very good. will be there

That was informative, I never knew abortion was illegal in Ireland.

And Northern Ireland:

http://www.hangbitch.com/photobitch/v/photoessays/Northern+Ireland+and+the+demand+for+abortion+rights/

Not to take this too seriously but….a “happy hour” in support of abortion?

Yes, I know I’m out of step with you all but….I can understand (if not agree with) the argument that abortion is sometimes a sad necessity, perhaps the best of bad choices.

But really, happy?

Just doesn’t quite taste right.

Tim,

Well – should we wait an or hour so until the prices go back to normal?

Abortion is a fact and a right, and there’s absolutely no reason why the extension of it shouldn’t be discussed over a few beers. I personally am happy that I have the right to legal abortion, and that I might meet with sisters who don’t to help their further their cause.

Bottoms up!

… want help, I mean. Freudian slip…

Sorry, simply cannot resist>

“Bottoms up!”

If that rule were rigidly adhered to there’s be no need for the charity really…..

Once again Tim Worstall shows up and makes a tit of himself.

He is always on here banging the drum for so called rights of the individual, but like so many right wing men that does not include a woman’s right to control her own body. Of course he can’t admit this, because it would male him look a even bigger prat than he already is. So he is reduced to arguing about the definition of the word ‘happy.’

As long as woman have control over their bodies then I think Happy is an excellent word.

“He is always on here banging the drum for so called rights of the individual, but like so many right wing men that does not include a woman’s right to control her own body. Of course he can’t admit this, because it would male him look a even bigger prat than he already is.”

Ah, but I do admit this. I may even make myself look even more of a prat than usual when I do so. But I do indeed argue that the rights of the individual mean that abortion shouldn’t happen….for of the two individuals intimately involved one of them ends up dead.

So while I do hold a deeply unpopular view, one that might even be wrong, I’m not afraid to admit it.

I just don’t usually broadcast it for the boringness of the near inevtiable shit storm that follows.

@9

Oh dear Tim. Remind us all, how long is it that you’ve had a womb? And thus had to make agonising choices over your reproductive rights?

Ah.

Well – fair play to you Tim. You’re wrong, but honest.

Sally is right – happy is synonymous with choice.

Well, Worstall certainly isn’t a proper man, so maybe that’s what makes him identify with women.

I am pro-choice and pro-contraception, I think it’s only right that women all over the world should have sex without having to worry about the upkeep of children they can’t provide for. A lot of people can’t even feed themelves, let alone hungry mouths which depend on them. And I think they shouldn’t have to be virgins just so right-wing cunts can be satisfied with how “moral” they are.

Personally I am happily married and I enjoy sex (not so much as when I was in my 20s though!) but me and my wife chose not to have kids. The Catholic Church and some Muslims would slag us off for that. But what would they think if I had a kid who couldn’t get a job and lived on the dole? I live in Burnley, there’s not much chance of building a decent life for yourself since the trolls’ heroine Thatcher wrecked the area.

@12

OT but: You live in Burnley? I used to live in Nelson! Small world…

I hope to be there to show my support.

Sally is right – happy is synonymous with choice.

Is it? Think of Jarvis Thompson’s argument for abortion rights. Is the end result a happy one, just ‘cos the subject’s exercised free choice?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Impact_of_Legalized_Abortion_on_Crime

If you want to see how far the woman hating nuts will go this is the latest law to be pushed in Utah.

““The Utah Senate has joined the House in allowing homicide charges against expectant mothers who arrange illegal abortions.

The bill responds to a case in which a Vernal woman allegedly paid a man $150 to beat her and cause miscarriage but could not be charged. The Senate on Thursday approved HB12 on a vote of 24-4, criminalizing a woman’s “intentional, knowing, or reckless act” leading to a pregnancy’s illegal termination. It specifies that a woman cannot be prosecuted for arranging a legal abortion.

The measure now goes to Gov. Gary Herbert for final action.

The bill does not affect legally obtained abortions, but it does criminalize the actions taken by a woman to induce a miscarriage or an abortion outside a doctor’s care. Penalties range up to life in prison.

Perhaps the most troubling part of the bill is a standard that could make women legally responsible for miscarriages caused by so-called “reckless” behavior. Under the “reckless behavior” standard, an attorney only needs to show that the woman behaved in a manner that is thought to cause miscarriage, even if she did not intend to lose the pregnancy. Under this law, if a woman drinks too much and has a miscarriage, she could face prosecution.

Many states have fetal homicide laws, most of which apply only in the third trimester. Utah’s bill, hwoever, would apply through the entire duration of a woman’s pregnancy. Even common first trimester miscarriages could trigger a murder trial.”

What the fuck is a ” reckless act?” These people are never happier than when woman have to suffer.

