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:
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.
In post 30, I wrote, after a long explanation of what makes me uncomfortable about the word "all" in the poll:
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
Yes, and if it doesn't come out at all, she dies.
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.
One kidney is essential. But we have two. Two's usually better than one, but we can get by with one.
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.
Last edited:
