Abortion Limit: UK

Discussion in 'Politics' started by universaldistress, Oct 12, 2012.

  1. KilljoyKlown Whatever Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,493
    If we had a "Like" button I would have pressed it.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. seagypsy Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,153
    I share the same views as you, and as a result I am prochoice, excluding late term. Personally, I think a woman can and should make up her mind before the last trimester. but I don't think abortion should be allowed frivolously. I see gender choice as a frivolous reason for abortion. If I had control of things I would allow one frivolous abortion but it would cost the petty small minded woman her uterus. but I admit that is harsh and doesn't allow for lessons to be learned along the way. So that is a reaction as obnoxious as the frivolous abortion itself.

    I don't agree with abortion on grounds of gender, but if go dictating that they cant abort for that reason then plenty of other reason to abort will also be rationalized to be improper until the right to an abortion is removed all together.

    The only restriction I can see on abortion is in regards to the rights of others, the father and the developmentally aware fetus. A man should have a right to claim the fetus to be a human life that he does value and want to support. And it should be acknowledged that a fetus has all the traits of a sentient human some months before birth and as a sentient human should be considered life worth protecting and entitled to certain rights as well. The right of a child to live for example.

    Now I don't know how far into gestation a fetus has to be before gender is distinguishable, but if it is beyond the 20-24 week phase then certainly it should not be allowed to abort at that point, IMO. But if it can be distinguished prior to that then as much as it disturbs me that someone would abort for gender alone, I don't see how it can be regulated. Honestly, no one has to prove their reasons for wanting an abortion, a woman can claim any reason she wants. She doesn't have to be telling the truth. She could say she is not emotionally ready to raise a child, that she is too financially unstable to raise a child or whatever noble reason she can think of, when in reality she is just pissed off at the father and wants to kill his baby and tell him of the pregnancy and abortion after the fact to hurt him. We have no way to effectively prove a person's motives in things like this, so regulating motives is a futile effort.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,523
    With humans their is always going to be some evil, the question is how much change for good would you allow to suppress evil? For example we could make abortions legal on a judicial allowance in which others could prevent an abortion if they can prove they can raise and take care of the child, thus allowing fathers and pro-lifers rights, but at the expense of the mother. Thus we have to weigh potential evils, the right to abort to maintain joy in the life of women, verse the brief suffering of a fetus that could have had a functional life in the care of its father / other relatives if not for its evil, selfish, vindictive mother. I think the later cases are rare and that most abortions are done by women who choose to do so because they honestly know they can't handle raising a kid and raising it right, but if its worth it to prevent those rare cases we could do the above.

    I disagree, life to me has no value if it consists of suffering and brings suffering, more so than joy into this world. Of course how to weigh suffering and joy equally is subjective. For example parents somehow reason that all the suffering and stress a child causes them is somehow worth those few moments (and ever fewer as the child gets older and less cute) of adorableness and pure love the child brings. Per units of time children bring far FAR more suffering to a parent than joy, but somehow those few moments of joy make it all worth it in the (in my opinion) delusional mind of a parent. I would think using all that excesses cash and free time to travel the world, take up hanggliding, and enjoy a bj by Filipino prostitute on a warm sunny beach while sipping a pina colada is far better than children, but that is just my opinion.

    Technologically its possible even before conception, and the prices of such techniques will go down making it easy and easier for people to select not only the gender of their child but other things as well, laws will need to be implemented if we feel this is reduce social happiness.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Neverfly Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,576
    Perhaps your warped opinion is why you stated absurd statistics...

    Either way, the claim a child brings more suffering to a parent excepting brief moments of joy is utter nonsense.
    Perhaps some kids are just born bad or something. But from I've observed, by far, there is little suffering in being a parent. Sure we hear stories of sacrifice, etc. But in the end, the average home, average family is quite routine, with standard ups and downs. There isn't some undue suffering that is occasionally interrupted by brief joys as you describe. In fact, it's usually pretty mundane, scattered by occasional annoyance and occasional fun and laughter.
    Most parents enjoy their kids the majority of the time.
     
  8. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,523
    Well I'm not the only one with this warped opinion and absurd statistics:
    http://www.cato-unbound.org/2011/05...rents-are-unhappy-but-why-and-should-we-care/
    "Caplan is definitely right about the first part: Parents are unhappy. I’ve checked, and for every subgroup of the population I analyzed, parents report being less happy than similarly situated nonparents.[1]"

    Freakenomics also cited Caplan and did a whole program about it! It is scientifically verified that children cause stress, of which unhappiness is an outcome in some, and in general statistically parents report being less happy then their non-parent peers.

    But hey if painfully exceeding a screeming, shiting, squishy parasite floats your boat, go ahead and do it, just don't make it a burden on the rest of us.
     
