Health secretary: 12 weeks should be the limit for abortions

[LightSpectra]

I don't think there's a substantial difference between a delivered baby and an unborn one, and I don't care that many people in the "real world" share the hypocrisy of tolerating war or the death penalty, because that doesn't morally excuse the killing of the unborn.

There are no good arguments for why a fetus is not a human being.
There are no good arguments for why killing a human being should be legal.
There are no good arguments for why believing either of the previous two points makes me a misogynist.

 

[Formaldehyde]

It is a women's rights issue; the right to live for unborn women, as well as men. The war on women is waged by the people who think it's okay to kill both of them for the sake of born women.

Fortunately, every single modern country on the planet disagrees with that outdated and provincial concept of morality from the distant past.

This thread isn't supposed to be yet another derail of why abortion clearly isn't murder. It is supposed to be a discussion of the OP.

 

[WindFish]

Apparently some - 50%? - will.

How do you square these two positions?

The survival rate for a foetus being born at 23 weeks is between 10-30%

The survival rate for a foetus being born at 24 weeks is 40%-70%

The survival rate for a foetus being born <21 is less than 0.5%

1. Why does that matter?

It doesn't, thats just my belief as a woman

Why is it permissible to kill somebody over this?

Its not killing.

What percentage of them?

50%

Does it matter if a group of pro-lifers are hypocritical about one matter, if the core issue of their argument -- that abortion is unjust -- is correct?

Because they aren't being consistent about their belief in human rights and nice try but abortion isn't unjust.

4. Howso?

Your signature is saying that co-habitation should be banned for example

. Really? Can you prove that assertion?

Yeah, its called the Religious Right or Tory Right

I couldn't tell you since that's not reported to me. I know that I give 10% of my income to charities that help orphans with part of that money.

If you were truly pro-life, you would be donating more than 10% of your income to charitable causes

 

[El_Machinae]

That's not fair. 10% is huge in modern culture. Nearly no one does 10% straight to charity. I often ask people to shoot for 2.5%, and still very few can be bothered.

There are no good arguments for why a fetus is not a human being.
There are no good arguments for why killing a human being should be legal.

Well, agree to disagree. I think there're good reasons to believe that a fetus transitions from non-person to personhood during development. I also think that there're instances where killing a human being should be legal, even if it's not the morally perfect choice. Self-defense springs to mind.

There are no good arguments for why believing either of the previous two points makes me a misogynist.

I agree completely. I think the misogyny is only a small portion of the pro-life mindset, and only contained within a small-subset of people. I think that the majority of the pro-life movement can be explained by assuming they've chosen to believe the "fetus = innocent person" heuristic

 

[WindFish]

That's not fair. 10% is huge in modern culture. Nearly no one does 10% straight to charity. I often ask people to shoot for 2.5%, and still very few can be bothered.

Me and Light Specta are both Christians and we're supposed to give the majority of our time and income to the less well off.

I just give a lot of my sparetime.

 

[Borachio]

The survival rate for a foetus being born at 23 weeks is between 10-30%

The survival rate for a foetus being born at 24 weeks is 40%-70%

The survival rate for a foetus being born <21 is less than 0.5%

Taking your figures:

between 10 and 30% of abortions at 23 weeks are killing a foetus that would survive outside the womb;
and 0.5% of abortions at <21 weeks are killing a foetus that would survive outside the womb.

To be provocative - are you in favour of infanticide?

I'm just wondering how you make a consistent case out of all this.

 

[Arakhor]

That's not fair. 10% is huge in modern culture. Nearly no one does 10% straight to charity. I often ask people to shoot for 2.5%, and still very few can be bothered.

I give something like 10% of my income to charity, but I don't exactly earn that much, so it's not a great deal. I keep having to scale back my charitable donations, as I usually agree to give away too much.

 

[Borachio]

10% of £10,000 makes a much more significant impact on an individual donor, than does 10% of £1,000,000.

 

[Arakhor]

So it does, which is why the concept of flat taxation is usually parroted by the rich, but that's a completely different topic as well.

 

[Quackers]

Why did you use the word parroted?

 

[Arakhor]

Shoddy editing. I wrote something else, changed my mind and forgot to alter the verb to fit.

 

[WindFish]

Taking your figures:

between 10 and 30% of abortions at 23 weeks are killing a foetus that would survive outside the womb;
and 0.5% of abortions at <21 weeks are killing a foetus that would survive outside the womb.

To be provocative - are you in favour of infanticide?

I'm just wondering how you make a consistent case out of all this.

Why would I be in favour of infanticide?

I just take the view that life begins at birth.

 

[Quackers]

So you think that woman should have an abortion 1 day before due date?
That really avoids any grey areas - thats straight murder.

 

[Borachio]

Birthday seems like as arbitrary a point as any, though. That's why I asked about infanticide. Clearly you don't think life begins at birth, if what you say about 24 weeks is true.

 

[WindFish]

So you think that woman should have an abortion 1 day before due date?

Do you believe its okay to be a cheating scumbag and racist?

See I can put words into your mouth too

No, I don't think a woman should have an abortion 1 day before the due day, I think that the current limit of 24 weeks is fine.

Birthday seems like as arbitrary a point as any, though. That's why I asked about infanticide. Clearly you don't think life begins at birth, if what you say about 24 weeks is true.

Why don't I think life begins at birth?

