Abortion Limit: UK

[Neverfly]

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.

Ok, I see your point but honestly, I'm sticking as close to US law as possible. I cannot worry about if someday, after the zombie hoards have decimated our numbers and all the oil is used up, whether this thread will have much significance...

Unless anyone one here has a hopeful career in far future politics?

 

[spidergoat]

Ok, I see your point but honestly, I'm sticking as close to US law as possible. I cannot worry about if someday, after the zombie hoards have decimated our numbers and all the oil is used up, whether this thread will have much significance...
...

Within the next 10 years, dude. Minus the zombies.

 

[Asguard]

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:

Forget the US, there lack of UHC means they might as well be the third world. Try a real first world health care system

Italy 3.9 per 100,000 live births
Australia 5.1
UK 8.2

http://m.guardian.co.uk/news/databl...nnium-development-goals?cat=news&type=article

Compare that to 22 deaths per 100,000 women from breast cancer and that's across the board and as the strongest protective action you can take is breast feeding for as long as possible it means that death as a result of NOT having children would be far higher risk than death from having children

http://canceraustralia.gov.au/affected-cancer/cancer-types/breast-cancer/breast-cancer-statistics

 

[seagypsy]

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.

Actually several people differentiated between early abortion and late term on grounds that it is not a viable human, in our opinions, until it reaches a particular stage in development. At least Neverfly and I have both stated that we only oppose late term abortion. I will add, that if there is some bizaar circumstance that arrises late in the pregnancy that the doctors agree that abortion is the only way to save the mother's life, then I would also not be against that. But in most cases, a child can be delivered in the early part of the third trimester and with proper life support can still have a chance at survival. This is often, as told to me by my ob doctor when I faced a potentially life threatening situation in late term pregnancy, a better option to abortion as late term abortion is usually as dangerous to the woman's life as carrying to term even in the worst circumstances. But early delivery by c-section can spare usually the mother and often, though with less success, the child. I was told the morality aside, late term abortion is detrimental to the woman in most cases and offers no potential benefits over early live delivery by c section.

You see, I faced possible death in my last delivery, So the options were laid out on the table for me and we opted for early delivery by c-section. My son was in the NICU for a week and we almost lost him and I came very close to death myself, but we both lived. I was told that abortion would likely have killed me because it is harder to stop the bleeding of abortion than it is from surgery where the wound is easily accessible and closed. Abortion just rips you apart inside.

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.

This is what I have been saying all along.

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.

If you were appealing to science you should have just produced citations from scientists rather than saying "I'm not the only one who thinks it". The "evidence" you posted was someones interpretation and opinion of scientific findings. Opinions they formed by twisting or misinterpreting the meanings behind data.

.. 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.

I have been to an undeveloped country. I lived in Pakistan as a Pakistani citizen for a year. I also witnessed two pregnancies and all the problems they have in being able to deliver safely for the mother and the child. Their problems do not need to exist, most are caused by religious superstition that stops them from getting proper medical care. People over there still believe in the "evil eye" and still attribute childhood illness to the jealousy of onlooking mothers who whisper secret curses on babies that they believe are cuter than their own.

As far as I know abortion isn't allowed there but I would be all for it. In Pakistan, with certain individuals I would even support post birth abortion no matter how developed into the life cycle the person has become. but that idea crosses all sorts of ethical lines so let's not go there.

We are not discussing an undeveloped country though. Specifically we are discussing UK according the OP. So the conditions in an undeveloped country are irrelevant. Pakistan or any other third world country is no comparison for the UK. However modern developed westernized countries such as the US, Australia, Canada, and most of Europe don't have huge problems with maternal death in pregnancy or childbirth. In my entire lifetime I have not met a single person, young or old, from a developed country that lost their mother during childbirth. And I move around a lot. <1% is negligible in my opinion.

 

[seagypsy]

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.

Again, as I pointed out to ElectricFetus, we are not living in an undeveloped world or talking about third world countries. the OP was about UK. I have been discussing in terms of UK and places of comparable medical and social development.

And what makes you think we are going to be living in third world conditions soon? assuming you are in the US or UK or Europe or some other developed nation.

