|
Post by jean on Jun 2, 2018 23:25:07 GMT 1
On the Irish vote, I was rather disturbed by the celebratory mood of the pro-abortionists. Nobody is pro- abortion.They are pro- choice, which is not quite the same thing. And if changes in the law ensure that no other woman dies in the terrible way that Savita Halappanavara did, that is surely something worth celebrating.
|
|
|
Post by fascinating on Jun 2, 2018 23:43:00 GMT 1
pro-abortion means "in favour of the availability of medically induced abortion." Many are pro-abortion. Pregnant women can, individually, be pro-abortion, in their own particular circumstances.
|
|
|
Post by alancalverd on Jun 3, 2018 10:38:27 GMT 1
Indeed they can, except in places ruled by terrorists and perverts, such as Northern Ireland or Iran.
Here's a question for anyone who thinks religion is a Good Thing. Name one theocracy where you would prefer to live.
|
|
|
Post by fascinating on Jun 3, 2018 11:51:11 GMT 1
They can still be pro-abortion in those places, they just won't be able to get one (although they probably would be able to get "backstreet" abortion.
Just because someone thinks religion is good doesn't mean that they want to be ruled politically by priests.
I don't think avowedly atheistic regimes have been particularly nice to live in.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Jun 3, 2018 15:21:33 GMT 1
alancalverd said:
No, you meant de jure: a priori has a completely different meaning, but never mind. The stipulation you demand is a bizarre one, and it's beyond me why on earth you should think its lack of satisfaction should in any way justify abortion. When I said it would be much better if the "it's my body, and I'll kill if I want to" argument were replaced with something that addressed the moral issues, I did not mean "well, I don't want to pay for it."
A foetus is not a "lump of protoplasm", and neither is an embryo, nor even a fertilised egg (any more than killing is the same as murder, but the mistake you're making here is far more severe than merely an erasure of prescribed set boundaries.) And the point of my objection above, and to the "it's my body" claimants, is that it's you and they who are failing to make this distinction. By your reasoning, as laid out so far, there's no reason at all to draw any such arbitrary line - you don't want to pay for, say, an eight and a half month old baby, any more or less than you do a three month old one; and both are still within "her body".
I apologise if I have - I had no wish to. So now tell me: what is it that makes these countries that have passed such laws "civilised". Nothing to do with morality, you say. What then?
And so the difference is? Between passengers and the developing baby?
"Liability for their fate" does not include the right to terminate their existence if you so choose, however, so it's not simple at all. The only simple thing about it is it's a daft and inappropriate analogy.
Oh, I understand your point entirely - but that's not the issue. Women aren't demanding the right to abort because they don't want their babies to be mistreated in care homes! If so, they'd be out on the streets demanding their governments and churches spend more money and proper diligence on them.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Jun 3, 2018 18:19:46 GMT 1
You have a strange idea of what the word separate means. No, you have, You've admitted it has different DNA. This is how lifeforms are differentiated. God preserve us. It's like talking to a four year old. Yes, the child was always separate from the mother. At one point it was in her body; at another it wasn't. It's like Daddy's earphones when you come in, dear - sometimes they're on his head, and sometimes they're not. Or it's like your piercing bar through your nose - it's sort of part of you, isn't it, but one day you might take it out? They're in contradiction. There's no need to enter into such special cases - the issue is complicated enough. I don't think so. Not if the justification is "it's my body and no one can tell me what I should do with it" they won't. The issue I'm raising in this thread is on what justification. Errr...yes, of course it does. The issue doesn't need games with semantics or logic-chopping, either. Yeah - that's not what "pro-choice" means. That's what it means. Not in any jurisdiction I'm aware of. Sweden, perhaps, seeing as Saga Noren is presently playing that system out - I couldn't tell you the exact formulation of the law there. Not in the States, nor the UK. The issue from the Irish constitutional viewpoint was that the idea that there is any line between "human being" and "not a human being" in the development of a foetus is, as we all seem agreed, arbitrary. Their view was that it became a human being at conception, thanks to the divine creation of a human soul. Its deliberate "termination" was therefore murder. This viewpoint has not been addressed in any way, afaik, by the pro-choice lobby - the "it's my body" argument doesn't even try to address it.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Jun 3, 2018 18:30:21 GMT 1
For what it's worth, the European Directives on physical hazards take it as axiomatic that a fetus is an individual with independent and equivalent human rights from the moment of conception. Yes, there are lots of paradoxical complexities in our legal code too. Kill a woman who happens to be pregnant and you'll be charged with a double (or triple etc) murder.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Jun 3, 2018 18:34:03 GMT 1
On the Irish vote, I was rather disturbed by the celebratory mood of the pro-abortionists. Nobody is pro- abortion.They are pro- choice, which is not quite the same thing. Semantic logic-chopping games. Pro-life campaigners - many of them, anyway - would rejoinder that it would be worth celebrating if the law ensures that no baby dies in the terrible way that legal abortion entails. They have the pictures, and they ain't pretty. As for the numbers, there's no comparison.
|
|
|
Post by fascinating on Jun 3, 2018 19:00:15 GMT 1
So? I know it has different DNA and that it is different. But tbe unborn child is NOT SEPARATE from the mother.You appear not to know the meanings of the words "different" and "separate".
|
|
|
Post by jean on Jun 3, 2018 19:07:07 GMT 1
Nobody is pro- abortion.They are pro- choice, which is not quite the same thing. Semantic logic-chopping games. A necessary distinction, I'd say. You chose the term pro-choice for yourself in your OP; why did you prefer that term to pro-abortion?But you then went on to say ...but I'm very puzzled and quite disturbed by the way the argument is so often framed... I asked you how you would frame it. Have you had time to think about that yet?
|
|
|
Post by fascinating on Jun 3, 2018 19:43:58 GMT 1
For what it's worth, the European Directives on physical hazards take it as axiomatic that a fetus is an individual with independent and equivalent human rights from the moment of conception. Not in English law, as far as I can tell "in Attorney General's Reference No. 3 of 1994 where a husband stabbed his pregnant wife, causing premature birth, and the baby died due to that premature birth, in English law no murder took place. "Until she had been born alive and acquired a separate existence she could not be the victim of homicide". " "The Law Lords concurred that a fetus, although protected by the law in a number of ways, is legally not a separate person from its mother in English law. " This may be of interest www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/32332040/too-hard-to-convict-people-of-harming-unborn-babies
|
|
|
Post by alancalverd on Jun 4, 2018 7:55:43 GMT 1
Thus demonstrating as usual the superiority of English law over the crap that comes out of Europe.
During the evolution of the Physical Hazards Directive we narrowly escaped the banning of MRI on "precautionary" grounds (despite the fact that no hazard had been found from the timevarying field in 25 years of routine clinical use) and a ban on any oven that could accommodate a human (so an end to crematoria, bread factories, painted cars....). But what can you expect from an organisaton that will classify a carrot as "fruit" if you grease enough palms?
One effect of incorporating the PHD (not to be confused with PhD) into UK law has been that the radiation dose limit to the fetus of an employee has been set at rather less than the natural dose it will receive from the potassium in its mother's bones.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Jun 8, 2018 17:53:02 GMT 1
So? I know it has different DNA and that it is different. But tbe unborn child is NOT SEPARATE from the mother.You appear not to know the meanings of the words "different" and "separate". Even if your wholly idiosyncratic definition of "separate" were in any way valid - so what? Wtf has it to do with this issue? How have you determined that under your Humpty Dumpty definition of "separate" it should be lawful to kill another living being?
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Jun 8, 2018 18:15:48 GMT 1
Nobody is pro-abortion. They are pro-choice, which is not quite the same thing. I chose it for the same reason I might refer to Black Lives Matter - it's what they call themselves. Why do you think the distinction is "necessary"? The Americans Against Abortion movement changed their name, for some of their campaigns, to "Baby Choice" - presumably you believe that distinction was "necessary" too? I answered it, in essence. It should be done by addressing the moral issues, with respect to those that disagree with them on moral grounds. This "Because I'm Worth It" stance isn't good enough. That moral counter-argument would acknowledge the primary moral obligation to revere the awesome complexity and value of life, protect the vulnerable and defenceless, and if we must engage strictly in materialistic secular terms to acknowledge the supreme "rights" of human beings, at least when they are innocent and guilt-free, to continue to exist. Then the issue is one of when the developing embryo becomes a "human being." This is indeed an arbitrary determination - which should give the pro-choice side serious pause for thought, imo. That we have a situation at the moment where babies are surviving to become healthy normal happy children when they could under different circumstances have been legally killed is entirely morally unacceptable. At the moment that barrier is hovering around the 20 week point - but it's only a matter of time before that becomes less. For me, I'm very unhappy not to recognise a "separate" living creature that has its own heart-beat and a nervous system developed enough to register pain - that would draw the line at 12 weeks at the maximum - 8 weeks, to be on the safe side.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Jun 8, 2018 20:51:54 GMT 1
For what it's worth, the European Directives on physical hazards take it as axiomatic that a fetus is an individual with independent and equivalent human rights from the moment of conception. Not in English law, as far as I can tell "in Attorney General's Reference No. 3 of 1994 where a husband stabbed his pregnant wife, causing premature birth, and the baby died due to that premature birth, in English law no murder took place. "Until she had been born alive and acquired a separate existence she could not be the victim of homicide". " "The Law Lords concurred that a fetus, although protected by the law in a number of ways, is legally not a separate person from its mother in English law. " This may be of interest www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/32332040/too-hard-to-convict-people-of-harming-unborn-babiesThis was an interpretation of existing law, that entirely hinged on the legal definition of "person". Semantic logic-chopping indeed - especially when you consider that Starbucks, Amazon etc. are considered legal "persons". Melody Green recounts an incident when the AAA was exhibiting - in Wisconsin, I think - aborted foetuses of varying ages - from 15 to 24 weeks: that is, legally aborted foetuses, but some at least would have survived into healthy normal children if they'd been born premature - and the cops arrested them under suspicion of infanticide. They had to prove the babies were legally aborted, and obtained. (There is no law against exhibiting corpses, incidentally.) Anyone interested might have the integrity and courage to steel their nerves to see these babies: You can skip the lecture, if you cant stomach religious justification for the moral objections, and go to about 25:00. These are examples of the living beings legally "terminated" - and justifiably so, Fing says, thanks to her peculiar definition that they weren't "separate". As you can also see, they are something rather more than "lumps of protoplasm."
|
|