@17

hey sally what’s the source for that quote? troubling stuff but what do we expect from the US…

18

http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_14429070

It is the Salt lake Tribune newspaper.

“But I do indeed argue that the rights of the individual mean that abortion shouldn’t happen….for of the two individuals intimately involved one of them ends up dead.”

There is only ONE individual involved, you unscientific buffoon. There is a human being and a bunch of non-sentient cells. Or do you support giving your toenail clippings the vote?

Personally, I’d rather hear from them than you, Worstall. They’d be more interesting and make more sense.

“There is only ONE individual involved, you unscientific buffoon. There is a human being and a bunch of non-sentient cells.”

That’s what is known as petitio principii or begging the question. You are assuming as the core of your argument what has to be proved.

I do agree that if there’s only one human being involved then there’s no problem. All I’m doing is disagreeing about the definition of human being.

[20] what a debased view of human life – equating a foetus with toenail clippings.

Next time a woman has a miscarriage perhaps I’ll say to her, “don’t worry, love, it’s just like losing a toenail” – or, if really distressed, I could point out that it’s just “a bunch of non-sentient cells”.

Will this international abortion service (provided by the NHS) be rolled out beyond Ireland – if so which other surgical or medical services should be cut to fund it?

Tim – do you think abortion should be illegal, or do you just personally disapprove of it?

“Tim – do you think abortion should be illegal, or do you just personally disapprove of it?”

Good question. I think it’s immoral, wrong, all those things, and also see no way that it could be made illegal. I’d certainly want to tinker around the edge of the law (I really cannot understand why it is legal to kill at 28 weeks for the presence of a club foot or cleft palate but not legal to kill in the absence of such) but am resigned to the fact that as I’m very much in the minority in my views then the legality of abortion is just part of the society I have to put up with.

Abortion is a womans choice and shouldn’t be illegal, but I cant understand why there are so many performed.

Isn’t it better to exercise the right to use contraception? Or am I just another right wing troll?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/feb/23/nicaragua-cancer-treatment-abortion

@25

I don’t know anyone who is pro-choice and not pro-contraception. But as you say “Abortion is a womans choice and shouldn’t be illegal”, shit happens – no contraceptive is 100% effective, remember – and choices do need to be made.

@26 I agree totally J, but my issue is the amount of abortions doesn’t correlate with the effectiveness of contraception.

As often seems to be overlooked is that rights come with responsibiltys.

Pardon me, learn-ed friends I meant to say responsibilities

@28

I see what your saying and it is important to prevent unwanted pregnancies happening in the first place, but it does seem like sometimes the Right focus way too much on this [prevention] and not at all on the freedom to choose to have an abortion if it seems the right thing to do, it’s a distraction in that sense. But obv (imo) the two should go hand in hand.
Personally I think more education should be done with boys/men about their responsibilities; far too much of the debate is focused on the myth of the loose woman.

@30

I certainly agree with your point about men sharing the responsibility, but I cannot describe abortion as simply an expression of choice and somwething to be celebrated as such.

I feel it should be a last resort as I personally cannot see a foetus as just a clump of cells or a toe nail clipping and feel its all too easy in our throw away society

Dave:

It is a last resort, no woman I know who has had an abortion has done so as a glib act to remedy a minor problem; it has been a cause of huge distress but in their case, a needed step to take.

I would imagine thats true and Im not suggesting it isn’t a traumatic experience, but on the flip side I know a woman who have had several abortions (3 to be exact).

These were accidental pregnancies in the sense that they were not planned but no contraception was used.

My thoughts are ideally abortion is legal and is never performed.

In a ideal world but unfortunately we live in no such thing and the pain and trauma of abortion is never a path lightly taken, also, mistakes do happen with regards to contraception, whether it is heat of the moment stuff or the failure of the method itself; so abortion will always be a part of society until we invent some perfect solution.

“the pain and trauma of abortion is never a path lightly taken,”

I wish I could believe that but I absolutely don’t.

I would certainly believe that some don’t take it lightly, could perhaps be persuaded that most do not but “never”?

Absolutely no one at all?

No, you’ll not convince me of that.

I prefer to see the best in people than the worst and if you’ve been close at all to abortion, as close as a man can get that is, which isn’t very close at all, I think you’ll witness that it is not possible to take the decision lightly and to split semantic hairs on this issue is not at all necessary and reflects badly on you I think.

Last year I had an abortion, and I can honestly say it was one of the least difficult decisions of my life. I’m not being flippant when I say it took me longer to decide what work-tops to have in the kitchen than whether I was prepared to spend the rest of my life being responsible for a further human being.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/caitlin_moran/article1645946.ece

With regards to Tim J at 37:

I do not presume to know the thoughts of this woman of the truth of her feelings and intentions behind her writing, I can merely comments based on what I know, from a man’s perspective and also from that of my friends.

