Diogenes
Active member
Not really. It's a convenient, desired legal privilege.
Abortion Ministry of Misinformation.
- Thread starter Authentic Nouveau
- Start date
Not really. It's a convenient, desired legal privilege.
Temujin
Well-known member
I disagree. The other side of the coin, forcing a woman to continue a pregnancy that is harming her, would be morally outrageous.
Diogenes
Active member
The majority of abortions are due to the inconvenience of a pregnancy, not legitimate medical issues. Even then, it's a matter of legal privilege, not rights. All so called rights are merely legal privileges.
Temujin
Well-known member
You are talking about legality. I am talking about morality. It is my opinion that abortion rights, or privileges, are a moral imperative in a modern society. The reason for the abortion is immaterial, however small the harm incurred. A society that fails to provide a route to safe, affordable and legal abortions for those women who need them is in my opinion immoral. That there are other women who arguably don't "need" an abortion but nevertheless take advantage of that provision, doesn't matter. Any attempts to separate out the desperate from the less desperate is likely to cause yet more harm.
I would also dispute just how many women have an abortion for mere convenience. It isn't like having your hair done. The decision is weighty, and the only person in a place to decide how much she needs the procedure, is the woman herself.
Cheap and easy early abortion linked with good sex education and a lack of stigma, would lead to a very much healthier society without increasing the number of abortions. Those countries where abortion is not an issue don't have huge abortion numbers.
Sherman
Active member
I could not have said it better.
Temujin
Well-known member
Y
Yet it is still untrue.
Temujin
Well-known member
A morality that subjugates a person to the needs of a non-person is warped.
Diogenes
Active member
You're welcome to have that moral opinion, to me it's more a mere consequence of modernity.
In the most stringent scenario, abortion would only be necessary if the pregnancy was putting the mother's life in jeopardy. That necessity could even extended to times when death would very likely happen to occur shortly after birth or when the abnormalities are going to be so severe (more so than mere Down Syndrome) life would be constant agony for the infant. Outside of those extremes, abortion isn't required. If you look at actual surveys on why abortion is preformed, the majority is not for these reasons.
I would agree good sex education would be extremely healthy to society but puritanical pro-lifers are not ones to compromise pragmatically.
Electric Skeptic
Well-known member
In your opinion. In mine, a morality than can tell a woman she must stay pregnant is warped.
Temujin
Well-known member
I was once the safeguarding manager for a further education college near Luton. A female student in my care became pregnant. She was in my care because her mother and father had half strangled her with her hijab for the "crime" of swimming in an all female session at the local pool. Her boyfriend was black, and a Protestant. She was quite convinced that if her family, who she did not wish to leave, would kill her if they knew she had had sex with such a boy, let alone get pregnant.
She was one of three students from this community for whom I obtained advice and guidance. Two decided to have abortions, one went into a safe house and kept her child. I say this to show that real life is more complicated than the black and white picture you paint. It is made simpler in the UK because all consideration of the foetus is removed. The foetus is a non-person, cannot be a victim and has no rights. All decisions are based on the welfare of the woman. If continuation of the pregnancy is considered more harmful to her than an abortion, then abortion is available, if she wants it.
Diogenes
Active member
First, the obvious, pregnancy is avoidable. Second, staying in the home was dangerous in of itself, without the added issue of her being pregnant.
I never said abortion should be banned, merely that in most cases it's a choice. In your case, the student should have been removed from the home as her problem wasn't simply due to the fact she was pregnant but rather the home itself was dangerous. The UK has a larger problem around dealing with ethnically sensitive crimes. Ideally, the father at least would have be arrested.
Any issue can be made simpler when the complicating factors are removed from consideration.
Temujin
Well-known member
Yes the home was dangerous, but dhe didn't want to leave it. She refused having the father prosecuted. Honour abuse is a complicated issue, not solved by trampling all over cultural sensitivities.
To the more general point, yes pregnancy is avoidable. Nevertheless it happens, even to couples who are careful. The consequences of pregnancy can be life-changing and very damaging. Abortion is part of the suite of solutions available. It is more practically effective than finger-wagging.
Last edited:
Authentic Nouveau
Well-known member
Post the name of the uneducated nut case who posted that.
Amniotic fluid has traditionally been viewed as a sterile. The wizard doesn't understand "infection"
Necrosis is death of tissues. How can it become contaminated?
If the mom gets very sick, she may infect the baby in a way she can damage the baby by taking narcotics when she is carrying a baby.
Temujin
Well-known member
Tell your fantasies to the family of Savita Halappanavar, who died at the hands of real doctors. Your dreamland visions of yourself as a medical expert are given the lie by your ignorance of the real world beyond Google. Uneducated nut case, indeed.
Authentic Nouveau
Well-known member
Just a reminder, the baby comes from the Mother's egg. They are very close relatives.
Authentic Nouveau
Well-known member
Of course it is. Are you proud of how Norma lied under oath to the Supreme Court to legalize murder? Roe v Wade? She admitted how she lied.
You can watch the baby being killed on a sonogram. The abortion chambers don't ever let the mom see the sonogram when the baby is murdered.
Diogenes
Active member
The State, especially a unitary state, has the ability to act over the wishes of the citizens. Cultural honour takes a back seat to domestic violence, unless it's the UK. Rotherham being the most public example of cultural appeasement gone awry.
Electric Skeptic
Well-known member
You might feel differently if you were the one forced to carry an unwanted fetus for nine months.
Diogenes
Active member
Given the effectiveness of abstinence (alcohol or sex), IUDs, the pill, condoms, and Plan B, becoming pregnancy is rather easy to avoid so I doubt I would be in the position of being forced to carry an unwanted foetus. Vasectomies, tube tying, and hysterectomies, are also options; vasectomies being the easiest. I also never said abortions should be banned per se.
More pertinent, natural rights don't exist. All so called "rights" are legal privileges whether that be speech or abortion. Killing an unwanted foetus is convenient. The only time it would be necessary would be if the mother's life were in jeopardy due to the pregnancy. The pro-lifers need to accept contraceptives as preferable and pragmatic options to avoid abortions.