Abortion Limit: UK

visceral_instinct said:
It's really freaking simple.

Her body, her right to decide. Let me put it this way, no born human has any right to someone else's body, why the hell should this maggot 'baby' get the right to use HER BODY against her will?
Click to expand...

Does the fetus get a say in controlling it's own body? Sucks to be a mammal.

In most cases, if you did the deed, you signed on for the nine-month tour. (If you can show me how that isn't a human in there, I'd be interested.) What the OP is about is women preferentially aborting female fetuses. That's pretty sick, really.
 
visceral_instinct said:
It's really freaking simple.

Her body, her right to decide. Let me put it this way, no born human has any right to someone else's body, why the hell should this maggot 'baby' get the right to use HER BODY against her will?
Click to expand...

I am pro choice but you make it sound as if the baby chose to be there. In my opinion shouldn't the choice be made before you have sex? Don't get pregnant in the first place. I understand there are different circumstances in case of rape but the fetus didn't rape the woman a man did. Taking such a hostile attitude towards the fetus just makes you sound like a monster. Not a pro choice pro woman's rights person. It makes me ashamed to be associated with you.

Except in cases of rape, make your choice, before you get pregnant by either not having sex or taking every precaution to avoid pregnancy. Abortion isn't exactly good for the woman anyway. There is high risk of infection and permanent damage to the woman. It is not a perfectly safe procedure.

Just curious, if you ever decide to have a child, will you consider the WANTED embryo to be a maggot, or your child?
 
Neverfly said:
Yes, it is- two bodies are involved.

Because she chose it as well when she was educated as to how babies are made and took it up the crotch. There are many contraceptives available and to wuss out halfway through is unimpressive, at best.

Your views on this topic never fail to be appalling. The maggot, eh?
You're so busy showing extensive animosity to something you're not even personally dealing with, you're not really thinking through the best arguments for your side.
As I said above, the way the law is written, you have the right to an early abortion but once you waited long enough, you lose that right, just as you lose it when the infant is born, just as you lost it long before the terrible twos or the annoying age of 6 or the hair pulling teenage years.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but as I said, no one gets to use another person's body against their will. Adults and born children don't get to use another person's body against their will - just google McFall vs Shimp.

Wussing out is neither here nor there. She is not obligated to carry a baby because other people think of it as the 'tough' option. That's for kids on the playground.

Sorry if you don't like my tone, but that is the crux of the argument. Fetuses, even with the status of people, don't get rights others don't.

Remember your grade school Biology class- it takes two to make a baby. The woman is not the sole creator- she cannot make a baby alone and man cannot make a baby alone.
The rights of both parents apply.
Click to expand...

So...what are you getting at exactly?

That a woman should have to go through the process of being pregnant and giving birth to satisfy someone else's wants?

Sorry, no. I'm not fucking up my already unruly endocrine system because someone else wants a baby.
 
seagypsy said:
I am pro choice but you make it sound as if the baby chose to be there. In my opinion shouldn't the choice be made before you have sex? Don't get pregnant in the first place. I understand there are different circumstances in case of rape but the fetus didn't rape the woman a man did. Taking such a hostile attitude towards the fetus just makes you sound like a monster. Not a pro choice pro woman's rights person. It makes me ashamed to be associated with you.

Except in cases of rape, make your choice, before you get pregnant by either not having sex or taking every precaution to avoid pregnancy. Abortion isn't exactly good for the woman anyway. There is high risk of infection and permanent damage to the woman. It is not a perfectly safe procedure.

Just curious, if you ever decide to have a child, will you consider the WANTED embryo to be a maggot, or your child?
Click to expand...

I didn't say the 'baby' chose to be there. It just doesn't get rights every other human does not.

I won't be having biological children for reasons I'd rather not go into. If I want one I'll adopt one, so that's neither here nor there.
 
GeoffP said:
Does the fetus get a say in controlling it's own body? Sucks to be a mammal.

In most cases, if you did the deed, you signed on for the nine-month tour. (If you can show me how that isn't a human in there, I'd be interested.) What the OP is about is women preferentially aborting female fetuses. That's pretty sick, really.
Click to expand...

It can do what it wants with its own body (theoretically; it's a fetus, it can't exactly make decisions). But it doesn't have a right to anyone else's body.

And no, consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy.

Re: aborting female fetuses - That's why I said the best policy would be simply to not disclose the sex in the first place.
 
@ Neverfly: I'll admit that I probably shouldn't have referred to fetuses as 'maggots'...so yeah...sorry for the rant.

It's just I get this goddamn cumulative wear from being told how important fetuses are and how my right to my body always comes second.

I'm single and celibate, for god's sake. And even then my right to my body comes second, because hey, if I were raped one day, sure it would be a terrible thing, but I should suck it up and have the baby. Apparently I signed up to have babies just by existing.

I get sick of this over time and don't always have the patience to word my views in neutral, respectful language.
 
visceral_instinct said:
It can do what it wants with its own body (theoretically; it's a fetus, it can't exactly make decisions). But it doesn't have a right to anyone else's body.

And no, consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy.
Click to expand...

It's consent to the chance of pregnancy. Consent to smoking is not consent to cancer either; but the risk exists because the first action exists. Not wearing your seatbelt is not consent to death in a car accident. There is responsibility to potential outcomes here. And in this case, we're discussing male-vs-female fetus abortion rates. Does consent to pregnancy not consent to having a child of a sex you don't want? Treacherous ground.
 
