Mps Prepare For Abortion Battle Posted: 05-07-07 06:02am
A parliamentary battle to cut the time
limit on abortions from its current level
of 24 weeks is being prepared by MPs.
New technology has shed light on early
foetal development
Campaigners plan to "hijack" the
Government's forthcoming changes to the
law on fertilisation and embryology to
stage what would be the first full-scale
Commons vote on lowering the legal limit
for 17 years.
A leaked memo from Caroline Flint, the
public health minister, has revealed that
ministers are preparing to be confronted
with the incendiary move.
In a letter to Tony Blair, John Prescott
and Sir Gus O'Donnell, the Cabinet
Secretary, dated May 3, Miss Flint sets
out her proposals to publish her draft
Human Tissue and Embryos Bill.
But she admits: "There is a possibility
that some members may wish to use the
opportunity presented by the draft Bill to
discuss wider issues dealt with by the
original legislation... and related topics
of interest, notably abortion (under the
Abortion Act 1967).
advertisement
"Provisional advice from the House
authorities suggests that these topics
could not simply be ruled out as a matter
of scope."
Campaigners for a change to the abortion
limit seized on Ms Flint's admission and
vowed to begin a full-scale campaign for a
Commons vote, which by tradition would see
MPs deciding according to their conscience
and not having to follow party orders.
Recent medical advances have led
increasingly to the survival of babies
born before 24 weeks, leading to claims
that the limit should be cut to 21 or 20
weeks.
Ann Widdecombe, the Conservative MP and
former Home Office minister, called the
current rules "lunatic" and vowed: "We
will not let this opportunity be missed.
We will go for it and we will go hard and
fast on it. I think it would be a major
campaign and I would absolutely be
there."
Another Tory, Ann Winterton, said: "What
we want to see is a wide-ranging debate,
because science has changed dramatically.
Those images of the child 'walking' in the
womb changed everything significantly. I
don't believe in abortion for social
reasons."
Michael Howard, the former Tory leader,
whose call for a cut in the limit raised
abortion as a general election issue in
2005, said: "I haven't changed my views, I
do believe the limits should be reduced to
20 weeks and I would vote for that."
Campaigners will push to amend the
Government's Bill to include a section on
abortion, which would then be voted on.
Whether such an amendment was allowed
would be up to the Speaker, Michael
Martin.
The last time a full Commons debate on the
issue was held was in 1990, when the
current level of 24 weeks was decided.
The images referred to by Ann Winterton
were of a 12-week-old foetus stretching,
kicking and apparently "walking" in its
mother's womb, vividly illustrating the
development and behaviour of the unborn
child in the earliest stages of life.
The scans published three years ago by
Professor Stuart Campbell, the
obstetrician and ultrasound pioneer,
reignited debate about the rights of
foetuses, with pro-life campaigners
arguing that even the smallest were far
more advanced than scientists had
realised.
In particular, debate focused on whether
late abortions were being carried out on
some foetuses which might have survived
outside the womb.
Last year, more than 150 MPs signed an
early-day motion calling for the
Government to set up a committee to
examine the scientific, medical and social
changes relating to abortion, only for it
to be rejected.
As those MPs prepare to debate the matter,
a second image may also concern them. That
is the picture of Amillia Taylor, the
world's smallest surviving baby, who
weighed less than 10 ounces and measured
nine and a half inches when she was born
in Florida last October, at less than 22
weeks.
Figures show that more than 1,200 babies
are aborted in Britain each year between
22 and 24 weeks. Last week, a survey of
more than 300 GPs by Pulse magazine found
that more than half thought the limit
should be reduced. One in five believe
that it should be banned completely.
Nonetheless, the Royal College of
Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, along
with the British Medical Association and
the Royal College of Nursing strongly
oppose any reduction in the time limits.
Michaela Aston, of the charity Life, said:
"We would welcome any review of abortion
which would save unborn lives and
safeguard women's health. We want to see a
substantial reduction in the time limit,
but what we don't want to see is any kind
of liberalisation of laws for early
abortion, such as abortion on demand, or
limiting consent to one doctor."
Dr Ellie Lee, one of the authors of
research last month on the reasons why
women have late abortions, said many did
not realise they were pregnant, especially
if bleeding continued during their
pregnancy or if they were taking the
contraceptive pill.
|
Moo
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 20 Feb 2006 Posts: 1066 Location: London
Thanks: 21
Thanked:111
Posted: 05-07-07 09:08am
I personally have no problem with the
current 24week time limit considering most
'social' abortions are performed before
the 13th week (with over half of all
abortions being before 10weeks).
Women aborting on foetal handicap or
maternal health would still be able to
choose abortion at any stage so if they
wish to reduce the time limit to 20weeks
or so then I don't have any issue with
that either.
I feel that any reduction on the time
limit is absolutely disgusting (naturally
as a pro-choicer); Moo, I consider your
content with a legal reduction to be quite
un-pro-choice-like. If you personally
disagree with late-term abortion, then
that's fine; if you support a legal
reduction, then you are not acting in a
true pro-choice way and are enforcing your
own views regarding the issue on all other
women. One's views on the abortion debate
are constructed by one's own personal
morals, therefore the law must be open for
all women to be allowed
to follow their morals, i.e. women who
don't agree with abortions after 20 weeks
gestation won't have one after 20 weeks
gestation, whereas other women who don't
have a problem with terminating after that
time are equally permitted to abide by
their 'laws'.
Kypros.
|
Jincks013
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 18 Apr 2007 Posts: 1174 Location: ,
Thanks: 22
Thanked:9
Posted: 05-08-07 00:02am
Though I personally do not support post
viability elective abortion I am not so
arrogant as to force others to my will to
satisfy my own ego. I would not do it but
that doesn't mean I won't support someone
elses choice to do so.
|
Tylanas
Especially EHEALTHy
Joined: 13 Jul 2005 Posts: 12985
Thanks: 3
Thanked:0
Posted: 05-08-07 00:14am
Kypros
wrote:
I feel that any reduction on
the time limit is absolutely disgusting
(naturally as a pro-choicer); Moo, I
consider your content with a legal
reduction to be quite un-pro-choice-like.
If you personally disagree with late-term
abortion, then that's fine; if you support
a legal reduction, then you
are not acting in a true pro-choice way
and are enforcing your own views regarding
the issue on all other women. One's views
on the abortion debate are constructed by
one's own personal morals, therefore the
law must be open for all women to be allowed
to follow their morals, i.e. women who
don't agree with abortions after 20 weeks
gestation won't have one after 20 weeks
gestation, whereas other women who don't
have a problem with terminating after that
time are equally permitted to abide by
their 'laws'.
Kypros.
Kypros, your version of pro-choice is
not the
only right form of pro-choice. Stop
being so arrogant as to think that your
version is the absolute right form. You're
wrong. If pro-choice is about choice, then
we have the choice to be against killing a
viable fetus frivolously.
I feel that any reduction on
the time limit is absolutely disgusting
(naturally as a pro-choicer); Moo, I
consider your content with a legal
reduction to be quite un-pro-choice-like.
If you personally disagree with late-term
abortion, then that's fine; if you support
a legal reduction, then you
are not acting in a true pro-choice way
and are enforcing your own views regarding
the issue on all other women. One's views
on the abortion debate are constructed by
one's own personal morals, therefore the
law must be open for all women to be allowed
to follow their morals, i.e. women who
don't agree with abortions after 20 weeks
gestation won't have one after 20 weeks
gestation, whereas other women who don't
have a problem with terminating after that
time are equally permitted to abide by
their 'laws'.
Kypros.
Kypros, your version of pro-choice is
not the
only right form of pro-choice. Stop
being so arrogant as to think that your
version is the absolute right form. You're
wrong. If pro-choice is about choice, then
we have the choice to be against killing a
viable fetus
frivolously.
It is not my version of pro-choice;
it's what pro-choice is! It's the support
of a person's right to control their body,
whether or not you disagree with the
actual action. If you advocate a reduction
in the time limit in which a woman is
allowed to terminate, you are not acting
in a pro-choice way; I'm sorry, but you
only have to grasp the mildest
understanding of the term 'pro-choice' to
realise this.
Of course people have the right to choose
against abortion - I myself
would be in a very bad situation to
consider it (that's my
choice). You're saying it in a way that
suggests that I disagree with the choice
and believe all women should abort
frivolously. Methinks you are
being arrogant here. You are
making excuses to 'fit' your own beliefs
in as pro-choice; I don't deny that you
are pro-choice, but some of your views are
not (your refusal to support late-term
social abortions legally). I'd rather you
just face what your own morals are by
definition before you call me arrogant.
|
Tylanas
Especially EHEALTHy
Joined: 13 Jul 2005 Posts: 12985
Thanks: 3
Thanked:0
Posted: 05-08-07 14:27pm
Kypros
wrote:
Eiri
wrote:
Kypros
wrote:
I feel that any reduction on
the time limit is absolutely disgusting
(naturally as a pro-choicer); Moo, I
consider your content with a legal
reduction to be quite un-pro-choice-like.
If you personally disagree with late-term
abortion, then that's fine; if you support
a legal reduction, then you
are not acting in a true pro-choice way
and are enforcing your own views regarding
the issue on all other women. One's views
on the abortion debate are constructed by
one's own personal morals, therefore the
law must be open for all women to be allowed
to follow their morals, i.e. women who
don't agree with abortions after 20 weeks
gestation won't have one after 20 weeks
gestation, whereas other women who don't
have a problem with terminating after that
time are equally permitted to abide by
their 'laws'.
Kypros.
Kypros, your version of pro-choice is
not the
only right form of pro-choice. Stop
being so arrogant as to think that your
version is the absolute right form. You're
wrong. If pro-choice is about choice, then
we have the choice to be against killing a
viable fetus
frivolously.
It is not my version of pro-choice;
it's what pro-choice
is!
Yes, it is your "version". But for
some reason, you think that just because
it's the word "choice" that there cannot
be sensibilities involved.
Quote:
tr>
It's the support
of a person's right to control their body,
whether or not you disagree with the
actual action. If you advocate a reduction
in the time limit in which a woman is
allowed to terminate, you are not acting
in a pro-choice way; I'm sorry, but you
only have to grasp the mildest
understanding of the term 'pro-choice' to
realise this.
I'm not for reducing the time limit.
However, the fact that you are capable of
ignoring basic biology frightens me almost
as much as pro-lifers. Let's take stock of
what you believe:
Is the zef alive? (y/n)
Is abortion killing? (y/n)
Do you believe that fetuses become viable
at some point? (y/n)
What does viability mean to you? In my
opinion, it means the fetus has almost the
same amount of rights as a born baby. If
it is killed through guns or violence, it
counts as murder. It should not be
aborted unless there is deformations of
danger to the mother or other
complications.
I feel you do have to look into "why?"
for every single case of late-term
abortion. I do not believe in blind
rulings, of blanketed terms.
Quote:
tr>
[...]your refusal
to support late-term social abortions
legally)[...]
That's an out-right lie.
I do support them... but
there has to be a reason. I don't care if
the reason is "I couldn't get money until
now". Fine, good enough for me.
|
Birch
Supporter
Joined: 07 Nov 2005 Posts: 4047 Location: Bliss,
Thanks: 143
Thanked:13
Posted: 05-08-07 14:36pm
Kypros
wrote:
I feel that any reduction on
the time limit is absolutely disgusting
(naturally as a pro-choicer); Moo, I
consider your content with a legal
reduction to be quite un-pro-choice-like.
If you personally disagree with late-term
abortion, then that's fine; if you support
a legal reduction, then you
are not acting in a true pro-choice way
and are enforcing your own views regarding
the issue on all other women. One's views on
the abortion debate are constructed by
one's own personal morals, therefore the
law must be open for all women to be allowed
to follow their morals, i.e. women who
don't agree with abortions after 20 weeks
gestation won't have one after 20 weeks
gestation, whereas other women who don't
have a problem with terminating after that
time are equally permitted to abide by
their 'laws'.
Kypros.
I think this sentence says it extremely
well-and I just may swing back over to
prochoice regardless of gestation time
because of this concept.
I feel that any reduction on
the time limit is absolutely disgusting
(naturally as a pro-choicer); Moo, I
consider your content with a legal
reduction to be quite un-pro-choice-like.
If you personally disagree with late-term
abortion, then that's fine; if you support
a legal reduction, then you
are not acting in a true pro-choice way
and are enforcing your own views regarding
the issue on all other women. One's views
on the abortion debate are constructed by
one's own personal morals, therefore the
law must be open for all women to be allowed
to follow their morals, i.e. women who
don't agree with abortions after 20 weeks
gestation won't have one after 20 weeks
gestation, whereas other women who don't
have a problem with terminating after that
time are equally permitted to abide by
their 'laws'.
Kypros.
Kypros, your version of pro-choice is
not the
only right form of pro-choice. Stop
being so arrogant as to think that your
version is the absolute right form. You're
wrong. If pro-choice is about choice, then
we have the choice to be against killing a
viable fetus
frivolously.
It is not my version of pro-choice;
it's what pro-choice
is!
Yes, it is your "version". But for
some reason, you think that just because
it's the word "choice" that there cannot
be sensibilities involved.
Quote:
tr>
It's the support
of a person's right to control their body,
whether or not you disagree with the
actual action. If you advocate a reduction
in the time limit in which a woman is
allowed to terminate, you are not acting
in a pro-choice way; I'm sorry, but you
only have to grasp the mildest
understanding of the term 'pro-choice' to
realise this.
I'm not for reducing the time limit.
However, the fact that you are capable of
ignoring basic biology frightens me almost
as much as pro-lifers. Let's take stock of
what you believe:
Is the zef alive? (y/n)
Is abortion killing? (y/n)
Do you believe that fetuses become viable
at some point?
(y/n)
I answer yes to all three questions. I
think they are facts, not opinions.
I do not "ignore basic biology" in the
slightest! I know all about
viability, but it doesn't change my view
that a
legal woman with rights and recognition as
a person should have more rights than a
developed foetus which is not yet born,
therefore per se not a legal person with
rights
Eiri
wrote:
What does viability mean to
you? In my opinion, it means the fetus has
almost the same amount of rights as a born
baby. If it is killed through guns or
violence, it counts as murder. It
should not be aborted unless there is
deformations of danger to the mother or
other
complications.
Well, there you go, you said it yourself:
"...it means the foetus has almost the same
rights as a born baby". "Almost the same"
and "the same" are not... the same! In my
opinion, viability is another stage of
pregnancy, just as the development of
limbs, eyelashes etc. and the foetus's
ability to open its eyes. Now, I
would consider that basic biology.
Eiri
wrote:
I feel you do have
to look into "why?" for every single case
of late-term abortion. I do not believe in
blind rulings, of blanketed
terms.
Why should this be specially applied to
late-term foetuses and not early-term
ones, too?
Eiri
wrote:
Quote:
tr>
[...]your refusal
to support late-term social abortions
legally)[...]
That's an out-right
lie.
An outright mistake. I apologise.
Eiri
wrote:
I do support them... but
there has to be a reason. I don't care if
the reason is "I couldn't get money until
now". Fine, good enough for
me.
Why does there have to be a reason for
late-term abortions but not early-term?
They are still the same act. All foetuses,
regardless of gestational age, are not
legally-recognised persons and are still
parasitic in nature. These are some of the
main factors of why I don't oppose
late-term abortions. Also, I'm and
individualist who believes that women's rights
to their own bodies shouldn't be
restricted. Accessing their own
bodies in whichever way they choose does
not infringe on the rights of any other
person.
Additionally, I think you're being quite
hypocritical: you say that you regard the
abortion of a late-term foetus as murder
since you consider the foetus to be a
person, but you still agree with abortion
at this stage for economical or foetal
health/deformity reasons, for example.
With this logic, I should have the right
to murder my 2-year old because
it is severely deformed and I can't afford
to pay for him/her.
My outstanding message is: an abortion is
an abortion is an abortion. The same act,
whatever the gestation, whatever the
method used to do it. The body still
belongs to the women however old her
foetus is. The foetus doesn't have any
rights until birth. Women (legally) should
be allowed to abort as they wish. Thus, I
conclude that it is only logical to back
late-term abortions (for any reasons). I'm
sorry but abortion is not a circumstancial
issue at all, as many choose to believe. A
woman should not be refused the right to
terminate because of x reason (or lack of
a reason, rather) but not for y reason -
still the same act, the same outcome for
the foetus, the same foetus that has no
rights.
Kypros.
|
Tylanas
Especially EHEALTHy
Joined: 13 Jul 2005 Posts: 12985
Thanks: 3
Thanked:0
Posted: 05-08-07 15:10pm
So the bottom line is that you would
approve of the murder of a fetus one day
before its due date just because the
mother "felt" like doing it.
I feel that any reduction on
the time limit is absolutely disgusting
(naturally as a pro-choicer); Moo, I
consider your content with a legal
reduction to be quite un-pro-choice-like.
If you personally disagree with late-term
abortion, then that's fine; if you support
a legal reduction, then you
are not acting in a true pro-choice way
and are enforcing your own views regarding
the issue on all other women. One's views on
the abortion debate are constructed by
one's own personal morals, therefore the
law must be open for all women to be allowed
to follow their morals, i.e. women who
don't agree with abortions after 20 weeks
gestation won't have one after 20 weeks
gestation, whereas other women who don't
have a problem with terminating after that
time are equally permitted to abide by
their 'laws'.
Kypros.
I think this sentence says it extremely
well-and I just may swing back over to
prochoice regardless of gestation time
because of this concept.
I will do some
thinking...
Yes, I don't care what anybody says but
any pro-choicer who disagrees with the
legal
right to have an abortion,
regardless of the reasons and gestational
period, is a complete hyprocrite. Being
opposed to late-term abortions on a moral
basis is fine with me, but enforcing your
own beliefs as a law that would restrict
women to make their choices is terrible.
Just as many pro-choice advocates say: "If
you don't agree with abortion, then don't
have one," I say: "If you don't agree with
late-term abortion, then don't have one".
Eiri
wrote:
So the bottom line is that
you would approve of the homicide of a
fetus...
I'm going to halt you right there: foetuses cannot
be murdered. But
seeing as you consider late-term foetuses
to be people (and you approve of late-term
abortions for non-social reasons), the
bottom line is you believe that 'people'
should be murdered as their parents
don't want to raise them due to their
serious deformities and lack of good
income. I'm sorry, but by your beliefs
(that late-term foetuses are people who should be
allowed to be killed for (by your own
definition) 'good' reasons), a mother
should be allowed to kill her one-year old
(a baby and person, just as a late-term
foetus apparently is) under the same
circumstances. Are you getting to see now
why I think abortion is a one-way street?
Eiri
wrote:
... one day before its due
date just because the mother "felt" like
doing it.
Well, I don't disagree with it morally,
because, on an ethical basis, I believe
abortion
is justified by the fact that foetuses are
rightless non-person parasites and women
are individual human beings with
rights. Period. Anybody who classes
themselves as an abortion proponent must
agree with it. The statement is not
inflected for gestational time either.
However, on the one (negative) hand, I
believe any female who would abort at any
time in the pregnancy simply
as she felt like it is stupid and
extremely careless. Doesn't mean they
shouldn't have the right to remove an invader
of their uterus though, does it?
Let it be their careless act to deal with
themselves. It isn't your, or anybody
else's womb. And no legal person is being
murdered so there is
absolutely no reason why it should be
illegal.
Kypros (I wasn't expecting us to fall back
into this debate .
Still, gets it going, doesn't it?)
|
Tylanas
Especially EHEALTHy
Joined: 13 Jul 2005 Posts: 12985
Thanks: 3
Thanked:0
Posted: 05-10-07 18:13pm
I'll put it in your words.
Would you approve of killing a fetus
the day before it is due to be born, just
because the mother "feels" like
it?
I've got to say... What about birth makes
the baby so special? I understand the
concept of viability. The only thing birth
does is disconnect the fetus fromt he
mother. Yes, it's still "connected" to the
mother until birth. But at that stage, an
abortion would involve induced labor
anyway. So why couldn't the mother not kill
it and give it up for adoption?
Younger fetuses than that survive. She has
to give birth to it one way or another.
Just as I do not approve of killing a dog
just because you don't want it as a pet
anymore, I do not approve of killing
fetuses that are past viability unless
there is a good reason. I do approve of
killing a pet if it is in pain. You see
how it is always a grey issue? it's all
circumstantial!!!!!
Fetal age is an issue, and I think
anyone who ignores this is blind to a huge
part of the abortion debate.
Would you approve of killing a fetus
the day before it is due to be born, just
because the mother "feels" like
it?
I agree that she has the right to do so,
although she would be a pretty careless
so-and-so if she did it simply because she
felt like it. Still her body, still her
choice, however wrong the decision may
be.
Eiri
wrote:
I've got to say... What
about birth makes the baby so
special?
You must be missing one of the - if not
the - most important parts
of the abortion debate. Birth is special
because the foetus becomes a person; it
ceases to be a parasite; it is no longer
invading the body of another person; it is
now granted rights as a fully fledged
human being. They are
what make birth so special.
Eiri
wrote:
I understand the concept of
viability.
Good, so do I.
Eiri
wrote:
The only thing birth does is
disconnect the fetus fromt he
mother.
If you have believed this during your
whole involvement in the abortion debate
then what an ignorant individual you have
been! Birth results in the foetus
becoming a person; ceasing to be a
parasite; no longer being an invador in
the body of another person; it now being
granted rights as a fully fledged human
being.
Eiri
wrote:
Yes, it's still "connected"
to the mother until birth. But at that
stage, an abortion would involve induced
labor anyway. So why couldn't the mother
not kill
it and give it up for
adoption?
Because she is not obliged to give up her
baby for adoption and she most likely
doesn't want to! Being in a later
gestation doesn't mean that adoption is
preferred. That is an extremely ignorant
remark. There is no difference between
making that suggestion about an early-term
foetus and a late-term one: both would
cope better with having a dead foetus
rather than a living one. The reason the
mother couldn't kill it and give it up for
adoption is that she doesn't want to give up her baby
for adoption. I can't speak for
all, but I feel that adoption would be
much harder to cope with than abortion.
Ask Cari why she would choose abortion
every time and then see if you feel any
different. The process of the late-term
abortion ending in birth is irrelevant -
an abortion is an abortion is an
abortion.
Eiri
wrote:
Younger fetuses than that
survive. She has to give birth to it one
way or
another.
Yeah, and? Exactly my point, she has to
give birth to it one way or another so she
can decide whether she wants this to come
after an abortion or what she would
consider an emotionally-draining decision
to have it adopted.
Eiri
wrote:
Just as I do not approve of
killing a dog just because you don't want
it as a pet anymore, I do not approve of
killing fetuses that are past viability
unless there is a good
reason.
Dogs are not foetuses; also dogs are not
parasitic: they are born.
Again, you are being irrelevant. At least
compare foetuses with something that is in
another living thing's body.
Eiri
wrote:
I do approve of killing a
pet if it is in pain. You see how it is
always a grey issue? it's all
circumstantial!!!!!
No, I don't actually. One more time you
are being irrelevant: killing dogs in pain
and aborting parasitic entities are
totally different (not in the animal-human
way), largely as dogs are born and
foetuses are not.
Some people don't approve of killing
pets that are in pain. You do. I do. These
are personal morals and I
definitely believe that personal morals
must never, ever ever ever be enforced as
a law. The law must be open in such cases
for people to come to their own morals: if
you don't agree with abortions, don't have
one; if you don't agree with late-term
abortions, don't have one".
Eiri
wrote:
Fetal age is an
issue, and I think anyone
who ignores this is blind to a huge part
of the abortion
debate.
I agree with the bit I underlined; however
I did not ignore - and have never ignored
- foetal age when it comes to the abortion
debate. I've studied it and come to the
conclusion (that i chose because I
consider it to be right) that it is
irrelevant to [b]every woman's right to
enforce her own morals upon her own
body[/u].
Kypros.
|
Birch
Supporter
Joined: 07 Nov 2005 Posts: 4047 Location: Bliss,
Thanks: 143
Thanked:13
Posted: 05-12-07 17:45pm
I think I like Kypros' stance and am
starting to agree with it. The law should
be open so that my morals do not become
what someone else is legally bound to do.
Someone else will live with whatever
decision she makes, not me, so my morals
have no place influencing individuals
private decisions.
Yes, perhaps, but it gives the people the
basic freedom they need . I am known
to be very contraversial in some of my
opinions but I don't care - I feel that
they are right morally (in the sense that
the citizens can act how they wish without
infringing on others' rights).
I admit, late-term abortions can be harder
emotionally, physically, and ethically,
but I would be much more uncomfortable
placing my beliefs on women who want to
terminate in such a position. Even if you
dislike late-term abortions - or abortions
in general - you cannot ignore the fact
that personhood is developed at
birth and all fowtuses are rightless
invaders of their mother's womb.