I also think that pursuing the notion of whether a woman considers her decision and to what degree and passing a value judgement on that, from afar, is a waste of time and leads down a destructive path.

if I ever did have to have an abortion again, I would like to think that it would be something unlikely to provoke a moral dilemma in anyone, least of all me.

I’m quoting something she wrote – and has subsequently stood by. If you genuinely believe, as Caitlin Moran does and as lots of people say they do, that a foetus is just an insensate clump of cells then the decision whether or not to keep it should logically be an entirely un-difficult question.

Making blanket statements about the motivations of everyone who does or doesn’t have an abortion is just as unhelpful as making blanket statements about the rightness or wrongness of abortions. Some people will agonise for weeks (and, subsequently years) about whether it is/was the right decision. Others will pop off to the clinic and think about their kitchen worktops on the way.

I also think that pursuing the notion of whether a woman considers her decision and to what degree and passing a value judgement on that, from afar, is a waste of time and leads down a destructive path.

Then you shouldn’t start something your not prepared to finish. It not fair to make a point and then declare the path you led the argument down a waste of time.

[33] “My thoughts are ideally abortion is legal and is never performed”.

But rates have gone up very dramatically – in 1967 roughly 3 in every 1,000 women had an abortion (in the 16-24 age range) – by 1998 this had increased to 28 women per 1,000 (same age group).
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/STATBASE/xsdataset.asp?More=Y&vlnk=131&All=Y&B2.x=83&B2.y=13

I would imagine that both sex education and access to contraception have improved quite significantly over the last 40 years? – yet the number of abortions continues to rise inexorably.
The current figure has almost reached 200,000 for all age groups, and only 1% of them related to risk of physical handicap.

Should these stats be a cause for wider concern?

Incidentally, 6,862 abortions for non-residents were carried out in hospitals and clinics in England and Wales.
http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsStatistics/DH_099285

I really, really do not want to have an argument here, suffice to say that Tim J you confuse moral dilemma with any dilemma and the physical repercussions of an abortion and Dave, I stand by what I said, which is that for men to start and nit-pick the moral compass of women and argue over the time they spent in making their decision or lack of it, is unedifying at best.

you confuse moral dilemma with any dilemma

I’m not confusing anything. Merely providing an example of someone who treated the decision of whether or not to have an abortion as a trivial one; who specifically says that she took that decision lightly. I’m not even criticising that – just pointing it out. If you disagree with her (or the truth of what she says) I’m afraid I’m not the right person to complain to.

Though a happy hour is fine, the bigger problem is that abortion is still criminalised in certain circumstances.

That’s an absolute disgrace. I’d much rather these campaign groups aim for full decriminalisation.

a&e charge nurse @ 41
Tim W @ 24

Being pragmatic for a moment, what would we rather have, 200,000 abortions or the equivalent number of unwanted (for whatever reason) babies being born every year. I don’t mean to sound glib, but the choice is a stark one in many cases.

To be fair, I find it rather interesting that the same people who see these foetuses as unfortunate victims whilst in the womb, regarding them as burdens on the wallets once they make into the council house waiting list.

I would have more sympathy for the Right’s position if they weren’t so relentlessly anti-child in every other aspect of public policy.

Just as a matter of interest, how much are we prepared to increase the welfare budget by, if it cut the number of abortions in half?

” the bigger problem is that abortion is still criminalised in certain circumstances.

That’s an absolute disgrace. I’d much rather these campaign groups aim for full decriminalisation.”

“Full decriminalisation?”

Eh? Do you really mean that? Abortion at purely the desire of the woman at any moment up to the moment the baby pops out naturally? 39.5 weeks is just fine for you? Cervix dilated, head not through yet but it’s fine to kill it?

And to think there are people out there who think that my views on abortion are extreme, I ask you.

Some of the attitudes here, as shown by Tim W, are pretty shocking in their vulgarity and complete lack of reason and understanding. More worryingly, a complete lack of understanding of humanity itself.

Tim J:

She said she treated it as a trivial decision, I am afraid that I do not believe that, hyperbole and bravado is common in the written word, I would rather stick with my personal experiences and those of the young women I supported whilst going through the process, when I worked for Connexions.

47 – well it’s rather hard to argue with that.

‘All women take this decision seriously’
‘Here’s one who says that she didn’t’
‘She’s lying. All women take this decision seriously.’

As I said, your need to take this argument down to the level pedantry, either in order to grind an axe with me or, and I hope this is not the case, to reflect your own deep set personal prejudice towards abortion.

49 – me? wtf? I’m not axe grinding. I just think it’s a touch presumptuous of you to assert that you know the emotions of all women, and to assume that anyone who presents an opinion that disagrees with this assertion must therefore be lying.

