Sorry to step on the toes of that Speakyourbranes site, but..
"Scary Fact - more teenagers are NOT using contraception as they feel they will be ok with not using protection as most STD's can be treated."
That's a Scary Fact that she just made up, by the way.
"Where is the line, 1,6,9,20,24,36 weeks? 1, 2, 5, 15 years?? The line is no child - child, even if the child only has one cell."
The line is 24 weeks. What debate are you having?
"Do spare me the stupid argument that deliberately putting an end to life following conception isn't an immoral act.All this kant and hypocrisy about the difference between 20 and 24 weeks - indeed either more or less than that - is just mind bogglingly insulting to the intelligence of any educated person. Abortion is deliberate killing whenever it takes place OK! Now accept the immorality of that and get on with the social engineering if you must but do stop the silly rhetoric in its defence."
Ah, sweet, sweet idiots clutching thesauruses to their chests. The best kind. "Stop all this silly debating and arguing about it and just accept my stupid and backwards point of view!"
All off one page of Have Your Say. One page. I didn't go any further because reading it was giving me pinkeye.
"more teenagers are NOT using contraception as they feel they will be ok with not using protection a
That could well be true, surely?
could be true
but not based on any evidence as far as I know
It's not true.
It's been researched under the banner 'risk compensation.' It's rarely found to have any kind of significant effect that's not betetr explained by other factors. That the poster touted it as FACT is reprehensible.
surely
she was saying it's a scary fact that most teenagers believe they'll be OK. So the scary fact is what the teenagers are thinking, as opposed to what the medical grounds are...?
I'd argue it's many not most, but that's a moot point.
To go back to the comment:
"Scary Fact - more teenagers are NOT using contraception as they feel they will be ok with not using protection as most STD's can be treated."
She's stating that there are increasing numbers of teenagers out there who are foregoing contraception because there's a safety net of treatment for STIs.
First, the numbers of teens not using contraception isn't noticeably increasing; the teen preganancy rate has been rising, but then so has the population density.
Second, she's stating that teens are going to change their behaviour based on positive medical advances with STIs. There's no reliable evidence that risk compensation occurs like this; and not only is it a completely dubious argument, it's also pretty insulting to paint teenagers with this brush..
i once won a debate on the
anti-abortion side, that's how good i am.
i mean i was like devils advocate
someone's got to do it
I'm Catholic
therefore, I'm out.
is Vera Drake on the boards today?
I feel she could contribute rather substantially to this
My hugely controversial stance
Until a baby is born, it is not recognised legally as a living being. I believe a foetus becomes a baby when it is removed from the womb and would personally not have a problem with an abortion taking place at any time during the pregnancy, even the day before birth.
But fair enough if the law sees it differently. I can see my view is a minority one and I wouldn't expect it to be represented by the law.
...
"would personally not have a problem with an abortion taking place at any time during the pregnancy, even the day before birth."
are you serious?
Yeah
I don't see it as a baby until it's born. Anything else is essentially just potential to me. By which criteria you could ban any sexual proctice that doesn't aim to result in conception. I know there's a huge difference for most people, but it's not that big for me. It's just further development along the same process which ends at birth. Like I say, I'm well aware it's a minority view and a lot of people would find it disgusting.
how do c-sections figure in this scenario?
I mean, hey, it's not a birth as such, it's an extraction. Is the kid a kid or not?
Yeah, because it's been removed from the womb
alive.
Just like
if you spaff inside a girl after forty seconds of thrusting, that still counts as a full sexual encounter.
40 seconds?
That's a full date!
So to sum up
Taking the baby out and inducing its death = bad
Inducing its death, while in the womb = good
?
So the womb is basically international
waters.
I didn't say it was good
Just don't have a problem with it personally. And yeah, if you want to call it international waters, that's fair enough. As I say, it's not legally recognised as a human being until it's either born or removed by caesarian. So the precedent is there. Almost. But not really.
But
If the mother was unexpectedly killed in some kind of tragic accident, there's a good chance that non-human could survive, with assistance. Even though it hasn't been born.
If there's a chance it can survive, there's an argument that it shouldn't be killed, surely?
There's an argument, yes
And it's a fair and balanced one. It's just not one I completely buy into.
Fair enough
wow....im speechless
what happened to you whilst you were away?
i'm sorry
but this is totally ridiculous
Why?
You
don't have a problem with killing a baby 24 hours before birth. I can't articulate just how out of synch that is with the views of every other person on the planet...
I don't think of it as a baby
That is very peculiar
my cousin had a kid at 8 months, and he's perfectly healthy and happy - without meaning to get emotive and personal, can you not see how some people might find your views a little extreme? I'm completely for keeping the 24-week limit on abortion but your position seems crazy.
Absolutely I can, and I've accepted that throughout
but your cousin's child was also a 2-week old foetus at one point. Had it been aborted then, it would have been the same story as had it been aborted when it (sorry - he/she) was born imo. Great that he/she is healthy and happy, but it would be great if any aborted foetus were born to be a happy and healthy child by the same token.
True, and I suppose
the 24-week limit is a little meaningless. I'm with you in a way, I think it's entirely up to the woman carrying the child, given it's part of her body, but I think there is a point where you're dealing with a life, rather than just a collection of cells, and I think that's a little earlier than you're setting it!
Totally accept that
I'm certainly not going to thrust my opinion on anyone else, and luckily for most people, I sincerely doubt it'll become law any time soon. :-D
i think you can kill a baby if you want
liek, who cares? people gain their worth through things that happen when you're alive, not just through breathing
Well, fine but that has many implications
Should we have compulsary euthanasia for the severely brain damaged?
Should people be allowed to kill v. young children? Where is the line drawn?
inDEED
but the first doesnt follow what i said, and the second is just what i said again.
anyway, i dont want the law changed nor nuthin
but afaic
babies are their parents property. like animals.
how are babies their
parents' property?
cos theyre made
entirely of their parents' body parts etc?
ok
well, babies are not legally the property of the parents. parents owe their children certain statutory responsibilities and have a number of rights relating to their parenthood but it in no way resembles the legal status of animals, which can be traded etc.
more's the pity
it wasn't clear that the first
didn't follow - you said that someone doesn't have worth simply because they are breathing.
sure
to expand, the things that make people people are other people caring about them and them having personalities
..
But 'having personality' is a very broad value judgement that could never be enshrined in law the same way that '24 weeks after conception' can be..
yeah i dont want them to change the law or anything
i think the current system works. just i dont personally see a moral problem with older foetuses getting binnedq
Well, I'm with you
on the practical side and don't want the law changed. I just always thought the anti-abortion nutjobs had the more consistent moral position, even if i'd never want to see it implemented.
I'd say the line was pretty clearly drawn in my 'philosophy'
You can't kill a very young child because it is legally and morally (for me) considered a child and would constitute murder.
You can't kill brain-damaged people because they're human beings and it would be murder.
In short - murder is bad.
I don't believe you can murder something that isn't classed as a human being.
I think the problem here is your line is too bold
It shouldnt be a question of definitions and what noun you call something.....Im really gob smacked
Fine
I'm sure a lot of people find my opinion on it wrong. But I've given my reasons and answered criticisms, so I personally think it's a justifiable viewpoint. When do you consider a foetus a child, out of interest?
I dont my mind is open to be changed on it I dont have that specialised or detailed info
which is why im puzzled by your certainty.....you see everyone does differ on issues, but I dont think your absolutism is justifiable, you could argue that this is the legal position and therefore we 'have to abide by this' but its strange for a human to be so kow toed by authority
its wierd to so have your human animal senses so
dominated by artificial legal definitions.......you are a bot replica of pigfoot, arnt you? I claim my £1000.
Its like your an animal that has been totally totally broken in by the system
I do wish you'd let go of this hang-up about the law
Really.
no...im said you could say there is a legal definition
it is you that is overemphasising and fixating on the law in this issue, im not bothered about it.
What Im bothered about is the fact that you seem to be saying that is the only really important factor
Fucking hell, creaky
There's only one of us fixating on the law and it's not me. As I've now explained on three separate occasions, I'm not using the law as a reason for my moral viewpoint, I'm merely pointing it out as a parallel to my belief that human beings only become human beings at birth. My view has been formed entirely independently of the law. Please stop saying otherwise. It's false.
oh sorry
I thought Id read you posting about the legal definition of a human being being recognised at birth,in some other posts, I must be mistaken, perhaps it was someone else
(I cant really find it easily in this thread now) ....
apologies for falsley attributing this "birth/ human being classification thing" to yourself
I did say that
But I wasn't saying it in the context of explaining why I hold the belief that I do. I was just pointing it out as a parallel in the law. You're forgiven. ;-)
Well I've already explained why your final
sentence doesn't apply to me and is down to a misunderstanding on your part.
It's a delicate issue, and I'll always respect other people's views on the matter, because essentially the question raised is what do you consider to be a human being and if I'm advocating the death of something (or someone) you consider to be a human being, that's a very emotive thing to have to deal with.
I only claim certainty on an entirely personal level. In that I'm certain of my belief that during the course of childbirth (or caesarean), a foetus becomes a human being. Much in the same way that a sperm/egg becomes a foetus during conception. I understand other people don't agree with that and I listen carefully to people who disagree with me with an open mind.
OK im just totally baffled by how you can see it so polarised
so simply, it seems like a whole mixed up overlapping kind of issue/area that DOES need people to be fuzzy about their certainty.
Im not fixating on the law but I wonder why you think that the laws position on it is so much more important than taking everything into account
I'll assume you wrote this before
reading my last reply up there (or I'll explode with frustration : D).
I think maybe it is coming across like I'm being very cold and inhuman about it. Obviously, it's a much more complicated issue than just dead and alive. It's just that, after a great deal of thought, my stance on the issue is that I don't consider an unborn foetus a child and don't think killing it for certain reasons is immoral.
yes i did write it before reading your last reply so
no exploding for you. I have obviously accussed you falsely (but I cant recollect where I saw what made me think that)
Probably one or more of
"I would however stick with my original view that until it is alive outside the womb, it isn't a human being. By my and the law's classification."
"And there is a legal classification. You are registered as a human being legally on the day of your birth. Not 24 weeks into your mother's pregnancy."
"No, they become human
when they're born. It's a coincidence (there's a better word - by-product?) that at the same time they're registered legally as people."
In retrospect, my phrasing was pretty whack. Especially in the second one. And I can see why you (and others) saw it as me blindly accepting the law.
I often use phrasi ng that also gets
interpreted i n a way i didnt intend unfortunately I embarrised myself a bit more (see the P*** thread)
A lot of the time my phrasing is out so that people just cant make any sense at all.
I understand
There's a part of me
that can see where you're coming from, because the argument that it somehow becomes 'ok' once the baby can survive alone is being negated by advances in technology. There'll come a time when we can support life from conception to birth without a womb.
The fact is, though, I'm happy enough to draw an arbitrary line for legality of abortion, because I think it's better for everyone from a psychological point of view. There should be a psychological cutoff by which the mother needs to decide what she is going to do.
Sure
Valid points all round.
Well
You have to draw a line at some point for practical reasons, rather than anything else. It isn't really logical or consistent to draw it at 24 weeks but to put it a birth is totally insane.
I'm not promoting it as a law change
just saying if they did, I wouldn't be up in arms about it.
What about
dilation and extraction? The baby is alive and half born - is that acceptable?
I'd say once the waters have broken,
you're stuck with it. You can't say fairer than that.
i would
and this does take place, mainly in forced abortions.
Well obviously
I'm not advocating that.
what you are saying
made up a lot of my pro-life argument funnily enough.
but to abort a pregnancy a day before the baby is due is really not the same as an early termination. you can't apply that kind of absolutism to an abortion debate.
it's weird that you said "the day before the birth" since no birth would take place.
It's not that weird.
It just means 'was scheduled to take place'. If I'd said 'The team had to pull out the day before the match' there'd be no controversy.
I appreciate what you're saying, but I think absolutism is the only way to legislate on an issue like this. Whether it's 'any unborn/unremoved foetus is not a child', 'any foetus before 22 weeks is not a child' or 'every foetus counts as a child'.
what if the day before the scheduled birth
was a week after the kid wanted to come out?
not picking holes here, just stumbling over them left and right
Obviously, it's not a political policy,
so I haven't really pawed over the fine details. I would however stick with my original view that until it is alive outside the womb, it isn't a human being. By my and the law's classification.
just because its not a human being
doesn't mean its ok to kill it.
No
But in this instance, my personal belief is that it is OK if all parties concerned believe it to be the best course of action (unborn foetus doesn't get a say because it's an unborn foetus).
well i think
if two parents and more than one doctor all agree that a at 36 weeks, it's appropriate to terminate a pregnancy for no medical reason then there must be something wrong with them all.
Well I don't personally see why it's that different from
making the same decision after two weeks, ten weeks or one day, so that's where we're differing.
I understand the argument and like I say, it's a fair one. Just my take on it.
because at 2 weeks
there is 0 chance of survival without continued natural growth within the womb
But there is of unnatural growth
I don't think the 'natural' aspect is that important.
no its not
its really that the majority of people rationally, or irrationally, object to killing something that is so far along in gestation that it could be removed and grow up and become one of them.
Fair enough
But it would need a huge amount of support. For example, if you put a newborn out in the woods and left it, it would die within hours. So a similar amount of human effort and technological... stuff is needed to keep the baby alive (especially if it's very prematurely born) as would be the case if it were removed after two weeks and grown outside the womb.