 

[ElectricFetus]

Actually several people differentiated between early abortion and late term on grounds that it is not a viable human, in our opinions, until it reaches a particular stage in development. At least Neverfly and I have both stated that we only oppose late term abortion. I will add, that if there is some bizaar circumstance that arrises late in the pregnancy that the doctors agree that abortion is the only way to save the mother's life, then I would also not be against that. But in most cases, a child can be delivered in the early part of the third trimester and with proper life support can still have a chance at survival. This is often, as told to me by my ob doctor when I faced a potentially life threatening situation in late term pregnancy, a better option to abortion as late term abortion is usually as dangerous to the woman's life as carrying to term even in the worst circumstances. But early delivery by c-section can spare usually the mother and often, though with less success, the child. I was told the morality aside, late term abortion is detrimental to the woman in most cases and offers no potential benefits over early live delivery by c section. You see, I faced possible death in my last delivery, So the options were laid out on the table for me and we opted for early delivery by c-section. My son was in the NICU for a week and we almost lost him and I came very close to death myself, but we both lived. I was told that abortion would likely have killed me because it is harder to stop the bleeding of abortion than it is from surgery where the wound is easily accessible and closed.

my butt itches

I mean what does all that have to do with my comment your replying to?

Abortion just rips you apart inside.

Your generalizing: if an abortion "rip you apart inside" depends on what type of abortion your getting and the stage of pregnancy and what you mean by "rip you apart inside".

If you were appealing to science you should have just produced citations from scientists rather than saying "I'm not the only one who thinks it". The "evidence" you posted was someones interpretation and opinion of scientific findings. Opinions they formed by twisting or misinterpreting the meanings behind data.

You can find the study somewhere, I could not remember its name and that was the closes I could find on short order, if you want to find more I'm sure you can find it soon using that. But you have opened a box of worms: because the nazi's used science to advocate their eugenic policies, that means we can't us science! BURN THE BOOKS!

I have been to an undeveloped country. I lived in Pakistan as a Pakistani citizen for a year. I also witnessed two pregnancies and all the problems they have in being able to deliver safely for the mother and the child. Their problems do not need to exist, most are caused by religious superstition that stops them from getting proper medical care. People over there still believe in the "evil eye" and still attribute childhood illness to the jealousy of onlooking mothers who whisper secret curses on babies that they believe are cuter than their own.

... was I talking to you? Oh man though the "Juju" in zambia was scary, they fear the witchcraft so much it was scary even to me, anyways.

As far as I know abortion isn't allowed there but I would be all for it. In Pakistan, with certain individuals I would even support post birth abortion no matter how developed into the life cycle the person has become. but that idea crosses all sorts of ethical lines so let's not go there.

Go on

We are not discussing an undeveloped country though. Specifically we are discussing UK according the OP. So the conditions in an undeveloped country are irrelevant. Pakistan or any other third world country is no comparison for the UK. However modern developed westernized countries such as the US, Australia, Canada, and most of Europe don't have huge problems with maternal death in pregnancy or childbirth. In my entire lifetime I have not met a single person, young or old, from a developed country that lost their mother during childbirth. And I move around a lot. <1% is negligible in my opinion.

Well I would not call that a survey but I'm sure its very very rare in developed countries, but I don't see why we can't make it legal for just those very rare cases where an abort would save the life of the mother.

 

[Neverfly]

I've been to undeveloped countries as well. If you're going on the route of saying "Did I ask you?" Then you asked me. Yes, I've been to an undeveloped country.

I've also been to war torn countries and a country that was, by my standard- odd all the way around.

I was deployed to Bosna i Herzegovina for a year, was in Korea and Kuwait.

Been a few other places too. All of that is beside the point. It's basically a wild goosechase of where we hash out when and where the concept applies and when it does not.
Nitpick: We're not under one world government.

Lastly, Seagypsy did not say that the Nazi's used science to advocate something, she said that they used claims to advocate something. That's a sharp difference. I think we all know that the Nazi's were not motivated by scientific goals, but by bigoted socialist fascism.

 

[seagypsy]

my butt itches

I mean what does all that have to do with my comment your replying to?

mine too, I know I rambled a bit, but in the early part of my babblings I mentioned that we DID differentiate between the difference between an early term and late term. Though now that I have reread your statement about 6 times I am realizing I may have totally misunderstood what you were saying. I thought you meant that no one in this thread had made a differentiation between zygote and fetus in terms of what we consider a sentient life form. esp Human. I have a feeling that isn't what you meant at all :shy:

Your generalizing: if an abortion "rip you apart inside" depends on what type of abortion your getting and the stage of pregnancy and what you mean by "rip you apart inside".

None of my doctors ever divulged that there are varying types of abortion. Even the ones who tried to get me to abort my last two pregnancies very early on because they predicted problems and both occasions had the doctors certain I would not survive the pregnancy let alone the delivery. But I have some special circumstances that are not normal.

You can find the study somewhere, I could not remember its name and that was the closes I could find on short order, if you want to find more I'm sure you can find it soon using that. But you have opened a box of worms: because the nazi's used science to advocate their eugenic policies, that means we can't us science! BURN THE BOOKS!