I don’t think I’ve ever publically expressed a view on the rightness/wrongness of abortion. My opinion of it is certainly neither here nor there in this debate.

@46

Please tell us all how many women you think would have abortions at 39.5 weeks* in your esteemed opinion. You seem to know so much!

Spiked ran a good article against all these anti-choice misogynists.

*At present 1.5% of abortions take place after 20 weeks.

Now this is unusual – I find myself pretty well-aligned with majority view here, and not with the Tims…

The problem with arguing abortion is murder is that that implies a living person has taken up residence inside another person and is taking advantage of their biology for their own benefits (i.e. is acting in a parasitical manner). If the host person is not happy with this, would not this be theft, and therefore the other person should be evicted? The entire ‘abortion is a crime’ argument tends to treat women as vessels, not as the possessors of an absolute right to use their mind and body as they see fit. Put simply, if you give an unborn child the rights of a living person, then the mother has the same right as in any other relationship, to choose to walk away. Obviously this is a fallacy – the child will not survive without the mother, so it therefore cannot be viewed as a seperate human from which the mother could seperate, and therefore cannot be murdered.

Once you realise that is there is no internal logic to giving a foetus the rights of a human being (I’m extreme in this case – I think the rights only apply at birth), then this is simply to do with the rights of the mother as to whether she wants to bear a child or not. Whilst ideally others might be involved in the decision, this is an individual’s choice.

Where on earth have I said that I know the emotions of all women? Show me where I have said that? Good grief man, I said I didn’t want to argue over this but you’re spoiling for a fight. No personal axe to grind? Good, then it must be your personal prejudice regarding abortion and if you opinion is neither here nor there why are you bloody here?

And I’m not calling her a liar and I merely stating that from my experience, there is an element of front, for want of a better word and as I said, to argue over the decision making process of women in this, esp. men arguing over it is not all edifying.

Watchman –

If the host person is not happy with this, would not this be theft, and therefore the other person should be evicted?

A possible difficulty that occurs is the line between eviction and active killing. If someone had entered your home, didn’t have the mental capacity to realise they were obliged to leave and yet clung to a bannister with such tenacious strength that they couldn’t be shifted, would one be permitted to drug/stab them?

Oh the joy of ridiculous hypotheticals!

Of course, pro-abortion rights arguments are rich in analogies: see, for example, Jarvis Thompson’s In Defense of Abortion. This is, I suppose, because they can be really useful and illuminating.

Lotta blokes on this thread…

“Please tell us all how many women you think would have abortions at 39.5 weeks* in your esteemed opinion. ”

I’m not saying that any would. Only pointing out that Sunny thinks it should be legal to do so.

54: a very good hypothetical indeed. Abortion, in its literal meaning, is to bring forth prematurely. The death part might be a result of this, might be the reason it happens.

But there’s nothing (in strict logic and language) that says that abortion necessarily means or even implies the death of the foetus.

[*] A Defence Of Abortion

(Oh, wow, this is such an insignificant comment…Er, hi…M’names Ben…And I’m a bloke…)

Where on earth have I said that I know the emotions of all women?

“The pain and trauma of abortion is never a path lightly taken” is a statement that explicitly sets out one ‘acceptable’ view of abortion and states that it applies across the board to everybody. And it’s just not true.

And I’m not calling her a liar

“She said she treated it as a trivial decision, I am afraid that I do not believe that.”

Good, then it must be your personal prejudice regarding abortion and if you opinion is neither here nor there why are you bloody here?

For people to disagree with you does not require them to be prejudiced about abortion. Incidentally, what way does my prejudice lie? I’d be keen to find out.

(For what it’s worth, and that’s very little, my opinion on abortion is extremely conflicted – my wife and I were desperate for our baby to live, I read to her, we thought of her (technically it as we didn’t know…) as a baby, not a clump of cells, we would have treated a miscarriage as a terrible personal loss. And yet my experience is not everyone’s. If my wife had become pregnant when we were 21 I don’t know what we would have done. I have no desire to criminalise abortion. I am hopelessly conflicted on abortion.)

My views on the arguments that surround abortion are quite clear though. I’ve never seen an honest argument about abortion, and I dislike that.

Ben,

If they were actively involved in burgling you (which is my analogy – I suppose eviction is the wrong term to clarify this), you could forcibly remove them regardless of consequence to them. To follow my analogy, you are implying that it is acceptable for said person of limited mental capacity (how PC does that sound?) to enter your house and to make use of your possessions without you having the right to do anything about it. Incidentally, I do not think the mental state of the perpetrator makes any difference to your right to react to a crime anyway – it is not your responsibility to ensure whether the person attacking you is fully compos mentis before defending yourself.

As to the evocative drug/stab, that is nothing to with the analogy, and is instead a direct reference to the procedure. But for this evocative image to have meaning, you would have to accept the foetus has protection from such treatment through being a person, which leads back to my point that if unwanted it is a parasitical person stealing from the mother.

“Lotta blokes on this thread…”

Very true. Given that we were all foetuses once it’s allowable that we have opinions on what rights foetuses have or do not have, no?

Tim,

“My views on the arguments that surround abortion are quite clear though. I’ve never seen an honest argument about abortion, and I dislike that.”

Can I ask how mine is dishonest (if you have seen it)?

@55

You dont say she was lying, you just dont thinks he was telling the truth.
And your not trying to argue, just rudely dismiss others views.

@58

Actually, Sunny said he agreed with “decriminalisation” not “legalisation”. There is a difference (and as someone with such an interest in semantics you should know that 😉 )

63 – apologies – especially as I was ticking DHG off for generalisations! What I meant was that (usually) neither side ever really addresses the other side’s argument – but prefers either to shout their own view louder, or to address the arguments that they want the other side to be making.

Tim J,

No need to appologise. I just wondered.

The problem is that often the two ideas – right of the individual (focussed on mother) versus right of the individual (focussed on foetus) – use the same ideals in such different ways that there can be little meaningful comparison (even ignoring religious/secularist baggage). Hence why I try to make the comparison of rights the basis of my viewpoint.

Of course, setting most of the commentators on here aside and going to the real fanatics, any sort of sensible discussion between militant feminists and extreme evangelicals and Bible literalists (can I call them morons?) would be rather unlikely, which never helps.

BenSix:

It’s not about sides, I do not enjoy arguing hypotheticals and I do my best to stay away from them.

Kate Belgrave:

Indeed there is a lotta blokes, making huge tits of themselves, myself included, getting in above our heads.

Tim J:

Sorry Tim but you are lying, I have not said that I know the emotions of all women, your quote of mine says no such thing, you may be inferring that but it was never intended, so you’re not lying, you are wrong.

Again, your quote of me does not say I think she is a lair, you are inferring that in this tedious need of yours to pursue an argument to the point of it becoming absurd and so far off topic, see the Tonga debacle for reference, the only trouble is it is happening in a thread where such glib actions seem pretty unsavoury.

Dave:

Please say you’re the Dave are you? The one that kept leaving comments about me? Hope not, I’ve already dealt with the lie thing and I am discussing, no rudely dismissing anyone but thanks for that anyway.

Lots of heat, little light. This “debate” seems to have become a load of pedantic dick-swinging. Not very dignified.

Its a bloody pity women have to come from Ireland just so they don’t have an unwanted baby. How much pressure must they have to endure in order to make the decision and the arrangements necessary to fall within the legal time limit? how many can’t afford the travel, with what consequences?

This aptly demonstrates why pro-lifers and the pope shouldn’t be allowed to unduly influence public policy.

Solidarity with the sisters on this one, I hope the Happy Hour goes well.

Again, your quote of me does not say I think she is a lair…

OK. You accuse her of not telling the truth. The distinction between telling untruths and telling lies seems to me to be one without much of a difference. Is it still your position that no women ever take the decision to have an abortion lightly, and that those who claim otherwise are not telling the truth? That just seems a touch presumptuous.

see the Tonga debacle for reference…

No kidding. Your bizarre inability to understand relatively simple arguments is pretty much a constant feature of this site. Plus a bad case of ‘last word-itis’…

[45] I don’t think the left/right axis is a particularly useful division to frame the abortion issue – if anything surely the atheist/religious believer is a more pertinent system to classify groups?

Anyway, my question really was not so much about the legality of abortion, which I strongly support, but the social consequences (if any) associated with devaluing the status of the foetus.

Two examples come to mind in the context of this thread – the first contained some rather callous descriptive terms (toenails, bunch of non-sentient cells) the other compared the act of abortion to a rather disappointing shopping trip (see Caitlin Moran item).

Obviously there is no correct number of abortions but now that foetuses are being terminated on an unprecedented scale is it really appropriate to label pro-choice events as ‘Happy Hour”?

[44] the concept of ‘viability’ is an important one.
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2005-07-21a.10605.h

Once a foetus becomes ‘viable’ then there are options available, other than just termination.
Or, are you are suggesting that medics should be legally compelled to abort irrespective of the stage of gestation?

Tim –

But there’s nothing (in strict logic and language) that says that abortion necessarily means or even implies the death of the foetus.

True, but it’s hard to perform an abortion without deliberately inflicting harm. That, presumably, is why vacuum aspiration’s so commonly used.

Watchman –

Good points; accept, for the moment, that “the mental state of the perpetrator makes [no] difference to your right to react to a crime“. Have to dash, so will ponder this further. The two premises, I think, are that the foetus’s existence constitutes theft, and that any action is legimitised in protecting oneself from a thief. Can’t muster a substantial response at the moment, but not sure I agree with them. That’s the only pathetic morsel I can offer.

A possible reply – though not one I’m advocating; just something to mull over – is that there’s a moral obligation to care for those who don’t have sufficient faculties to exist independently. For example, I think we’d all agree that a parent/society at large has a duty to feed/clothe/tend the newborn.

@68 – I don’t think im The Dave. I dont post here that often and can assure you Im not deliberately trying to argue with you.

@71 That sums up what i think, just far more eloquently that I could have put it.

Ben,

It is a very disturbing analysis (especially when put down like this and realise you developed it), because that is the only response I can come up with to both camps’ interpretations of rights.

“A possible reply – though not one I’m advocating; just something to mull over – is that there’s a moral obligation to care for those who don’t have sufficient faculties to exist independently. For example, I think we’d all agree that a parent/society at large has a duty to feed/clothe/tend the newborn.”

I would agree, but the key point there is (new)born. The preborn are not entitled to those rights by my logic, because they are not people. There is no obligation for society to tend a wounded bird for example, for all it is alive, and this applies equally to other non-people (defining people here as all humans who have been born).

“The two premises, I think, are that the foetus’s existence constitutes theft, and that any action is legimitised in protecting oneself from a thief.”

Only if one accepts my initial premise (which I disagree with – hence the chain of thought) that killing a foetus is murder. If it is merely an act of self-determined medical choice then none of the premises stand.

@71 the a&e charge nurse

I read the Happy Hour banner as a demonstration of solidarity in this context. I can see how it might appear insensitive.

Current law in the UK is pretty much evidence-based. At 20 weeks the foetus is not viable and only has a rudimentary nervous system and brain. Recognising that as pregancy progresses the status of the foetus changes and basing law on our understanding of these changes seems very reasonable.

Its also very important to consider what the alternatives are. What happens when abortion is banned? Its legalisation came about largely because of the horrific consequences of backstreet abortions. Forcing women to have unwanted children doesn’t seem very progressive. Surely its better to enable them to have an early termination?

I share your concerns about the increasing number of abortions, but we must be careful not to jump to any conclusions. More information needed!

Yurrzem!

I agree with you and I’m withdrawing from this.

Tim J:

I’m done here I’m afraid, I’ve made my position as clear as I can and also my feelings about the nature of the debate. I can do no more than that.

Dave:

I’m very glad of that, had to check, apologies for any offence caused.

No problem mate.

Watchman,

The problem with arguing abortion is murder is that that implies a living person has taken up residence inside another person and is taking advantage of their biology for their own benefits (i.e. is acting in a parasitical manner).

Sorry, but I think this is a bizarre analogy and one that the “abortion is murder” argument does not imply at all. I’m not sure there even is a reasonable analogy because I cannot think of anything in life that is like pregnancy.

The entire ‘abortion is a crime’ argument tends to treat women as vessels, not as the possessors of an absolute right to use their mind and body as they see fit.

That may be how some people come across but I think the argument is fundamentally based on when the cells in the woman’s body are believed to gain the right to life and in so doing how they weigh against the woman’s freedom to do as she pleases with her body – for it is not just her body, now, according to some.

You say that the ‘preborn’ are not entitled to rights. I have no view on when it should gain rights, but it seems an extraordinary position, if indeed you hold it, that a foetus has no rights up to the vagina but gains them immediately on exit.

ukliberty,

“Sorry, but I think this is a bizarre analogy and one that the “abortion is murder” argument does not imply at all. I’m not sure there even is a reasonable analogy because I cannot think of anything in life that is like pregnancy.”

Bizarre and uncomfortable. That is the point. But I cannot see the logical flaw (and I have looked). But you are correct that nothing is like pregnancy, which leads us on to:

“That may be how some people come across but I think the argument is fundamentally based on when the cells in the woman’s body are believed to gain the right to life and in so doing how they weigh against the woman’s freedom to do as she pleases with her body – for it is not just her body, now, according to some.”

But it is her body. She has committed no crime, but now another person (who must be a person if it is entitled to legal defence) is using it, which can only be theft if she does not want this to happen. To deny this is to either deny that the foetus is a person (my position) or to claim that the state can take control of women’s bodies without their consent – to criminalise being female in effect (god, this debate brings out my feminist side…).

“You say that the ‘preborn’ are not entitled to rights. I have no view on when it should gain rights, but it seems an extraordinary position, if indeed you hold it, that a foetus has no rights up to the vagina but gains them immediately on exit.”

As opposed to no rights till 20 weeks, till 28 weeks? At least birth is a non-disputable occurence, and it is logically consistent. What is so special about 140 days of gestation or whatever? This is the point BenSix was making – there is no consistency in most of the arguments, which just shoot at the other side instead.

Who deleted the comment from the incoherent anti-abortionist? I wanted to poke fun at his confusion of BNP supporters and pro-choice, and now I can’t play…

Sorry Watchman – the comment rules are clear…

“You say that the ‘preborn’ are not entitled to rights. I have no view on when it should gain rights, but it seems an extraordinary position, if indeed you hold it, that a foetus has no rights up to the vagina but gains them immediately on exit.”

As opposed to no rights till 20 weeks, till 28 weeks? At least birth is a non-disputable occurence, and it is logically consistent. What is so special about 140 days of gestation or whatever? This is the point BenSix was making – there is no consistency in most of the arguments, which just shoot at the other side instead.

The unborn unequivocably have some rights – rights which accrue from the age at which they become ‘viable’. Hence the crime of ‘child destruction’, which applies specifically to the unborn. It’s something of a moral ambiguity (what’s the difference to the foetus whether it’s killed by the mother being stabbed in the stomach, or whether it’s killed by abortion?) but the law is pretty clear.

And anyway – the ‘happy hour’ is to celebrate the pro-choice movement not abortions themselves.

Watchman, we appear to agree about the basis of the argument. ‘Criminalise’ seems hyperbolic.

Your position seems odd. The foetus after exit from the birth canal seems no different (other than in location) from when it is in the birth canal. The 20 weeks, 28 weeks argument seems a rather more reasonable one in that greater distinctions can be drawn from the foetus at 20 weeks to the foetus at 28 weeks (or embryo at 28 days or 28 hours).

“What is so special about” N days of gestation? Nothing in particular, it’s a point we’ve chosen as our understanding of prenatal development and our considerations in our society have…er… developed. And one that seems rather more sound than where the foetus is presently located.

“The unborn unequivocably have some rights – rights which accrue from the age at which they become ‘viable’. Hence the crime of ‘child destruction’, which applies specifically to the unborn. It’s something of a moral ambiguity (what’s the difference to the foetus whether it’s killed by the mother being stabbed in the stomach, or whether it’s killed by abortion?) but the law is pretty clear.”

Tim,

Is that law much used? It appears to be based on medieval concepts that the fine payable for killing or harming pregnant women was higher than for any other women (other than virgins in some codes – which may tell you all you need to know about the mindset of the framers). That said, I see no great issue with a crime of destroying a foetus against the mother’s will – a pretty easy distinction since mothers have to sign abortion papers! Anyway, this law is not treating foeti as seperate people but as part of the mother that is destroyed.

And ‘viable’ is a judgement. My judgement is that viable is only proven at birth – before this we do not know if the foetus in question is viable, just the statistical liklihood of it being so, and law is not about statistical liklihoods.

ukliberty @85

“Your position seems odd. The foetus after exit from the birth canal seems no different (other than in location) from when it is in the birth canal.”

Not sure my position is odd. Just based on a logical reading of rights. And the foetus is different – it is no longer attached to the mother’s body. This seems to me to be the biggest and only instantly (well, depending on length of labour) identifiable change undergone by the foetus.

86 – it’s from 1929 I believe, and it certainly isn’t much used – though there was a high-profile case a year or so ago involving a back-street abortion I believe.

The usual example given in criminal law lectures is a man kicking a 9 months pregnant woman in the stomach, leaving her with only light bruising, but killing her baby. Absent this law, all he’s guilty of is battery – maybe a 3 month sentence.

And ‘viable’ is a judgement. My judgement is that viable is only proven at birth

You may or may not be right there, but the awful majesty of the law has a different view.

S1(2)- For the purpose of the Act evidence that a woman had at any material time been pregnant for a period of twenty eight weeks or more shall be prima facie proof that she was at that time pregnant of a child capable of being born alive.

This has since been reduced to 24 weeks.

Tim,

So the law is arbitrary? What’s new there. The problem I have is this is an illogical compromise.

So the law is arbitrary? What’s new there. The problem I have is this is an illogical compromise.

It’s not really being arbitrary. The phrase used is ‘capable of being born alive’. The chances of a baby born at 28 weeks surviving is apparently now at about 90-95%. For a baby of 24 weeks that drops to between 40-50%. When the Act was drafted, I suspect that 28 weeks would have been closer to 40% as well.

That’s not morals, it’s medicine.

“But it is her body. She has committed no crime, but now another person (who must be a person if it is entitled to legal defence) is using it, which can only be theft if she does not want this to happen. To deny this is to either deny that the foetus is a person (my position) or to claim that the state can take control of women’s bodies without their consent”

Well, no, that last doesn’t follow. Not even in logic. I agree that denying that the foetus is a person solves the logical knot quite simply. But we’re not then saying that the State has taken control of the body….we might simply note that the penalty for theft usually ain’t death for example.

We might also note that few actually argue entirely against the State’s right to control a person’s body against their consent (although I admit that I do). Conscription is exactly that and I’ve certainly seen a disturbingly large number of people argue that “compuslory volunteering” is a good idea. And just about no one argues that the State is not entitled to tax….which is, given that I own my own body (the core of your argument) and the produce of it, controlling someon’s body without their consent.

“What is so special about 140 days of gestation or whatever? This is the point BenSix was making – there is no consistency in most of the arguments, which just shoot at the other side instead.”

Nooo….there is logic in that particular argument. The logic is that only those capable of consciousness are human.

[88] “The usual example given in criminal law lectures is a man kicking a 9 months pregnant woman in the stomach, leaving her with only light bruising, but killing her baby. Absent this law, all he’s guilty of is battery – maybe a 3 month sentence”.

How interesting, I cannot recall hearing this scenario before.

Tim Worstall “I think it’s immoral, wrong, ”

Oh that is priceless, frigging priceless. The great supporter of freedom for the individuals suddenly has discovered morality. Just as long as it is woman who have to bear that morality, and make the sacrifice, because we know men like Tim won’t make any sacrifice.

Let me give you a taste of where Tim’s morality leads us.

“After losing power in 1990 their veteran leader, Daniel Ortega, embraced Catholicism. When making a comeback in a tight 2006 election he joined conservative foes in backing a church-led iniative for a total abortion ban. There are no exceptions for rape, incest or health risks to the mother. Even an anencephalic or ectopic pregnancy, which are incompatible with life, must be carried to term.”

So now you get this version of Tim’s morality.

“Nicaraguan authorities have withheld life-saving treatment from a pregnant cancer patient because it could harm the foetus and violate a total ban on abortion.

A state-run hospital has monitored the cancer spreading in the body of the 27-year-old named only as Amalia since her admission on February 12 but has not offered chemotherapy, radiotherapy or a therapeutic abortion, citing the law.

The decision has ignited furious protests from relatives and campaigners who say the woman, who has a 10-year-old daughter and is 10 weeks pregnant, will die unless treated. The cancer is suspected to have spread to her brain, lungs and breasts. They have petitioned the courts, government and the pan-regional Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to intervene.”

You want to pull your head out of your warped Catholic arse Worstell.

How interesting, I cannot recall hearing this scenario before.

Oh, it’s a ‘problem question’ staple. Largely because the offence is a bit obscure.

Tim W @ 92

If you don’t believe in abortion then your problem is easily solved. Simply never have one if ever you get pregnant. However, why do you think you have the right to impose you moral beliefs on anyone else? You have the right to believe in what you believe in terms of at what point does the foetus becomes human, but others simply disagree. Why not keep the status quo and let people decide for themselves?

“However, why do you think you have the right to impose you moral beliefs on anyone else? You have the right to believe in what you believe in terms of at what point does the foetus becomes human, but others simply disagree. Why not keep the status quo and let people decide for themselves?”

Well, I don’t know about you but I think that’s covered in my above comment that while I think it to be immoral I cannot see that it can be made illegal. You know, an admission that because most of my fellow citizens don’t agree then I’ll just have to put up with it?

I don’t and never have, campaign to change the law. But I do reserve to myself the privilege of saying that what you’re doing, well, I think that’s wrong. Called freedom that….hope you don’t mind.

As to Sally: yes, you can bugger off as always.

““After losing power in 1990 their veteran leader, Daniel Ortega, embraced Catholicism. When making a comeback in a tight 2006 election he joined conservative foes in backing a church-led iniative for a total abortion ban. There are no exceptions for rape, incest or health risks to the mother. Even an anencephalic or ectopic pregnancy, which are incompatible with life, must be carried to term.””

Danny Ortega is, well certainly in my hyouth, the Sandinists were right on lefty heroes. So what are you saying about Danny now? That he was just another politician, willing to do anything to gain and or keep power? That would be public choice economics, one of my points.

I would also point out that the Catholic Church does not insist that ectopic pregnancies are not treated. The statement is that where the primary purpose is the death of the foetus this is sinful. Where the primary purpose is the salvation of a life and the side effect is the death of a foetus this is both righteous and not only not sinful but obligatory.

Hang your head in shame Worstall.

A woman lying on what will probably be her death bed just so that the magic foetus can be protected. Because this is where we end up with your version of morality.

You people are really sick.

As I said above Sally, not even the Catholic position (let alone my own) goes as far as the Nicaraguan Government seems to be.

Treatment to save the life of the mother is, even under Catholic rules on abortion, allowed. If that means as a side effect the death of the foetus well, so be it.

Radiation, chemothereapy? Get on with it. Yes, even Il Papa in Rome would say the same thing.