Bells:
I have not suggested that anything should be enshrined in statute or other law giving somebody a general right - or an absolute right - to impose their beliefs on another person's body.
In some cases, the actual choice for the woman will be to abort the baby or to die with the baby unaborted. I totally support the right of the woman to die in those circumstances, if that's what she chooses - even if she would be saved by the abortion.
Well, I wrote this, back in post #50, above:But have you considered that perhaps that should not be your decision at all? It is not a decision you will ever have to face. Do you think it is acceptable to impose your wariness on the body and rights of a woman?
I would say that such decisions should be made by the woman, in consultation with the health professionals who are aware of all the circumstances in her particular case.
Any one-size-fits-all "cut-off" date is inevitably going to be arbitrary and not appropriate in all circumstances. Therefore, I would prefer not to see such things legislated. I have already said that I believe that the relevant health professionals who are dealing with this sort of thing on the ground, day to day, are in the best positions to help make the best decisions in the all the circumstances. I don't think a musty statute buried in volume 320 of a set of statutes stored in a vault somewhere is likely to be up to the job.
Where does the part about imposing my wariness on the body and rights of a woman appear in that?Any one-size-fits-all "cut-off" date is inevitably going to be arbitrary and not appropriate in all circumstances. Therefore, I would prefer not to see such things legislated. I have already said that I believe that the relevant health professionals who are dealing with this sort of thing on the ground, day to day, are in the best positions to help make the best decisions in the all the circumstances. I don't think a musty statute buried in volume 320 of a set of statutes stored in a vault somewhere is likely to be up to the job.
I believe I explained that in posts #30 and #31. I wrote quite a long explanation, addressed to you, as it happens.Perhaps you should ask yourself why you are wary about the word "all".
In post 30, I wrote, after a long explanation of what makes me uncomfortable about the word "all" in the poll:For example, we know women won't be aborting a day before birth or even in the weeks before she is due, because that is not a safe option and is not offered anywhere. So what makes you uncomfortable about the word "all" in the poll? What makes you so wary about it that you feel that perhaps, women should have limited rights over their own bodies? When answering that question to yourself, keep in mind that those limitations will only ever apply to women.
To be clear, then: in practice, it might very well make no difference whether a statute grants a general right to abortion in all circumstances or whether it grants such a right in all but a small selection of very specific circumstances, because how the law is applied in practice might well be the same, either way. But the poll question need not be interpreted in the context of how the current practice of providing for abortion is actually done. The question asks about "should" and "all". That means it is asking a moral question about an unspecified set of all possible circumstances.
Nor am I imposing my beliefs on any woman.I'll put it this way. I am personally pro-life. What I mean by that is I never saw a circumstance where I would abort my child and I think the only reason I would have felt I had to, was if my life was at risk and there was no chance unless I aborted, but even then, I'd be weighing the options for how long I could continue and still deliver. But that is my personal belief that applies only to myself. I would never ever impose that on another woman.
As a matter of fact, in some medical situations choice can be taken away from a person about his or her own body. That typically only happens in life or death situations, but it does happen.That was the choice I made for myself and my body, as is my right. No one else should have the right to dictate what I do with my body while I am still alive. No one else should have the right to impose their beliefs on another person's body.
I have not suggested that anything should be enshrined in statute or other law giving somebody a general right - or an absolute right - to impose their beliefs on another person's body.
It depends what they are wary about. For instance, what if the woman is mentally ill and unable to make a rational decision?Abortion is exceptionally personal and should remain that way. Another person's wariness, beliefs, etc, should have no bearing on what a woman elects to do.
Then that particular hypothetical implied by the particular phrasing of the poll question won't be a practical question. It will, however, remain a hypothetical problem with the proposition being put to people in the poll.The whole 'day before natural birth' is a fantasy. It doesn't happen.
Fine, but the poll question doesn't specify what is meant by "all circumstances". That leaves it up to the individual who is responding to interpret. I interpreted it my way; you interpreted it your way. Neither of us is demonstrably wrong. We are expressing our personal opinions in light of how we each understand the question.So the whole "should", would only apply to reality and not delve into ridiculous fantasies. When we consider "all circumstances", that is asking where it is medically possible for the woman to abort.
Let's assume there no such instance to be found. That doesn't affect anything about interpreting the poll question. I am still free to interpret "all circumstances" to mean, literally, all circumstances - including circumstances that haven't yet been observed in practice. The poll question doesn't constrain me to interpreting it the way you interpret it (or vice versa, of course).Can you cite one instance where a woman complained she wasn't able to access an abortion at 38 - 40 weeks?
Just one will do.
Yes. I agree that where informed consent can be obtained, it should always be sought. Where it can't, we often have things like powers of attorney etc.Consent should still be sought.
I was bleeding out and they still got my consent, even as I was going into shock.
I mean, this is obvious, yes?
In some cases, the actual choice for the woman will be to abort the baby or to die with the baby unaborted. I totally support the right of the woman to die in those circumstances, if that's what she chooses - even if she would be saved by the abortion.
Exactly.If a woman cannot deliver naturally, then the other option is a c-section. Usually women will elect someone to make that choice for her if she is incapacitated. But that is something any woman expecting to give birth, will be discussing with her doctor, midwife, doula, partner/spouse, family, etc.
Yes, and if it doesn't come out at all, she dies.When it comes to how the baby comes out of the woman's body, there's basically 2 ways. Through the vagina or surgically. Ironically, the same goes with abortion!
I wasn't thinking of a donation situation. In that kind of cases, clearly it is likely that doctors will think it is rational choice for somebody to make. I was thinking more of somebody who is not in his right mind, demanding to have a kidney cut out.People have nephrectomy all the time, even with a healthy kidney, and it's often donated. Your example is not so much less charged as it is non-applicable.
One kidney is essential. But we have two. Two's usually better than one, but we can get by with one.Kidneys are essential to your survival, without it, you'd be on dialysis or would require a kidney transplant.
I don't understand the relevance of that. People can consent to not being medically treated, even for life-threatening conditions, though - interestingly - perhaps not in all circumstances.A pregnancy is not essential to the woman's survival.
Last edited: