I’m not concerned, I guess I’m questioning myself and my views on this and would have assumed I was with the majority but it’s interesting that I might not be.
I don’t disagree with that statement but why does that mean we shouldn’t have laws or rules around when they should or shouldn’t have an abortion? By the same logic, if someone wants to kill someone they do not give a f*** what we think and will kill. But the fact that murder is illegal means that there’s a deterrent that will stop some people killing.
I’ve made this point a few times, but you need to really consider it as the most pertinent:
Women who feel they need an abortion will not be deterred from getting one.
That’s the point.
So any cut off point you care to introduce will result in criminalisation of desperate women.
I understand your point but it’s very narrow and super zoomed in. Your logic falls apart quite quickly if you expand it out into any other societal law and order. And completely ignoring a viable life is at play.
But I appreciate the responses.
You say “zoomed in”, I say “recognises the individual woman”
You say “expanded out” - I say your analogy does not transfer to other examples easily.
And, your point about “viable life” suggests, again, that you are coming from a pro-life perspective. You can hold that view, but I will maintain that a woman has the right to decide what happens with her body, and that absolutely takes precedence over a foetus. You’re in choppy waters if “viable” is your actual baseline
CEB wrote: ↑Tue Jun 13, 2023 10:05 pm
Which women?
The implausible thing here, with respect, is the idea that there’s a hypothetical woman who is leaning towards abortion as she nears term on her pregnancy, but that what swings her against is the rules.
That’s simply not at all what happens if you read anything about these cases.
implausible? Really?
The law as it is means you cant get an abortion at that stage unless theres medical reasons.
Please link me to one credible account of a woman who seriously considered late stage abortion but decided against it because rules is rules.
At risk of repeating myself, perhaps its not much of a decision as thanks to the law they cant get an abortion even if they want one, at that stage.
OTF Photography Ltd wrote: ↑Tue Jun 13, 2023 10:26 pm
You’re right. I’m sure a lot of murderers are in a perfectly stable frame of mind before they take someone’s life.
Well, let’s see:
Murders for financial benefit
Murders as culmination of abuse
Murders by violent men
Murders based on revenge
Pre meditated murders of all kinds
Murders to satisfy sexual desires
All murders that can be committed while “stable” and that can be rational decisions
The problem I have with decriminalising late stage abortion is it logically follows that you should decriminalise killing your children. The whole crisis, lack of support, etc continues after child birth.
CEB wrote: ↑Tue Jun 13, 2023 10:24 pm
Comparing abortion to murder is, again, using pro-life vocabulary.
The whole point here is that - as Mindsweep’s post supports - women seeking late term abortions are *always* experiencing crisis, and so comparisons to murder (and to the idea that the rule of law is an analogous deterrent in both cases) is misguided
Adz wrote: ↑Tue Jun 13, 2023 10:31 pm
The problem I have with decriminalising late stage abortion is it logically follows that you should decriminalise killing your children. The whole crisis, lack of support, etc continues after child birth.
Not to be facetious, but how does it logically follow? To me, labour/birth as a cut off is clear, and far less negotiable than any specific point in pregnancy.
Eg: “birth” is clear in a way that “ten weeks” is not a self evidently different point than “ten weeks and one day”
OTF Photography Ltd wrote: ↑Tue Jun 13, 2023 10:26 pm
You’re right. I’m sure a lot of murderers are in a perfectly stable frame of mind before they take someone’s life.
Well, let’s see:
Murders for financial benefit
Murders as culmination of abuse
Murders by violent men
Murders based on revenge
Pre meditated murders of all kinds
Murders to satisfy sexual desires
All murders that can be committed while “stable” and that can be rational decisions
Again, you’re right. All of those reasons shout that the person doing the killing based on all of those motives are stable of mind.
Adz wrote: ↑Tue Jun 13, 2023 10:31 pm
The problem I have with decriminalising late stage abortion is it logically follows that you should decriminalise killing your children. The whole crisis, lack of support, etc continues after child birth.
Not to be facetious, but how does it logically follow? To me, labour/birth as a cut off is clear, and far less negotiable than any specific point in pregnancy.
Eg: “birth” is clear in a way that “ten weeks” is not a self evidently different point than “ten weeks and one day”
Why’s that a clear cut off though? Considering this child could have been born a day before the abortion and survived but the woman in question would still be mentally unstable and in crisis at having a child.
Adz wrote: ↑Tue Jun 13, 2023 10:31 pm
The problem I have with decriminalising late stage abortion is it logically follows that you should decriminalise killing your children. The whole crisis, lack of support, etc continues after child birth.
Not to be facetious, but how does it logically follow? To me, labour/birth as a cut off is clear, and far less negotiable than any specific point in pregnancy.
Eg: “birth” is clear in a way that “ten weeks” is not a self evidently different point than “ten weeks and one day”
Why’s that a clear cut off though? Considering this child could have been born a day before the abortion and survived but the woman in question would still be mentally unstable and in crisis at having a child.
It’s a clear cut off because while a woman is experiencing pregnancy, she is exercising control of her own body. After a child has been born, any acts of harm would no longer be an act of control of her own body, but another.
OTF Photography Ltd wrote: ↑Tue Jun 13, 2023 10:26 pm
You’re right. I’m sure a lot of murderers are in a perfectly stable frame of mind before they take someone’s life.
Well, let’s see:
Murders for financial benefit
Murders as culmination of abuse
Murders by violent men
Murders based on revenge
Pre meditated murders of all kinds
Murders to satisfy sexual desires
All murders that can be committed while “stable” and that can be rational decisions
Again, you’re right. All of those reasons shout that the person doing the killing based on all of those motives are stable of mind.
You’re confusing “stability” with “ethical”. It’s not a matter of debate that there is such a thing as a premeditated murder, or a murder by someone with the capacity to recognise that it’s wrong to do so.
It’s a simple fact that some acts of murder/violence *are* rational, in the sense that they serve the interests of the person committing them.
Last edited by CEB on Tue Jun 13, 2023 10:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Not to be facetious, but how does it logically follow? To me, labour/birth as a cut off is clear, and far less negotiable than any specific point in pregnancy.
Eg: “birth” is clear in a way that “ten weeks” is not a self evidently different point than “ten weeks and one day”
Why’s that a clear cut off though? Considering this child could have been born a day before the abortion and survived but the woman in question would still be mentally unstable and in crisis at having a child.
It’s a clear cut off because while a woman is experiencing pregnancy, she is exercising control of her own body. After a child has been born, any acts of harm would no longer be an act of control of her own body, but another.
But the child is very much alive before the birth, it is a separate life.
OTF Photography Ltd wrote: ↑Tue Jun 13, 2023 10:39 pm
Why’s that a clear cut off though? Considering this child could have been born a day before the abortion and survived but the woman in question would still be mentally unstable and in crisis at having a child.
It’s a clear cut off because while a woman is experiencing pregnancy, she is exercising control of her own body. After a child has been born, any acts of harm would no longer be an act of control of her own body, but another.
But the child is very much alive before the birth, it is a separate life.
Without redefining “separate” to mean its exact opposite, that’s not true.
OTF Photography Ltd wrote: ↑Tue Jun 13, 2023 10:52 pm
You can’t say that, because that’s what ‘pro-lifers’ say. It’s very
Black and white
Nope. Not black and white.
You can say it, you can argue it. I mention the overlap to “pro life” views not to dismiss them out of hand, but to invite you to consider whether you wish to move logically in a direction towards removing women’s bodily autonomy further.
I can and will argue against the merits of such positions, but since you identified yourself as pro-choice, while claiming not to know a great deal about the subject, I thought you might be interested when your arguments drift towards those of anti abortionists.
eg, if it’s a “separate life” and “viability” is crucial, then before you use that argument to convince me of the wrongness of my position, you should probably think through where that argument takes *your* position.
It’s a clear cut off because while a woman is experiencing pregnancy, she is exercising control of her own body. After a child has been born, any acts of harm would no longer be an act of control of her own body, but another.
But the child is very much alive before the birth, it is a separate life.
Without redefining “separate” to mean its exact opposite, that’s not true.
Bizarre. This is the reason the abortion limit is where it is, isnt it?
Why does it have to take a leap from I believe we shouldn’t be killing 34 week old foetuses (which the law agrees with btw) to women shouldn’t have the right to abortion?
No one is saying that on this thread, even if you think they are implying it, that’s in your head.
OTF Photography Ltd wrote: ↑Tue Jun 13, 2023 11:01 pm
Why does it have to take a leap from I believe we shouldn’t be killing 34 week old foetuses (which the law agrees with btw) to women shouldn’t have the right to abortion?
No one is saying that on this thread, even if you think they are implying it, that’s in your head.
Women’s rights over abortions are hard won and fragile, as seen in the US. We don’t “have to take a leap”; it’s a matter of fact that if you use arguments of “viability” to delegitimise abortion at one stage of pregnancy, there are vocal, campaigning groups who will jump on that to attempt to further restrict access to abortion, based on when a foetus could feasibly be “viable”
Can you, for a moment, pause to answer as to whether the fact that you said you don’t know much about this is giving you pause? Because you started the thread claiming to not know much, but you’re not actually accepting very much that’s said by someone who has read and listened to a hall of a lot of women on this subject
I’m not saying you’re implying you want earlier limits. I’m saying that your arguments apply just as well to arguments in favour of even earlier limits.
implausible? Really?