In matters of ethics, science has limited relevance, IMO. And this thread is one of ethics, not science. Science simply does not provide definitions of right and wrong. It only provides information about our environment.

Science has little to do with ethics. Science can not determine if something is ethical or not. It can only provide data. And you did not even provide data. You provided an interpretation of data. Which was merely evidence that someone agreed with you on whether or not parents are happy people. Well many people agree with my point of view too. I am sure VI is not alone in her views. All of our opinions conflict and they are all just opinions on a very subjective matter. We are talking about matters of conscience.

Well I would not call that a survey but I'm sure its very very rare in developed countries, but I don't see why we can't make it legal for just those very rare cases where an abort would save the life of the mother.

I think it IS legal in those special cases and I am not opposed to it at all. The life of the mother is as precious as the life of the child. and quite often in strange circumstances it is easier to save the mother than than the child. By the way, I, at least, have REPEATEDLY stated that I feel it should be legal in early term for any reason the woman wishes and in late term cases where the mother's life is in danger, and an abortion can reasonably stand a chance of saving her, the abortion should be legal then as well.

 

[ElectricFetus]

mine too, I know I rambled a bit, but in the early part of my babblings I mentioned that we DID differentiate between the difference between an early term and late term. Though now that I have reread your statement about 6 times I am realizing I may have totally misunderstood what you were saying. I thought you meant that no one in this thread had made a differentiation between zygote and fetus in terms of what we consider a sentient life form. esp Human. I have a feeling that isn't what you meant at all :shy:

Maybe :shrug:

None of my doctors ever divulged that there are varying types of abortion. Even the ones who tried to get me to abort my last two pregnancies very early on because they predicted problems and both occasions had the doctors certain I would not survive the pregnancy let alone the delivery. But I have some special circumstances that are not normal.

Well lets sing the abortion procedures song:

There is MVA,EVA,ME
but for a grand scraping cleaning a D&C!
After 15 weeks gestation there is D&E where the cervix is forced opened
and then the critter is pulled out with pliers
vacuum cleaner and anything else with a scraping
Then there is IDX in which the beast is forced out with induced labor
and the rest cleaned out with a vacuum
and a scraping, oh glory, oh glory-eee
There is also something called a Hysterotomy abortion
don't think I need to explain that one!
But wait there is mooooore!
There are abortifacients that require no surgery
no vacuums or scrapers or pliers these are cheap and easier abortions
and viable up to 9 weeks gestation
Now if you did not want to hear this aweful song
you could have just browse through wikipedia!

In matters of ethics, science has limited relevance, IMO. And this thread is one of ethics, not science. Science simply does not provide definitions of right and wrong. It only provides information about our environment.

But if Nazis used it then it can't be used can it?? My whole word view is ruined! I'm sure the nazi coerced all kinds of scientific studies to their cause of aryan superiority: Nazis used science and therefor science can't be used by us according to your logic, not without being equated with Hitler, oh the horror!

Science has little to do with ethics. Science can not determine if something is ethical or not. It can only provide data. And you did not even provide data. You provided an interpretation of data. Which was merely evidence that someone agreed with you on whether or not parents are happy people. Well many people agree with my point of view too. I am sure VI is not alone in her views. All of our opinions conflict and they are all just opinions on a very subjective matter. We are talking about matters of conscience.

I was not providing a view on ethics or evidence on ethics or anything like that, I was providing an example of subjectivity of happiness.

I think it IS legal in those special cases and I am not opposed to it at all. The life of the mother is as precious as the life of the child. and quite often in strange circumstances it is easier to save the mother than than the child. By the way, I, at least, have REPEATEDLY stated that I feel it should be legal in early term for any reason the woman wishes and in late term cases where the mother's life is in danger, and an abortion can reasonably stand a chance of saving her, the abortion should be legal then as well.

Well this is no good, we need an argument so say something we would disagree on... pzzz say you love Hitler

 

[spidergoat]

Again, as I pointed out to ElectricFetus, we are not living in an undeveloped world or talking about third world countries. the OP was about UK. I have been discussing in terms of UK and places of comparable medical and social development.

And what makes you think we are going to be living in third world conditions soon? assuming you are in the US or UK or Europe or some other developed nation.

I believe we are heading into time of converging crises, mostly around energy, but also involving the collapse of trust in finance and the future.

 

[ElectricFetus]

I believe we are heading into time of converging crises, mostly around energy, but also involving the collapse of trust in finance and the future.

The crisis on energy is one of price, cheap energy is gone, has been since 2008, if we can maintain present prices we are in for a 2-3 decades of slow growing and stagnant developed nation growth, IF we can maintain. The energy is certainly out there even if its in the form to oil shale and tar sands, the price of it and the environmental consequences though will be great though... wait a minute what was this thread about???

