diarm
Full Member
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2014
- Messages
- 17,411
I'll never apologise for defending the innocent.
What's your stance on apologising for acting like a dickhead on internet forums?
I'll never apologise for defending the innocent.
I have counted at least 3 different spelling of fetus from 3 different medical professionals in this thread.
Make you minds up, ffs!
Seems that @Penna was the only one to get it right (I think).
Feetuzz
I'm a Portuguese man, who studied by mostly American books, in a forum where most people use UK English. I get a little lost sometimes.I have counted at least 3 different spelling of fetus from 3 different medical professionals in this thread.
Make you minds up, ffs!
Seems that @Penna was the only one to get it right (I think).
I raise my hand in shame for the faetus typo. Your double vowels destroy my brain. Isn't haemoglobin with an a?
I think a fair assessment of that question is when the organism in question takes its first breath of air, assisted or unassisted.
The point I've made before on here is, when does life begin? If we take born=alive, as those who push the "foetus vs baby" narrative seem to imply, then how can we call a premature (delivered at 29 week) baby more alive than a 32 week child still in the womb? If we talk about viability outside the womb, it seems odd to say that 25 week foetus counts now, when only a 30 week foetus would have counted a number of years ago.
Then we can look at nervous systems or or heartbeats I suppose. But every point seems arbitary except birth or conception. And using birth brings up the problems mentioned above.
It's the same in Belgium, but I also think it's a bit too short. Added to that, I think the NIPT test can only be carried out after 12 weeks and it takes 1-2 weeks to receive the results, so any potential change of heart regarding abortion would become useless.The points are indeed arbitray. In Portugal you can only abort until 12 weeks if there's no medical reason. Most countries where it's allowed give a little more time than that.
I guess people want to be on the safe side of assuring that the foetus hasn't developed consciousness yet, or of it has, that it's as primitive as possible. But since we don't know exactly when that happens, different consensus develop. The point is that in our view, the need to allow the right for an abortion, trumps that scientific uncertainty.
Personally I think 12 weeks is too short. There have been rare cases here of that interval not being enough, and some (rare, but it happened) women were forced to take their pregnancies to the end for issues beyond their control such as late diagnosis of pregnancy, added with an unexpected need to delay the abortion procedure - for example, because the doctor scheduled to do it became unavailable at the last minute and no replacement was possible in time of the 12 weeks deadline.
it's not about being alive or not, the sperm and egg are alive on their own, it's about when it becomes a personimvho if a fetus is viable outside the womb, then it's a life; If a fetus is delivered alive after an abortion then it's a life. Also access to contraception needs to be improved in most places but especially the developing world and the US.
When I say it's a life I mean it should be guaranteed all the rights that are afforded to people under the laws of that country.it's not about being alive or not, the sperm and egg are alive on their own, it's about when it becomes a person
The point I've made before on here is, when does life begin? If we take born=alive, as those who push the "foetus vs baby" narrative seem to imply, then how can we call a premature (delivered at 29 week) baby more alive than a 32 week child still in the womb? If we talk about viability outside the womb, it seems odd to say that 25 week foetus counts now, when only a 30 week foetus would have counted a number of years ago.
Then we can look at nervous systems or heartbeats I suppose. But every point seems arbitary except birth or conception. And using birth brings up the problems mentioned above.
Don't be silly.I wonder if there are actually and women taking part in the debate here. Seems pretty senseless to do this, in a place that’s basically a huge sausage party.
Arguments for and against abortion aside, why is it, that nearly everyone arguing against abortion come across as a massive dickhead and makes me wish their parents had one?
Is that just God havin' a go?
I think abortion, apart from a scientific thing, is also a cultural thing. You cannot argue something like this based completely on facts and facts alone. Emotions are involved. Since my wife's been pregnant I look at abortion a bit differently. I'm still completely pro choice, but can imagine that some people would think of it as ending your child's life. I disagree with it, because I value the mother (and in some cases father) over a barely developed conscience, but do understand where the other side is coming from. The problem with this debate (and most debates) is people making outrageous statements and throw around moronic accusations like infanticide without any actual knowledge whatsoever, apart from "the Bible says you shouldn't". That book is really holding humanity back, since the "Bible argument" is always the end of the discussion. It was written, end of story. Feck off with that.
I wonder if there are actually and women taking part in the debate here. Seems pretty senseless to do this, in a place that’s basically a huge sausage party.
You fail to understand why the discussion would massively benefit from the voices of the only group of people actually affected by it? It's obviously extremely important to get as much female perspective on this topic as possible. For once because this topic has traditionally been regulated not by women, but by men, who shaped the laws and morals surrounding it. They did so lacking any understanding or appreciation of any emotional and physical consequences a pregnancy and it's termination might cause.I fail to understand this argument. What's the point here? Are you implying we should have a segregation of morality that only those can decide upon who are involved (arguably men are affected by this as well - even if to a lesse extent)?
Because the logical conclusion would be that only religious people can judge over the (im-)morality of religious scriptures. Only Atheists can judge over the morality of secularism. Only europeans can judge which european actions in the past have been moral and which have been immoral. Only fathers can decide what's best for their sons while mothers can only decide over what's best for their daughters. So on and so forth.
Doesn't make sense to me and only creates an unnecessary divide and segregation.
You fail to understand why the discussion would massively benefit from the voices of the only group of people actually affected by it? It's obviously extremely important to get as much female perspective on this topic as possible. For once because this topic has traditionally been regulated not by women, but by men, who shaped the laws and morals surrounding it. They did so lacking any understanding or appreciation of any emotional and physical consequences a pregnancy and it's termination might cause.
As of right now, we're basically doing the same. Right now, here is a bunch of mostly men, as far as I can tell at least, who will never experience the consequences surrounding pregnancy first hand. We will never understand the emotional and physical stress involved, the (possible) psychological stress caused by the procedure itself, the stress and sometimes possibly traumatic experience surrounding the medical "consulting" and so on. And quite frankly, it's not our damn bodies.
So while men obviously can give input and take part in a discussion like this, I think doing so without an actual female perspective is quite difficult and at times quite simply useless. If you add the usual pattern of gender based differences in most discussions, the issue that men tend to take over discussion and women struggling to even get time to talk at all, it just seems quite absurd to discuss a solely female topic with almost only men.
The process in coming to such a conclusion while basing your arguments on a book some guys wrote 2000 years ago is the moronic part.
As I said. People who make wild accusations based on the bible (or one of the other books). That doesnt mean all accusations are made on grounds of the Bible. Though I'd venture a guess that religion and being anti abortion is quite a good match.I quote you to be extra clear: "Seems pretty senseless to do this, in a place that’s basically a huge sausage party."
You essentially say it is pointless of men to discuss this topic. Would the discussion potentially benefit voices of the affected group? Of. Fecking. Course. Thanks for the info captain obvious. But that's not the statement you made. You very clearly clarified that it is "SENSELESS" for anyone else to discuss that. And thus the logical conclusion is that you say that people shouldn't discuss what doesn't affect them. Segregation of morality as I said.
And everyone who is against abortion is necessarily religious? Not to mention christianity isn't exactly the only religion having a say in this discussion. So you simplifying everyone against abortion is the common denominator of "they must be christian" is quite narrow-minded. In the past just above yours I have clearly asked several non-religious questions on the matter that needs to be discussed.
As I said. People who make wild accusations based on the bible (or one of the other books). That doesnt mean all accusations are made on grounds of the Bible. Though I'd venture a guess that religion and being anti abortion is quite a good match.
Thing is, believing something because the Bible says so is such a discussion killer. Nothing left to argue, save God descending from the heavens and saying it's alright.
As I said in my post, I think there's no black and white right or wrong in this debate and I understand both points of view. It's the hardliners accusing the other side of being murderers that irk me greatly.
You wouldn't say that if you'd seen what I've seen. It's so easy to make glib statements like that, but faced with the reality of a late abortion, I can guarantee that you'd be horrified. I still think about that teenage girl and that baby boy, and it happened 40 years ago.Weeks doesn't matter at all. Abortion is mother's discretion as long she's carrying.
You wouldn't say that if you'd seen what I've seen. It's so easy to make glib statements like that, but faced with the reality of a late abortion, I can guarantee that you'd be horrified. I still think about that teenage girl and that baby boy, and it happened 40 years ago.
There wasn't any reason at all for that particular abortion, other than the baby wasn't wanted.I was referring to more religious/moral reasons for abortion, not actual medical ones. If there was a medical necessity, then the doctor or the mother should be the one to make it ... on medical reasons.