killed for the 'protection' of the mother, then the baby's 'right to life' is entirely conditional upon the mother. That is, it has no 'right to life' at all, since a right to life is absolute.

 

[fairdinkum]

Child abuse is not the same as abortion ever. Child abuse is a unnecessary action which causes pain and suffering, abortion is often a necessary action to avoid suffering. Always through the pregnancy, the child is still part of the mother and the mother has a choice over whether the child stays in her and survives.

You really are staggeringly incapable of rational debate. It is mind-numbing.

It's hardly a noble position, it's mainly based on a little moralizing, a little desire to tell people how to live and bad science. In my eyes, the unborn fetus' "rights" are always lesses than the mother. I think abortion can be justified on principle, it's an extension of mother's rights, how this is a bad thing I have no idea.

Just an idea for everyone, what if we were like some animals, who can voluntarily kill their unborn. Should we charge mothers who engaged in such practices with murder, or look down on them? Or should we accept that it's their body?

...

 

[Niximus]

Again, you are missing the point.

So long as there are any circumstances in which the unborn baby may be killed for the 'protection' of the mother, then the baby's 'right to life' is entirely conditional upon the mother. That is, it has no 'right to life' at all, since a right to life is absolute.

Why do you say that? There are plenty of circumstances in which a right to life isn't an absolute right.

You may kill someone in self defence for example, they have a right to life it just that in that circumstance your right trumps them.

In the case of capital punishment the right to life is forfeited, thus not absolute.

 

[fairdinkum]

Why do you say that? There are plenty of circumstances in which a right to life isn't an absolute right.

You may kill someone in self defence for example, they have a right to life it just that in that circumstance your right trumps them.

In the case of capital punishment the right to life is forfeited, thus not absolute.

Well said. This is exactly why people like Michael Otsuka argue that even self defence is not valid grounds to kill somebody.

Obviously when two lives are at stake, and one has to be lost to maintain the other, there is an inherent tension between the 'right to life' of those involved.

My point, however, is that you cannot say that the law protects the unborn baby's life beyond 24 weeks, because it can still be legal to kill it in the interest of the mother.

 

[Niximus]

Well said. This is exactly why people like Michael Otsuka argue that even self defence is not valid grounds to kill somebody.

Obviously when two lives are at stake, and one has to be lost to maintain the other, there is an inherent tension between the 'right to life' of those involved.

My point, however, is that you cannot say that the law protects the unborn baby's life beyond 24 weeks, because it can still be legal to kill it in the interest of the mother.

It protects it in all but extenuating circumstances, the law protects my life in the same way only the extenuating circumstances that void my right to life are far fewer than those that apply to the foetus.

 

[fairdinkum]

It protects it in all but extenuating circumstances, the law protects my life in the same way only the extenuating circumstances that void my right to life are far fewer than those that apply to the foetus.

Except in cases where you lose your protection, it is because of your own doing (shooting a police officer etc).

The unborn baby does nothing to rescind its 'protection', but may 'lose' it anyway.

Surely, surely, you can see the point I am making.

 

[Chief]

Straying around the topic with some random thoughts.

Can I make a point that self-defence is probably not a valid reason for killing someone on purely moral grounds. But emotionally we all have a very strong attachment to our own lives so we say that once a person threatens another person with clear and immediately imminent death the victim can kill in self defence.

The initiator of the conflict loses their right to mercy for as long as you might reasonably feel in fear for your life. You wouldn't say that once it became clear that the aggressor was going to die at the hands of the victim, the aggressor can then kill the victim in self-defence.

A car driver is stung by a bee. The car swerves off the road directly at me. I have some means to stop the car in its tracks, killing the driver. Is that self defence? The driver of the car is perfectly innocent, but at that point they have no control over the situation and unfortunately my power of self-preservation trumps theirs. I wouldn't be convicted, except maybe for carrying an anti-tank rocket launcher in a public place.

This is not directly analogous to abortion, just an example of how self-defence might not always involve an aggressor and a defender, and a post to point out that I might do things I am intellectually opposed to.

Then again I might surprise myself and my emotional response might by now be trained to just accept my death. I can't know until it happens.

Self-defence could just be our way of rationalising selfish killing, or it could be entirely valid in most cases.

To bring it back to abortion. Emotionally we see a partially-formed human body being cut up and sucked out of a womb. But intellectually the body has no consciousness and is still a part of the mother (setting aside arguments that the baby is a foreign object according to the mother's immune system).

Personally I think abortion is sad and often traumatic. But until the state is willing to fully care for unwanted children, subsidise pregnancy and even 'save' unborn children by delivering and caring for any premature baby at the demand of the mother, the state doesn't have the right to demand the mother keep the foetus.

