Display: Sort:
Should the Abortion Laws be Liberalised? | 106 comments (106 topical)

Re: Should the abortion laws be liberalised? (#11)

by Cat S on Mon Oct 22, 2007 at 03:34:21 PM GMT

We cannot have the debate around time limits focused on foetal survival. If we focus on this then one day when they create and grow a human outside the womb of a woman (and therefore at all stages of pregnancy the foetus could be grown in a test tube) you would have to conclude that abortion is always wrong!

The debate should be about women's bodies and their choices. No woman should ever be forced into having an abortion and likewise no woman should ever be forced to continue an unwanted pregnancy.


[ Parent ]

Re: Should the abortion laws be liberalised? (#22)

by Loz on Mon Oct 22, 2007 at 10:06:33 PM GMT

That simply isn't accurate.

The child is still developing - the fact is, babies are being born at the very same time they are being aborted.

That is an absolute outrage.


[ Parent ]

Re: Should the abortion laws be liberalised? (#25)

by NorthernMonkey on Mon Oct 22, 2007 at 11:01:28 PM GMT

Well they're not the same babies are they? It's absurd to say that even most of the babies aborted at 24 weeks (of which there are very few) would be alive if they happened to be born at that particular stage.


[ Parent ]

Re: Should the abortion laws be liberalised? (#37)

by Loz on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 06:33:28 PM GMT

They're not - but they are able to be born at that stage - thus they are as a good as any human.

That makes it murder - what else can it possibly be?

As it goes - the survival rate for that period is around the 50% mark. Thats pretty high.


[ Parent ]

Re: Should the abortion laws be liberalised? (#39)

by NorthernMonkey on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 06:43:06 PM GMT

Murder? I mean come on, that's ridiculous.

We're talking about a woman making a terribly difficult decision which will affect her for the rest of her life and you're comparing it to murder?

A child is not a child (nor is it 'alive') until it is actually born. That is why we call the process 'giving birth' - that is the start of life. When we measure somebody's birthday, we don't start the year 0 when the child was first conceived, we start it from when the child is born because that is when life truly begins.


[ Parent ]

Re: Should the abortion laws be liberalised? (#47)

by Loz on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 11:55:28 PM GMT

We're not talking about when a child is conceived - we are talking about a period at which that child could survive - it is 'alive' enough to be bought into this world depending on whatever the circumstances may be.

That baby then has its life ended - it really cannot be considered anything but murder.

It is a life in there, and quite wrongly you are neglecting the significance of that.

True, few people have abortions at that stage, true in most cases there will be good reason - but for the small minority of cases where a prospective mother has simply got cold feet - it really is pretty disgraceful that the child - at a stage it could easily be born has its life terminated before it has even begun.

I would rather that child be born and taken away from the mother who doesn't want it than to never have it all.

Anybody that shows such reckless regard for human life, and is so selfish that they will having cared for that child right up until that stage then make the (yes tough) decision to end a life is really probably never fit to be a parent in the first place.

My position is still pro choice up until a certain stage, I have great sympathy with people that really are not ready to bring children into this world - but ultimately, once you reach a certain stage, the life of the child comes into play, and that time they can start feeling pain, at least 20 weeks, possibly even less.

You say what about the mother, I say what about the baby?


[ Parent ]

Re: Should the abortion laws be liberalised? (#49)

by NorthernMonkey on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 12:14:07 AM GMT

That baby then has its life ended - it really cannot be considered anything but murder.

Well it can be considered anything but murder, and indeed is considered to not be murder.

The life hasn't ended because the life hasn't even begun.

The bottom line is that a fetus is not 'alive' - it is a potential life, but then it is a potential life since conception.

So if by 2050, theoretically speaking, medical science manages to be able to make a 6 week old fetus live and grow independently outside the mother, then you'd want to see abortion banned for anything from 6 weeks onwards would you?


[ Parent ]

Re: Should the abortion laws be liberalised? (#52)

by Loz on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 12:45:45 AM GMT

In which case clearly you are ok with killing a child right up until birth - as they are not in your definition 'alive'.

That's your moral choice - none the less a sick one.

As for your last arguement I've already discussed that.


[ Parent ]

Re: Should the abortion laws be liberalised? (#58)

by NorthernMonkey on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 02:54:22 PM GMT

You're the 'sick' one for wanting to take further rights away from women.

I've already said I support keeping the limit at 24 weeks and only agree with abortion up to birth for cases of rape or physical danger to the mother.


[ Parent ]

Re: Should the abortion laws be liberalised? (#65)

by Loz on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 03:47:31 PM GMT

A right to murder an innocent baby? Some right that is.

Once again - you made the stupid point about what medical science can do in the future and logically what flows from your own reasoning is that a baby isn't alive until it is born - so you would be happy to kill it at any time up until that point.

So what logic do you use in deciding a 24 week limit?


[ Parent ]

Re: Should the abortion laws be liberalised? (#67)

by NorthernMonkey on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 04:12:05 PM GMT

Firstly, it's not a baby, it's a fetus. And yes, a woman's right is a very important right and one the majority of Labour members should stick up for, not flip-flop on the basis of a TV show.

To me, there has to be a sensible cut off point for a woman to make a decision and the current law satisfies that at 24 weeks. I can't see the time limit being raised any more than it is anyway.