  9. Neverfly Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,576
    This is what's known as quote mining, which is why it appears blog-like here in this link.
    The problems with the claims are well known- For example, is the child creating stress or is it that the parent feels that they are not spending enough time with their children, making them unhappy about that. What defines "happy" is a major problem with how this is reported. The irony is that the same statistics/studies and surveys are used by both sides of the argument equally- Those that say children are not some kind of Misery Makers point to the statistics, demonstrating that the unhappiness found stems from pointed questions like "Do you feel you're doing enough for your child?" They point to the happiness found as examples of parenthood.
    It also ignores the basic unhappiness of non parents as not relevant to the study such as loneliness, self worth and lack of routine.
    Those that argue in favor of non parenting point to the statistics and make a blanket statement of who is "happy" and who is "unhappy" giving these generalizations without delving into the necessary details. They point to the unhappiness found claiming it's Proof Positive, while pointing out flaws in the happiness found, claiming it's a coping mechanism. It really is quite absurd.

    You mean, "excreting." This whole statement demonstrates a lack of desire on your part to have a rational discussion on the topic. A bit of a laugh though, since many show a gender orientation to wording, Filipina for female and Filipino for male.
     
  10. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,966
    It's the mother's body, and that's the most important thing. Yes, even if it means killing someone dependent on her body.
     
  11. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,966
    This has to be some kind of joke. Pregnancy is often fatal, especially in the past or where medical attention is hard to get.
     
  12. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,049
    Actually not having children is probably MORE fatal, breast cancer in western societies is FAR more common than death in childbirth and as breast feeding is the strongest protective thing not having children would be more hazardist than having them
     
  13. Neverfly Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,576
    Uhh... really? Statistics?
     
  14. seagypsy Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,153
    Unless I have misunderstood something, I have no disagreements here.



    You are working on the premise that a child who is initially unwanted is guaranteed to suffer. I can tell you this. Every human being born is guaranteed to suffer. It is part of life. But there is no way of accurately predicting how much one will suffer. Being born to parents who initially didn't want you does not guarantee that your life will be horrible. Being born to parents who conceived you with much enthusiasm and oozing with love for you does not mean that your childhood will be all roses and chocolate. I wanted everyone of my children, even the one that was the result of rape. But they still have all had hard childhood's. My mother desperately wanted me as well but my childhood kinda sucked. And I have known people who's parents claimed they never wanted children but they still managed to give their children relatively glorious childhoods. You can't predict happiness or despair the way you are attempting to do so. Some people may rationally assume that a child born with cancer will be terribly unhappy and suffer. And sure there will be some suffering, but if you ask that child whether they are happy and want to continue to live they very well may say yes. And that they have had a wonderful life in spite of the pain they have dealt with. And the scenario you offer as a happier alternative to parenthood sounds appalling to me. It seems empty and devoid of true love and affection. So what would bring you joy would bring me despair. By your standard we should all just kill ourselves so that none of us suffer anymore. Suffering is part of the human condition. We can accept it and put our big kid pants on or we can whine and cry about it, dig a hole and shove our heads in it. But anything short of ending the existence of the human race will not end human suffering or even reduce it.

    I don't have any issue with technologies like that. Some people would bitch that we are trying to play god. I say why not, its not like if there is a god he is doing a good job of it. lol. But to genetically design a child, although it sounds science-fictiony and weird, is not ending an existing life. You do not have to kill something that is living to splice genies an selectively fertilize and egg. We have been trying to design our kids from the beginning of time on a subconscious level. We are attracted to mates who carry traits we hold valuable and attempt to produce children with them in hopes that our children will inherit the better of the available genes. Only trial and error is not very successful. If technology can perfect this, I am all for it. Maybe we can breed out the gene that makes someone an asshole. One can dream.
     
  15. seagypsy Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,153
    Yes, an argument used in the past to justify racism, homophobia, male chauvinism, religious intolerance, and Hitler's "high" ideals.
     
  16. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,523
    Neverfly,

    Well first of all this is not the thread to discussing the pros and cons of children, its about limits on abortion. Also I don't find my self "lonely" in fact I enjoy solitude, I don't see how adding another mouth to the human plague improves my "self worth" especially considering how within a few hundred years this race of talking hairless apes are likely to go extinct, crushed by their own stupidity or rendered obsolete by an artificially successor. Also I don't see the benefit to routines like "clean up after kids", "make food for kids" and "go over their homework" verses "drunken swingers party Fridays","Kayaking Sundays" and "Skydiving firsts of the month". If you want to flip it around and claim that children do in fact bring you happiness, that fine, I'm not saying you can't have children, do as you want! heck that was an example of subjective happiness which is what I said all along! What I was saying is that life is not worth it if one has to live a life of suffering against their will a fetus does not have the choice or even the ability to choose so we must make a educated guess and allow someone else to choose for them, because of physiology usually that someone is primarily their mother. If said mother thinks she going to not raise the child well, give it only contempt and misery then by all means let her abort it, heck if she is vindictive and evil I tempted to let her abort it anyways so that it does not have to grow up having a psychopath for a mother.

