Jump to content

When is it ok to have an abortion?

Recommended Posts

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
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 by ECCOnoob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The bickering ends here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
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 by L00b

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.