That's all I need to take into
consideration to make me an advocate of
all aspects of personal body control
because, at the end of the day, amongst
all the other nasty things, that is what
every abortion is.
Kypros.
|
Birch
Supporter
Joined: 07 Nov 2005 Posts: 4047 Location: Bliss,
Thanks: 143
Thanked:13
Posted: 05-12-07 18:11pm
Kypros
wrote:
Birch
wrote:
Man, that's a tough
position.
Yes, perhaps, but it gives the people the
basic freedom they need . I am known
to be very contraversial in some of my
opinions but I don't care - I feel that
they are right morally (in the sense that
the citizens can act how they wish without
infringing on others' rights).
I admit, late-term abortions can be harder
emotionally, physically, and ethically,
but I would be much more uncomfortable
placing my beliefs on women who want to
terminate in such a position. Even if you
dislike late-term abortions - or abortions
in general - you cannot ignore the fact
that personhood is developed at
birth and all fowtuses are rightless
invaders of their mother's womb.
That's all I need to take into
consideration to make me an advocate of
all aspects of personal body control
because, at the end of the day, amongst
all the other nasty things, that is what
every abortion is.
Kypros.
Yes, I can understand what you are saying.
It sounds harsh, but it is factually true
and I appreciate it as so.
I'm also trying to tie it in together with
other concepts that inevitably come up.
Such as drug use-one should be able to
make autonomous decisions about one's own
body, but how far does it go? Using
addictive, body destroying drugs such as
crack and heroin negatively effect the
person as well as family, friends, and
society.
I can see the difference between abortion
(between a woman and her womb) of course,
but I remember in a previous post that you
think people should be able to use drugs
at will...is that right? If I'm wrong,
I'm sorry. Just curious what you think
about this.
Yes, perhaps, but it gives the people the
basic freedom they need . I am known
to be very contraversial in some of my
opinions but I don't care - I feel that
they are right morally (in the sense that
the citizens can act how they wish without
infringing on others' rights).
I admit, late-term abortions can be harder
emotionally, physically, and ethically,
but I would be much more uncomfortable
placing my beliefs on women who want to
terminate in such a position. Even if you
dislike late-term abortions - or abortions
in general - you cannot ignore the fact
that personhood is developed at
birth and all fowtuses are rightless
invaders of their mother's womb.
That's all I need to take into
consideration to make me an advocate of
all aspects of personal body control
because, at the end of the day, amongst
all the other nasty things, that is what
every abortion is.
Kypros.
Yes, I can understand what you are saying.
It sounds harsh, but it is factually true
and I appreciate it as so.
I'm also trying to tie it in together with
other concepts that inevitably come up.
Such as drug use-one should be able to
make autonomous decisions about one's own
body, but how far does it go? Using
addictive, body destroying drugs such as
crack and heroin negatively effect the
person as well as family, friends, and
society.
I can see the difference between abortion
(between a woman and her womb) of course,
but I remember in a previous post that you
think people should be able to use drugs
at will...is that right? If I'm wrong,
I'm sorry. Just curious what you think
about this.
I know the post you are talking about but
it wasn't me who said that I agree with
the legalisation of drug use; actually, I
don't, because it infringes the rights of
other people and can be extremely worrying
for society; abortion isn't. Drug use far
from involves only the individual who is
taking the narcotics.
I do, however, admittedly adhere to some
very contraversial views that I don't mind
posting for people to discuss. I may get
abused for some of them - I don't know -
but I've thought them through and through
in order to come to the conclusion that my
view is right morally. If you want me to
say them, then just give me a shout and
I'd be more than happy.
|
Birch
Supporter
Joined: 07 Nov 2005 Posts: 4047 Location: Bliss,
Thanks: 143
Thanked:13
Posted: 05-12-07 18:28pm
Kypros
wrote:
Birch
wrote:
Kypros
wrote:
Birch
wrote:
Man, that's a tough
position.
Yes, perhaps, but it gives the people the
basic freedom they need . I am known
to be very contraversial in some of my
opinions but I don't care - I feel that
they are right morally (in the sense that
the citizens can act how they wish without
infringing on others' rights).
I admit, late-term abortions can be harder
emotionally, physically, and ethically,
but I would be much more uncomfortable
placing my beliefs on women who want to
terminate in such a position. Even if you
dislike late-term abortions - or abortions
in general - you cannot ignore the fact
that personhood is developed at
birth and all fowtuses are rightless
invaders of their mother's womb.
That's all I need to take into
consideration to make me an advocate of
all aspects of personal body control
because, at the end of the day, amongst
all the other nasty things, that is what
every abortion is.
Kypros.
Yes, I can understand what you are saying.
It sounds harsh, but it is factually true
and I appreciate it as so.
I'm also trying to tie it in together with
other concepts that inevitably come up.
Such as drug use-one should be able to
make autonomous decisions about one's own
body, but how far does it go? Using
addictive, body destroying drugs such as
crack and heroin negatively effect the
person as well as family, friends, and
society.
I can see the difference between abortion
(between a woman and her womb) of course,
but I remember in a previous post that you
think people should be able to use drugs
at will...is that right? If I'm wrong,
I'm sorry. Just curious what you think
about this.
I know the post you are talking about but
it wasn't me who said that I agree with
the legalisation of drug use; actually, I
don't, because it infringes the rights of
other people and can be extremely worrying
for society; abortion isn't. Drug use far
from involves only the individual who is
taking the narcotics.
I do, however, admittedly adhere to some
very contraversial views that I don't mind
posting for people to discuss. I may get
abused for some of them - I don't know -
but I've thought them through and through
in order to come to the conclusion that my
view is right morally. If you want me to
say them, then just give me a shout and
I'd be more than
happy.
Huh, I thought that was you. Sorry!
(Hhopefully whoever said that will see
this and help me out.)
Oooh, please do! I always like to hear
different opinions.
Yes, perhaps, but it gives the people the
basic freedom they need . I am known
to be very contraversial in some of my
opinions but I don't care - I feel that
they are right morally (in the sense that
the citizens can act how they wish without
infringing on others' rights).
I admit, late-term abortions can be harder
emotionally, physically, and ethically,
but I would be much more uncomfortable
placing my beliefs on women who want to
terminate in such a position. Even if you
dislike late-term abortions - or abortions
in general - you cannot ignore the fact
that personhood is developed at
birth and all fowtuses are rightless
invaders of their mother's womb.
That's all I need to take into
consideration to make me an advocate of
all aspects of personal body control
because, at the end of the day, amongst
all the other nasty things, that is what
every abortion is.
Kypros.
Yes, I can understand what you are saying.
It sounds harsh, but it is factually true
and I appreciate it as so.
I'm also trying to tie it in together with
other concepts that inevitably come up.
Such as drug use-one should be able to
make autonomous decisions about one's own
body, but how far does it go? Using
addictive, body destroying drugs such as
crack and heroin negatively effect the
person as well as family, friends, and
society.
I can see the difference between abortion
(between a woman and her womb) of course,
but I remember in a previous post that you
think people should be able to use drugs
at will...is that right? If I'm wrong,
I'm sorry. Just curious what you think
about this.
I know the post you are talking about but
it wasn't me who said that I agree with
the legalisation of drug use; actually, I
don't, because it infringes the rights of
other people and can be extremely worrying
for society; abortion isn't. Drug use far
from involves only the individual who is
taking the narcotics.
I do, however, admittedly adhere to some
very contraversial views that I don't mind
posting for people to discuss. I may get
abused for some of them - I don't know -
but I've thought them through and through
in order to come to the conclusion that my
view is right morally. If you want me to
say them, then just give me a shout and
I'd be more than
happy.
Huh, I thought that was you. Sorry!
(Hhopefully whoever said that will see
this and help me out.)
Oooh, please do! I always like to hear
different
opinions.
OK, I'll go into detail tomorrow, because
I'm off to bed soon . But I'll leave
you on a cliff here: I support the
legalisation of polygamy and incest!
There's more, but I actually cannot
remember right now
- shit I must be tired!
See ya.
|
Birch
Supporter
Joined: 07 Nov 2005 Posts: 4047 Location: Bliss,
Thanks: 143
Thanked:13
Posted: 05-12-07 18:53pm
Kypros
wrote:
OK, I'll go into detail tomorrow, because
I'm off to bed soon . But I'll leave
you on a cliff here: I support the
legalisation of polygamy and incest!
There's more, but I actually cannot
remember right now
- shit I must be tired!