    Also I did not make an error in "Filipino" wink wink... another reason marriage is not right for me.

    Wow the appeal to Hitler already? Hey you know Hitler, racists, homophobes and chauvinist or all sorts also believe in fundamental mathematics like, 2+2=4, should we chuck rational in that as well? Hey I'm not oppressing anyone, I stand against oppression, but in the issue of abortion I'm either oppression mothers by forcing them to have children or I'm allow them to oppress their fetuses, I can't win either way so I took a stance based on other factors.
     
  17. seagypsy Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,153

    The past is a bit irrelavant here. We are talking about today and into the future. In the past Black people were seen as animals to be traded like livestock. In the past black people weren't able to read or write, leading ignorant white people to use it as proof that they couldn't learn to. It's 2012, the rate of women dying due to pregnancy is so low that most women do not go into a panic that they will die from it. Unless you are confusing a colorful euphemism as a literal fear. Says the valley girl,"Tina, omg, if i like ever get pregnant, I am like so gonna die!" Apparently a girl similar to this can also believe in the kiss of death, "Tina, omg that guy is like sooooo freakin hot. If I get his number and he kisses me, I will totally freakin die." Embarrassment is also terribly dangerous,"Tina, omg, I just started my period! Thank Gawd Im not wearing white pants! If i had bled through I would have been totally humiliated, I mean I'd just die."
     
    Last edited: Oct 23, 2012
  18. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,966
    From wikipedia:

    The historical level of maternal deaths is probably around 1 in 100 births. Mortality rates reached very high levels in maternity institutions in the 1800s, sometimes climbing to 40 percent of birthgiving women... At the beginning of the 1900s, maternal death rates were around 1 in 100 for live births.
     
  19. Neverfly Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,576
    True- my apologies for off topic posting.
    I believe you misunderstood my comments. I was referring to persons surveyed, not to you.
    This is inaccurate. A zygote lacks the capacity, but a fetus does not. In the case of a late term abortion, the fetus will resist, try to defend itself. This is not the behavior or a being that lacks the capacity to try to affect its own life.
    And as long as she does this immediately, there's no issues raised. As covered, what you described is a zygote, not a fetus. It's when the fetus is involved that I point out the inhumanity of murdering a child over the case of someones wants.
    LOL
    I'm sorry, dude, I had thought I had something that would make you feel awkward...
    Now I'm left looking sheepish... That's too funny.
     
    Last edited: Oct 23, 2012
  20. Neverfly Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,576
    S.G.'s point was valid: The logical fallacy of appeal to populace is still a fallacy. Many arguments have been made relying on that fallacy in the past, to justify one form of oppression or another.
    This topic has so many complications due to our biology- it's a tough call.
    Uh, what does history have to do with it? We don't live back then. It's the mortality rate in the present that is relevant. A couple hundred years ago, a lot of things caused higher mortality rates. It's irrelevant.

    Let's look at the relevant figures, instead:

     
  21. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,523
    I think that all depends on the stage of fetal development and interpretation on what is resistance by a fetus. Certainly the classification between Zygote and Fetus was not made on when one can show resistance to an abortion or not.

    I would change this to when a Fetus can survive outside the womb it should no longer be the mothers choice to abort, all that is left is her choice when she want to deliver.
    Technology is making that difference earlier and earlier though.

    I was not appealing to populace I was appealing to science, or they have generated evidence to my argument (or theirs that I'm merely agreeing with). The problem with SG fallacy is just because bad people used evidence (true or false) to oppress and cause great suffering does not mean I'm advocating doing the same just because I'm using evidence as well.

    .. you never been to an undeveloped nation have you? Not only do women often die of child birth its been argued (to my face) that more children are necessary just to hedge bets on some of them making it to adulthood, as many die of malaria, disease, exasperated by malnutrition, etc, etc. In fact I would say that most of the very same things that cause mortality a couple of hundred years ago for us still do for them.
     
    Last edited: Oct 23, 2012
  22. Neverfly Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,576
    It wasn't, actually, it was set sooner. The lawmakers didn't want to leave much room for doubt.
    So a woman may abort up to a certain point of development, set early on to account for faster development in some, etc.
    I put the distinction of when the brain- nervous system is sufficiently developed that it is, a human, not a clump of cells.
     
  23. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,966
    We may soon live under the same conditions, and in any case a woman might not be able to count on being within easy availability of high tech medicine. This is particularly true if you don't live in the developed world.
     

Share This Page