GeoffP said:
It's consent to the chance of pregnancy. Consent to smoking is not consent to cancer either; but the risk exists because the first action exists. Not wearing your seatbelt is not consent to death in a car accident. There is responsibility to potential outcomes here. And in this case, we're discussing male-vs-female fetus abortion rates. Does consent to pregnancy not consent to having a child of a sex you don't want? Treacherous ground.
Click to expand...

Re: first point...exactly...it's consent to the chance of pregnancy. It's not an agreement that if pregnancy happens you will carry to term.

Re: second point...My views are kind of complicated on this one.

My gut reaction was that someone should be able to find out the sex and abort if they didn't want one of a certain sex. But then I figured that's not the whole issue because it leads to social problems downstream when you end up with a skewed sex ratio.

So I'd be okay with simply not disclosing the sex. Withholding abortion though is not something I could get behind.
 
Actually older children DO have rights to your body, they have the RIGHT to demand you work your ass off to feed them for example and you have the RESPONSIBILIY to do it

Bells actually said it went even further than that, she stated in another thread that your child and your partner have the right to DEMAND you die for them and that if you put yourself first your a coward and worth nothing. Legally if you let lethal harm come to your partner, your child, someone under your care or even a work mate then you are liable for manslaughter at the least so yes they have demands on your body

Your rights come secondry to every single one of these
http://www.unicef.org/southafrica/SAF_resources_crcchildfriendly.pdf
 
Asguard said:
Actually older children DO have rights to your body, they have the RIGHT to demand you work your ass off to feed them for example and you have the RESPONSIBILIY to do it

Bells actually said it went even further than that, she stated in another thread that your child and your partner have the right to DEMAND you die for them and that if you put yourself first your a coward and worth nothing. Legally if you let lethal harm come to your partner, your child, someone under your care or even a work mate then you are liable for manslaughter at the least so yes they have demands on your body

Your rights come secondry to every single one of these
http://www.unicef.org/southafrica/SAF_resources_crcchildfriendly.pdf
Click to expand...

It's not the same as the right to literally use parts of someone's body, though. Your child has the right to be fed, clothed, schooled and other necessary things but they do not get the right to be hooked up to your bloodstream or to use some organ in your body against your will. If a born human did such a thing, family or not, it would be called assault and probably grievous bodily harm.
 
No VI, bells argued (and it possibly that its the law too depending how its read) that you have a responsibility to put yourself in delibrate harms way to protect a child and possibly your spouse as well. You can't give more than your life can you?

Oh and it could well be argued that depending how you judge "best quality health care" that you could be required to give things like bone marrow of your child needed it
 
Asguard said:
No VI, bells argued (and it possibly that its the law too depending how its read) that you have a responsibility to put yourself in delibrate harms way to protect a child and possibly your spouse as well. You can't give more than your life can you?

Oh and it could well be argued that depending how you judge "best quality health care" that you could be required to give things like bone marrow of your child needed it
Click to expand...

Don't know how it is in Australia but most countries can't force you to do any such thing. America ruled against it (McFall vs Shimp) and Ireland and the UK certainly have no such laws.
 
Yes well the US is one of only 3 countries which still judge children as property. All other countries have ratified the convention on on the rights of the child and actually the US wanted the husband of that women who drowned while diving charged with murder insted of manslaughter which is what he was found guilty of here (failure to rend assistance to his spouse)
 
Asguard said:
Yes well the US is one of only 3 countries which still judge children as property. All other countries have ratified the convention on on the rights of the child and actually the US wanted the husband of that women who drowned while diving charged with murder insted of manslaughter which is what he was found guilty of here (failure to rend assistance to his spouse)
Click to expand...

I'm no fan of the US' attitude to young people, but I'd totally disagree with forcing a parent to give up bone marrow or anything else...
 
visceral_instinct said:
No, she didn't. Conceiving isn't something you can do on purpose.
Click to expand...

Yes, sex (outside of rape) is something you do on purpose - and often the result is pregnancy. Don't want to get pregnant? Don't have sex.

Having sex carries responsibility. Be sure you are ready for it _before_ you have fun.
 
visceral_instinct said:
It's not the same as the right to literally use parts of someone's body, though. Your child has the right to be fed, clothed, schooled and other necessary things but they do not get the right to be hooked up to your bloodstream or to use some organ in your body against your will. If a born human did such a thing, family or not, it would be called assault and probably grievous bodily harm.
Click to expand...

Really? Nursing is assault? I get the feeling you haven't been involved with kids very much.
 
billvon said:
Really? Nursing is assault? I get the feeling you haven't been involved with kids very much.
Click to expand...

LOL. No.

I'm saying that if a born person, family member or not, forcibly made you let them use your organs or bloodstream as life support against your will, that would be assault.
 
visceral_instinct said:
I'm saying that if a born person, family member or not, forcibly made you let them use your organs or bloodstream as life support against your will, that would be assault.
Click to expand...

Infants do that. They have a rooting reflex that will get them to a breast, and then they will suck milk out (all of which comes from your bloodstream of course) with or without your permission. Never seen one arrested for that though . . . .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top