 

[seagypsy]

wait a minute what was this thread about???

LOL. No kidding. I had to look it up because I forgot. but it is Abortion limits in UK.

 

[Neverfly]

http://www.examiner.com/article/fou...-arrested-for-murdering-newborn?CID=obnetwork

 

[ElectricFetus]

http://www.examiner.com/article/fou...-arrested-for-murdering-newborn?CID=obnetwork

... I don't think infanticide counts.

 

[Neverfly]

... I don't think infanticide counts.

It doesn't, really. After all, the infant had been born and was suddenly human.
But I found the concept interesting. If placed in a position to strangle an infant, or to vacuum one up a tube a week before it's born-- I just don't see any real ethical difference between the two.

 

[ElectricFetus]

It doesn't, really. After all, the infant had been born and was suddenly human.
But I found the concept interesting. If placed in a position to strangle an infant, or to vacuum one up a tube a week before it's born-- I just don't see any real ethical difference between the two.

I would say their is a gradient of ethical wrongness between the two, it goes from killing babies is wrong to forgoing sex and leting sperm and ova die is acceptable: everything else we been arguing about is in between those extremes. Just below infanticide is late term abortion, for example it is consider wrong to kill a baby with a terminal disease but its more acceptable to abort a later term fetus with a terminal disease. I personally happen to believe that there is no clear right or wrong but gradients between and dependent on the circumstance. I believe there is no proof of universal morality and that right and wrong are purely constructed categories... until a god comes down and directly tells me otherwise that is.

Here a test of moral gradient, lets say a house was on fire and your a fireman, you see 2 people at one window, and 1 person at the another window, which window would go to first assuming that the other people/person at the other window will die without your help and no other circumstances exist to assist in deciding? Hard decisions? Lets say there was 5 at one window and only 1 at another: Easier? How about if at one window was a baby and at the other window a convicted serial killer? How about at one window was a pregnant women and at the other was just a women?

 

[Neverfly]

Pretty much- I agree with all of that.
It's that agreement that makes the argument, "It's my body, I can do what I want" sound very juvenile to me.

 

[spidergoat]

The crisis on energy is one of price, cheap energy is gone, has been since 2008, if we can maintain present prices we are in for a 2-3 decades of slow growing and stagnant developed nation growth, IF we can maintain. The energy is certainly out there even if its in the form to oil shale and tar sands, the price of it and the environmental consequences though will be great though... wait a minute what was this thread about???

It's about using pre-aborted foeti as an alternative energy source. Don't just hang out in there, contribute to society! I'm sure we can develop some kind of internal hamster wheel to implant in the womb.

 

[seagypsy]

But if Nazis used it then it can't be used can it?? My whole word view is ruined! I'm sure the nazi coerced all kinds of scientific studies to their cause of aryan superiority: Nazis used science and therefor science can't be used by us according to your logic, not without being equated with Hitler, oh the horror!

No not according to my logic. According to your misunderstanding of what I said and the intent behind it. I have clarified several times now what my intentions and meanings were in bringing it up. If you want to push an agenda to try and make me look bad, be my guest. I wasn't challenging the validity of science. It was the argumentum ad populum that I was challenging. I have not one time said that science was bad. Maybe if you presented science you would have a valid complaint. But you did not present science as evidence. You presented someone's subjective opinion about something as evidence that someone agreed with you. No science at all.

I was not providing a view on ethics or evidence on ethics or anything like that, I was providing an example of subjectivity of happiness.

Exactly, so I don't know how you determined that I had an objection to science being provided, since you admit that you didn't provide any.

 

[seagypsy]

I would say their is a gradient of ethical wrongness between the two, it goes from killing babies is wrong to forgoing sex and leting sperm and ova die is acceptable: everything else we been arguing about is in between those extremes. Just below infanticide is late term abortion, for example it is consider wrong to kill a baby with a terminal disease but its more acceptable to abort a later term fetus with a terminal disease. I personally happen to believe that there is no clear right or wrong but gradients between and dependent on the circumstance. I believe there is no proof of universal morality and that right and wrong are purely constructed categories... until a god comes down and directly tells me otherwise that is.

Here a test of moral gradient, lets say a house was on fire and your a fireman, you see 2 people at one window, and 1 person at the another window, which window would go to first assuming that the other people/person at the other window will die without your help and no other circumstances exist to assist in deciding? Hard decisions? Lets say there was 5 at one window and only 1 at another: Easier? How about if at one window was a baby and at the other window a convicted serial killer? How about at one window was a pregnant women and at the other was just a women?

I agree 100% on this.