When is it ok to have an abortion?

[Yeah but 0]

Terminating the potentially disabled. That's a whole different can of worms right there.

[LizzieBirdswrth 0]

16 minutes ago, SnailyBoy said:

Have a read what you posted in post #1, then come back to me. The clue is 'termination'.

 

 

Like I said, Very unfunny.

[ECCOnoob 1,022]

5 minutes ago, Yeah but said:

Terminating the potentially disabled. That's a whole different can of worms right there.

Why does it.

 

The fetus is damaged.   The fetus may not live and if it did it may not live any quality of life.

 

Is it MORALLY right to knowingly make a child suffer?   Morally right to deliberately bring a brain or physically damaged baby into the world when it could be prevented from happening?   

Edited June 3, 2019 by ECCOnoob

[Voice of reason 0]

45 minutes ago, SnailyBoy said:

This 'second body' is wholly depended on the woman concerned, not you.  You don't have the right to force a woman to maintain a pregnancy against their wishes, as much as you would appear to like to.

 

Just to note the vast majority of abortions in the UK 90% are carried out at under 12 weeks.  Just 2% are carried out after 20 weeks.

 

 

I'm not forcing anybody to do anything. I'm just stating my opinion.

And that is if the baby can live, it is already a human in its own right. The fact that it's still within 

 

Early stage abortions are sad, but I can get my head around that morally and from a humane perspective. The thread and comments were really discussing the OP story, which I personally can't agree with morally or humanely.

[SnailyBoy 10]

1 hour ago, Yeah but said:

It brings things into sharp focus, blows away the "its just a fetus" line. Baby's have been terminated at a stage where they can be born and live.

 

 

Once again. how does that negate a woman's right to choose?

1 hour ago, Voice of reason said:

I'm not forcing anybody to do anything. I'm just stating my opinion.

And that is if the baby can live, it is already a human in its own right. The fact that it's still within 

 

Early stage abortions are sad, but I can get my head around that morally and from a humane perspective. The thread and comments were really discussing the OP story, which I personally can't agree with morally or humanely.

 What's your definition of moral in this case?

1 hour ago, LizzieBirdswrth said:

Like I said, Very unfunny.

It wasn't meant to be funny or unfunny. It's a fact.

[Voice of reason 0]

7 minutes ago, SnailyBoy said:

Once again. how does that negate a woman's right to choose?

 What's your definition of moral in this case?

It wasn't meant to be funny or unfunny. It's a fact.

Killing a human that is capable of living. That is the cut-off of acceptable for me.

 

The 'choice' thing is a sound bite for me. We dont always have choice when it involves other people. In this case it does.

[Yeah but 0]

13 minutes ago, SnailyBoy said:

 

It wasn't meant to be funny or unfunny. It's a fact.

You were trying to be a smart arse and you know you were so knock it off.

[nikki-red 307]

The bickering ends here.

[SnailyBoy 10]

18 minutes ago, Voice of reason said:

Killing a human that is capable of living. That is the cut-off of acceptable for me.

 

The 'choice' thing is a sound bite for me. We dont always have choice when it involves other people. In this case it does.

Choice of bodily autonomy is a sound bite, seriously?

 

An unborn foetus isn't a person, the woman providing for the unborn foetus is the only person in this case.

 

It should be her choice if she wishes to continue with that. Not yours.

[WiseOwl182 10]

43 minutes ago, SnailyBoy said:

 

 

An unborn foetus isn't a person, the woman providing for the unborn foetus is the only person in this case.

 

 

In your opinion. Technically an unborn person is a person. Also there is a third person involved, the father.

[Longcol 598]

1 hour ago, WiseOwl182 said:

In your opinion. Technically an unborn person is a person. Also there is a third person involved, the father.

Go on then - explain.

 

 

 

 

[L00b 441]

8 hours ago, SnailyBoy said:

The issue there is that you're granting the foetus special rights that aren't available for others. If I , for instance, had kidney failure and will die without a kidney transplant and you happened to be a perfect match.

 

Should you be forced to provide me with a kidney?

 

Your strawman is hinged on the classic mistake of amalgamating law ('special rights', 'forced')  and morality (not law): I made no mention of rights, only of the lack of moral character of an extremely late termination (say, at 8 months and crumbs) out of choice rather than (medical) necessity, which is what I understood from the OP.

 

Feel free to try again. Minus the strawman argument, please.

 

Very late terminations on medical grounds (expected or not regardless) need not be mentioned (with/at me at least), they're a very obvious pass here. But lifestyle terminations should be time-capped. It's not a holiday or a wedding they're cancelling late.

Edited June 3, 2019 by L00b