Abortion debate

[Keef]

Here you go.

[barrymarshall]

Keef Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

Don't get me wrong, I think fox hunting

> and a lot of animal testing is terrible, but these

> extreame campaigners that will hurt people, and

> dig up dead old ladies, what the fcuk is that

> about?

>

I was living in Staffordshire, where the crime took place, at the time they disinterred that old lady's body. It was terrible. She had been buried in 1997 and, IIRC, the remains were stolen in 2004/5. After a two-year campaign involving about 450 incidents (hoax bombs, phone calls, etc.) the family, who owned a guinea-pig farm, shut up shop. It was the only way they felt they could get the body back.

I dislike vivisection It is, however, necessary and the pain and suffering of animals should be minimised, but stunts like disinterment are indefensible. It was meant to show the lengths some would go in the name of animal rights (parallels here with abortion clinic bombings, anyone?) but it only proved the movement's impotence.

[Freud/] As for the bigger question, and again back to abortion, of why people act on behalf of specific groups of the helpless (animals, foetuses) instead of looking more generally at reducing suffering across society, I'm not sure. This is anecdotal evidence, but plenty in the animal rights brigade are generally misanthropic, believe humans are a stain on nature, a cancer in the universe, all that crap. Similarly there is a religious sentiment in the (particularly US) anti-abortion lobby that sees society as sinful, liberal, decadent... Saving "the innocent" is one way of people dealing with this. [/Freud]

I dunno whatothers think.

[barrymarshall]

Mark Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I was meaning what's the process i.e. is it

> anaesthetised so that it won't feel pain (erring

> on the side of caution in case it can feel pain)

> or is it done in a way that it would feel pain (if

> it did feel pain)

In the House of Commons Science and Technology Select Committee report pulished yesterday, it states that evidence points to foetuses as if being in a heavily sedated state when they are in the womb anyway. So while there is nervous system activity, it is rather like when someone has an operation and goes under general anaesthetic.

[Peckhamgatecrasher]

ChavWivaLawDegree Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> But child abuse and neglect to unwanted children

> on the other hand can be quantified. As can

> post-natal depression, increased risk of suicide,

> alcoholism and drug abuse.

Agreed and I am certainly not belittling these things, but is abortion the only way to tackle them? It seems barbaric to go for that option in a civilised society. Going by this argument, are you saying because you are an unwanted child it would have been better to abort you? I rather think we would all be less enriched had that happened. I may not agree with you all the time but I'm bloody glad you're in the world.

[snorky]

Obviously weve all read Freakonomics, so Im not going to touch on the benefits of easier abortion for wider society......

[snorky]

Oof PGC the link you listed goes to a site that describes itself :

"LifeSiteNews.com is a non-profit Internet service dedicated to issues of culture, life, and family"

that sound good doesnt it ..... but read further in the " about us" section and get get little hints like:

"LifeSiteNews.com's writers and its founders, have come to understand that respect for life and family are endangered by an international conflict. That conflict is between radically opposed views of the worth and dignity of every human life and of family life and community. It has been caused by secularists attempting to eliminate Christian morality and natural law principles which are seen as the primary obstacles to implementing their new world order. "

Oh dear dear me...........

delve a bit deeper and go get the links to the likes of the Campaign Life Coalition & the International Right to Life Federation

Its intertesting isnt it how people how beleive in the existance of " God" , despite no evidence to back it up in any fashion , still profess to live their lives according to the " word" of this fellow that effectively, doesnt exist.

Hmm..its hardly seems like a bunch I would really want to take much notice of

BTW, anyone been to the Stopes Clinic in brixton recently ?

I have funnily enough - It didnt seem to be a place full of people haveing a laugh and a joke. Indeed, I would suspect that people were taking the decision very very seriously indeed.

Its a shame the prayer mumbling nutters outside were cursing them as they drove into the clinic - a very unchristian thing to to to someone in distress.

[ChavWivaLawDegree]

Edited cos I was kind of exaggerating for dramatic effect!! But it could have all been true!

....any woman who knows she cannot cope with a child, should never have to have that child; because the pain the feotus may or may not feel when aborted, cannot be compared to the pain a child may feel throughout it's life and the pain that child's future children may feel; unless you are prepared to start supporting these children and making sure they are looked after, no matter what is costs society.

[ChavWivaLawDegree]

Did I win yet? Sorry, I have a kind of darkness in my soul!

[Keef]

No, no one will "win" this.

For me, your last post just illustrates how different circumstaces will mean different decisions and beliefs.

"the pain the feotus may or may not feel when aborted, cannot be compared to the pain a child may feel throughout it's life" Well of course you can't compare them, but for some people the former would mean more than to others, that's exactly the problem whenever this debate comes up. If you take away the biggots, most people are pretty clued up these days, but individuals have different moral make ups, and there will never be a happy medium with this subject.

I agree with you completely about looking after the kids by the way.

[Peckhamgatecrasher]

"Did I win yet?"

Not by a long shot. You said: "...unless you are prepared to start supporting these children and making sure they are looked after, no matter what is costs society." I am and think we as a society should. I have offered to adopt various friend's children as an alternative to abortion and would rather a hike in my taxes to cover support and care for either the parents or children than throwing them out with the gin and bathwater

[mikeb]

I don't think how much pain a foetus can feel is necessarily the yardstick - otherwise infanticide could be OK in certain situations.

[downsouth]

It's a difficult area and morality is so subjective that there are no absolutes. I do feel that over time the science will be the key to this i.e. freezing fertility until required (more easily than today's pill) and perhaps evidence of sentience of the foetus.

I'm not sure about you, but I would think that would tip the scales against. CWALD - would you believe it justified to terminate if the foetus would deemed sentient?

[Fizzy]

You can debate and opinionate endlessly about this difficult and emotive issue and everyone has an absolute right to do that, whatever their views. But I would just say that, unless you have direct experience of this subject, you can never fully understand all of its elements. It is not just about right/wrong/morality, etc. How much simpler would it be if it was! Taking such a moral stance is all very well Nero and, yes, the whole business is very 'distasteful', I can vouch for that. We can all stand in judgement of others and measure them according to our own moral barometers, but nothing is gained by making a woman feel criminalised by her decision. I wonder sometimes whether the fact that it is often men who are so vocal on this subject, is aligned to the fact that it is one over which, ultimately, they have so little control. Women may be more inclined to think 'there but for the grace of god....etc'.

[ChavWivaLawDegree]

Hear Hear, Fizzy!

[Peckhamgatecrasher]

Fizzy - I'm not sure I agree with you. I've never shot a man but that doesn't mean I can't express a feeling/opinion that it is wrong and it is no less valid for a bloke to have an opinion about abortion just cos they will never undergo one.

[Fizzy]

Point taken and I'm not denying anyone their right to an opinion, as I did in fact state. Just trying to get away from this black and white/right and wrong issue. Men are of course affected by abortion and I am not saying that they should be excluded from the debate. It's just that I've noticed that often the most inflexible views tend to come from them. As for the comparision with shooting a man, what if that man was holding a gun to a loved one's head? What we perceive as being wrong or immoral can often be challenged when certain circumstances present.

[citizenED]

I have been following this for some time but not had the time to collect my thoughts . It's a debate that I always thought I was very clear on. Choice for women was paramount. That's probably because I was at college with plenty of aspiring, intelligent women who articulated the pro-choice arguments. Now though, I have my own kids and have plenty of friends with youngsters too and it does kind of move the goalposts a little. I keep returning to the idea that "two wrongs do not a right make". If you conceive by mistake - you cannot rectify it by aborting the fetus.

[downsouth]

Fizzy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

I wonder sometimes

> whether the fact that it is often men who are so

> vocal on this subject, is aligned to the fact that

> it is one over which, ultimately, they have so

> little control. Women may be more inclined to

> think 'there but for the grace of god....etc'.

Although this issue does affect women more keenly than men, I don't think that means men should not a. have opnions on the subject or b. legislate (i.e. male MPs). We talk of society and it is for society through MPs and judges (as useless as some may be) to make the law that fits the current morality of this society. This can and will change over time by science and increased conservatism or liberlaism but it is a matter for men and women together to determine not women alone.

Otherwise, like PGC says, none of us could expect anyone but victims, sufferers or perpetrators of whatever crime, disease or condition to be able to debate and frame opinions/legislation on whatever the matter of concern.

[ChavWivaLawDegree]

But why don't you guys have more sympathy for kids born to fu$?&%d up parents who don't want them, than for a feotus?

[mockney piers]

You're sort of answering your own question there. I've never met a foetus, but you seem nice enough as a poster child for kids born to flipped up parents.

[ChavWivaLawDegree]

Haha - I'm a bad example Mockers (or maybe not if you ask Mr M!).

[Mark]

I see Rev Joel Edwards, General Director of the Evangelical Alliance, has been appointed as a commissioner to the Equality and Human Rights Commission. This should be interesting as the Evangelical Alliance campaigns to undermine women's rights to choose an abortion. They're also anti-gay.

Don't they read people's CV before they appoint them?

[mockney piers]

Tony Blair, middle east peace envoy anyone? Clearly not!!

[SeanMacGabhann]

Picture of That Man Blair in the Guardian today at a Hong Kong speech - he looked well rough. Speech didn't go down to well either

[Keef]

That's because it was an hour of cliches for which he was paid something like ?230k!!! I can talk sh!t for way longer than that, why can't I have that sort of money? :(