 

[Quackers]

Hey stupid you said:

I just take the view that life begins at birth.

So having an abortion 1 day before the due date would be fine right? Your not killing anybody because there is no life. Your just killing a "bunch of cells" or whatever.
So why should 24 weeks be the limit? There is no life there untill it's born so whats the issue of aborting it for the whole duration of the pregnancy?

 

[JollyRoger]

When pro-life politicians propose child tax credits, why is the credit only available for children once they are born and not when they are merely conceived?

 

[LightSpectra]

If you were truly pro-life, you would be donating more than 10% of your income to charitable causes

Killing babies is okay because one person (out of millions) that is pro-life isn't a perfect human being. Gotcha.

As for the rest of your post, which I won't quote because the formatting is rather inconvenient:

1. "It's just your belief" is not valid reasoning for something every person should do.
2. Explain to me how terminating the life of a baby in the womb is not killing it. Best thing you can offer is that it's not a human being, which can be refuted in a few sentences; that "it's not alive" makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
3. Just because a bunch of people are inconsistent about some beliefs, does not mean that ALL people who believe this individual belief are wrong, nor does it say anything about the individual belief itself.
4. Where does it say cohabitation should be banned?
5. What percentage of all pro-lifers are "the Religious Right or Tory Right"? Where do "the Religious Right or Tory Right" indicate that they are all social Darwinists?

I give something like 10% of my income to charity, but I don't exactly earn that much, so it's not a great deal. I keep having to scale back my charitable donations, as I usually agree to give away too much.

Basically my problem...

Fortunately, every single modern country on the planet disagrees with that outdated and provincial concept of morality from the distant past.

Then if you had lived two hundred years ago, you would have advocated slavery, colonialism and genocide of native Americans because "every single modern country" on the planet advocated the morality of their day as opposed to a moral objectivity that recognizes the innate value of all human life.

When pro-life politicians propose child tax credits, why is the credit only available for children once they are born and not when they are merely conceived?

I don't know what "child tax credits" we're speaking of specifically here, so do not take this as a lateral defense; but a possible explanation is that pre-birth expenses are *mostly* covered by health care.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Then if you had lived two hundred years ago, you would have advocated slavery, colonialism and genocide of native Americans because "every single modern country" on the planet advocated the morality of their day as opposed to a moral objectivity that recognizes the innate value of all human life.

That is hardly a good rationalization for continuing barbaric practices from the distant past which are largely predicated in beliefs of mythical gods. In fact, those atrocities you just mentioned were committed for the most part by devout believers who had no real concept at all of "moral objectivity".

But again, this is hardly the topic of this thread. It is just what any thread relating at all to abortion in this forum seems to degenerate eventually.

 

[GhostWriter16]

The first trimester has always been my limit, its good to see the pendulum slowly recedeing from the two extremes to a civilized and compassionate position.

At least we're making progress

(Don't agree with health secretary since I think the limit should be conception but I'm willing to do what it takes to reduce abortions.)

I love this term. Apparently killing female children in the womb isn't a "war on women."

This.

It's "good to see" that any opinion other than your own in this matter is "extreme" and not a "civilized and compassionate position".

The simple truth of the matter is that many abortions after the first term are due to detection of birth defects which were not possible to discern previously. That the vast majority of women decide to have abortions far sooner for quite obvious reasons. That it isn't because they are "extreme" or are not "civilized and compassionate".

I get seriously offended when people talk about birth defects. That's sad, Form, because I do appreciate a lot of what you post.

I am not any less fit to live because of having Asperger's than a so-called "Healthy" child is.

It's not really "freedom" if the freedom in question is used to harm other people. You're not allowed to use your hands to strangle somebody to death, for example. It's hypocritical to make an exception for unborn people, and then accuse people of misogyny because they are consistent about human rights.

That's the principle I use.

5. Really? Can you prove that assertion?

In America I know that the "life" parties (Republican and Constitution parties, and part of the Libertarian Party) are typically fiscally right. The "Choice" parties (Democrats and Greens) are fiscally left, although a substantial part of the Libertarian Party is both pro-choice and fiscally right.

I don't think there's any party in America that's pro-life and fiscally left, although I know the DFLA are dissenters to the Democrats on life while being in favor of their fiscally social capitalist policies.

I don't think there's a substantial difference between a delivered baby and an unborn one, and I don't care that many people in the "real world" share the hypocrisy of tolerating war or the death penalty, because that doesn't morally excuse the killing of the unborn.

I don't think its hypocritical in any way to support abortion being outlawed while supporting retention of the death penalty. Supporting abortion being outlawed while supporting war is a little more complex, although it would depend on the logic that goes on each.

The death penalty is a targeted action, it specifically targets people who have committed heinous crimes. Abortion, on the other hand, takes innocent life, and that's what a lot of us consider to be wrong, not the taking of all life, but all innocent life.

So it does, which is why the concept of flat taxation is usually parroted by the rich, but that's a completely different topic as well.

I'm not rich. I'm pro flat or close to flat taxes.

Hey stupid you said:



So having an abortion 1 day before the due date would be fine right? Your not killing anybody because there is no life. Your just killing a "bunch of cells" or whatever.
So why should 24 weeks be the limit? There is no life there untill it's born so whats the issue of aborting it for the whole duration of the pregnancy?

Life beginning "At birth" is a completely untenable position, and even most "Pro-choice" people don't try to argue it.