 

[Niximus]

Except in cases where you lose your protection, it is because of your own doing (shooting a police officer etc).

The unborn baby does nothing to rescind its 'protection', but may 'lose' it anyway.

Surely, surely, you can see the point I am making.

I see the point you are trying to make however before you were saying that the foetus has no rights because the rights of the mother override the foetus' rights on the majority of occasions thus stripping it of any absolute rights. I disagree that the right to life needs to be absolute to exist. Yes it can be taken away through no fault on the part of the foetus but it is a right none the less.

 

[KevinCat07]

Always happens, like they blame the woman for not using protection & (calling them slags for sleeping around, yet a man is a stud if he sleeps around), but neglect to mention that neither did the man. Then the men will say it's up to the woman, because she's the one that gets pregnant, not the man.

Of course the man should, but seeing as the women is the one having the baby, that is why they are targeted more.

 

[BomberGal]

Of course the man should, but seeing as the women is the one having the baby, that is why they are targeted more.

Oh good, I'm glad you identify that.

Therefore, stop trying to make women's decisions for them.

 

[dardy_7]

stop trying to make women's decisions for them.

shouldn't the man get get a bit of a say too?

 

[MacMum]

shouldn't the man get get a bit of a say too?

If they are not married...NO

 

[dardy_7]

If they are not married...NO

How come? If there's nothing like rape involved and it was just an 'accident' the male should get a say

 

[mantis]

How come? If there's nothing like rape involved and it was just an 'accident' the male should get a say

No, because the man can just walk away anytime during the pregnancy, or after birth, leaving the woman to have to raise the child alone. Until a man is able to get pregnant, then the decision is ultimately up to the woman.

 

[Monkster]

No, because the man can just walk away anytime during the pregnancy, or after birth, leaving the woman to have to raise the child alone. Until a man is able to get pregnant, then the decision is ultimately up to the woman.

Until the Child Support Agency gets involved and the man has to pay for the upbringing of the child.

 

[skilts]

Just for some background info, BomberGal has previously posted that she's a lesbian. Nothing wrong with that of course, just in my experience a large portion of lesbians don't really value the rights or opinions of men

BomberGal and I have not always agreed. Thanks for this info, of which I was unaware. It in no way alters my impression of her. I'd venture to suggest this would not insult her, even though I'm of the male variety.

To me, she has always displayed distinctly human characteristics, some might say "all too human". For the record, I tend to view people who display human characteristics favourably. This last piece of information will be of little interest to her, nor should it be.

 

[mantis]

Until the Child Support Agency gets involved and the man has to pay for the upbringing of the child.

OH BOO HOO, cry me a river, if he talks her into having the kid & then walks away he deserves it, mind you, there are a lot of fathers paying sweet F all. You see, they say they are unemployed & just do cash jobs. Those poor men, they only have to put out some money, while the woman has to provide the rest of the money & the day to day care of the child, sacrificing many things, to be able to look after the child until it can provide for itself.

 

[skilts]

Why am I not surprised? She always had the whole feminazi feel about her.

Aren't you a self-professed christian?

 

[Fuzzy Wuzzy Bear]

OH BOO HOO, cry me a river, if he talks her into having the kid & then walks away he deserves it, mind you, there are a lot of fathers paying sweet F all. You see, they say they are unemployed & just do cash jobs. Those poor men, they only have to put out some money, while the woman has to provide the rest of the money & the day to day care of the child, sacrificing many things, to be able to look after the child until it can provide for itself.

Playing devil's advocate here - So the man should get no say into something that he could be paying child support to for the next 16 years? It seems a bit contradictory that the women is happy to let the man pay all kinds of fees for the child but won't let him have a say with the abortion.

 

[mantis]

Playing devil's advocate here - So the man should get no say into something that he could be paying child support to for the next 16 years? It seems a bit contradictory that the women is happy to let the man pay all kinds of fees for the child but won't let him have a say with the abortion.

I never said that, I have said numerous times when abortion threads are started, that if a woman decides to keep the baby against the father's wishes, then she should not have the right to expect him to pay, because it was her choice, same is if she wants to get rid of it, it is her choice.

 

[stimpy]

Playing devil's advocate here - So the man should get no say into something that he could be paying child support to for the next 16 years? It seems a bit contradictory that the women is happy to let the man pay all kinds of fees for the child but won't let him have a say with the abortion.

I appreciate what you're saying and I would like to think in most cases it would be a mutual decision but what mantis is saying is correct. Which is ultimately it is the womans decision which is a logical thing to accept considering the law agrees.

 

[Watto]

I saw some of the McCain Obama debate today, I don't like how the religious right describes pro-choice as pro-abortion, as if we are some blood thirsty maniacs, they don't necessarily interwind, are they really that stupid or are they doing it on purpose?