On a related point, you argue that you can't support abortion when a fetus can survive as you consider it 'murder'. So what logic do you use in choosing a 20 week limit? As the statistics near the bottom show, no fetus younger than 22 weeks is capable of surviving, so why not push for a 22 week limit? Where did your 20 week view come from? It seems you've just plucked that figure from thin air.


[ Parent ]

Re: Should the abortion laws be liberalised? (#70)

by Loz on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 04:33:52 PM GMT

"Firstly, it's not a baby, it's a fetus. And yes, a woman's right is a very important right and one the majority of Labour members should stick up for, not flip-flop on the basis of a TV show."

I'm not talking about Labour members - there is plenty of those that would agree with me, but that is not important to me - it isn't the issue.

The pro abortionists clearly don't like to use the term'baby' maybe they do have some goodness in them - but ultimately, it has a heart, and it feels pain - to those babies born at that time, to their parents, they are as good as a baby, born or not.

"To me, there has to be a sensible cut off point for a woman to make a decision and the current law satisfies that at 24 weeks. I can't see the time limit being raised any more than it is anyway."

So why not 23 weeks?

You haven't answered the question - you have simply envoked the word of law to hid from the question.

"On a related point, you argue that you can't support abortion when a fetus can survive as you consider it 'murder'. So what logic do you use in choosing a 20 week limit? As the statistics near the bottom show, no fetus younger than 22 weeks is capable of surviving, so why not push for a 22 week limit? Where did your 20 week view come from? It seems you've just plucked that figure from thin air. "

There is great confusion within the medical community, on an international scale as to the period an unborn baby begins to feel pain - some very credible assessments have said it begins to flicker at just 20 weeks, some say even sooner than that.

I think we need to do further research into this, instead of MPs going into this with made up minds. It defeats the object here, and ensures rubber stamp politics.


[ Parent ]

Re: Should the abortion laws be liberalised? (#73)

by NorthernMonkey on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 05:08:41 PM GMT

The pro abortionists clearly don't like to use the term'baby' maybe they do have some goodness in them - but ultimately, it has a heart, and it feels pain - to those babies born at that time, to their parents, they are as good as a baby, born or not.

Well the potential child quite literally does not have a heart initially as the heart has to develop over time. It doesn't have a heart at conception and for a good time from then on.

Whether a fetus can feel pain at an early stage is highly debatable and it's also disputed whether such 'pain' is actually in any way similar to the kind of pain we can feel.

And if parents feel their potential child is as good as a baby then good for them. But many pregnant women don't feel that way and don't love their potential child and don't want to have it. That's why it should be left up to the woman herself to make this difficult decision.

So why not 23 weeks?

Because the law today stands at 24 weeks and I'd be opposed to any further restrictions that would fly in the face my pro-choice views and it would give the anti-choice lobby encouragement to go even further.

There is great confusion within the medical community, on an international scale as to the period an unborn baby begins to feel pain - some very credible assessments have said it begins to flicker at just 20 weeks, some say even sooner than that.

And there are also some very credible assessments that say a fetus cannot feel pain until much later than that.

The bottom line is that the statistics show 22 weeks is the very earliest a fetus can survive independently, therefore it makes no sense that you support lowering the limit to 20 weeks. You're quite prepared to cut back womens' rights on the basis of hysteria and/or flimsy evidence.


[ Parent ]

Re: Should the abortion laws be liberalised? (#77)

by Loz on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 05:35:42 PM GMT

"Well the potential child quite literally does not have a heart initially as the heart has to develop over time. It doesn't have a heart at conception and for a good time from then on."

I believe it is actually as little as 18 days the process begins.

I also didn't state that it did at conception

"Whether a fetus can feel pain at an early stage is highly debatable and it's also disputed whether such 'pain' is actually in any way similar to the kind of pain we can feel."

An early stage yes, but after 20 weeks it certainly isn't conclusive either way. I would prefer to be cautious in such circumstances.

"And if parents feel their potential child is as good as a baby then good for them. But many pregnant women don't feel that way and don't love their potential child and don't want to have it. That's why it should be left up to the woman herself to make this difficult decision."

These people should have made their lives up a long while ago - not 20 weeks into the pregnancy. It simply isn't fair on the child at that stage.

"Because the law today stands at 24 weeks and I'd be opposed to any further restrictions that would fly in the face my pro-choice views and it would give the anti-choice lobby encouragement to go even further."

Oh so thats what its about - not the actual facts of the case, you just don't want to give any success to the pro life movement.

How exactly does it fly in the face of your pro choice views? What is it that ties you to that 24 week limit?

"And there are also some very credible assessments that say a fetus cannot feel pain until much later than that.

The bottom line is that the statistics show 22 weeks is the very earliest a fetus can survive independently, therefore it makes no sense that you support lowering the limit to 20 weeks. You're quite prepared to cut back womens' rights on the basis of hysteria and/or flimsy evidence."

How can it be flimsy when your own post acknowledges the debate on the very issue is legitimate?

As I've said, I say 20 weeks (perhaps even 17) not because of survival but because of the evidence to suggest an unborn child could feel pain at that period. The more human it becomes - the less we should be contemplating abortion as an option.

 







[ Parent ]

Re: Should the abortion laws be liberalised? (#78)

by NorthernMonkey on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 06:44:42 PM GMT

Loz, this conversation isn't going anywhere. We're just going over the same questions and going round in circles.

I disagree with you strongly and vice versa, let's leave it at that.


[ Parent ]

Should the Abortion Laws be Liberalised? | 106 comments (106 topical)
Display: Sort: