Repeal the 8th?

[Duke of Marmalade]

I agree that it is the destruction of a human life. I don't see how it can be OK to abort a baby but a few days later, after the child is born, is it not OK to kill it.

I think a lot of confusion arises in this debate between what is moral and when do the responsibilities of the State extend to protection of the unborn. For example the cut off point in the UK is 24 weeks. Now it seems to me that it would be quite inconsistent for a woman to think it is morally ok before 24 weeks but after that it is not morally ok. However, the idea of a cut off point for when the unborn is entitled to full protection of the State is not inconsistent albeit it must inevitably be rather arbitrary.

One thing that does seem strange to me is that once one has decided on when termination is a crime that the threat of suicide can decriminalise it. I understand the threat of suicide as a mitigating defence for any crime "m'lord I had to steal those cigs or commit suicide". But I am not aware of any crime which is negated by the threat of suicide.

 

[S.L.F]

For example the cut off point in the UK is 24 weeks.

Actually legally late term abortions can be carried out if the doctors agree.

I believe that in England there have been plenty of calls to look at cases where failed abortions have been born alive and instead of seeking medical services they are either dispatched or left in a cupboard till they stop crying.

Such a practise you'd think would be outlawed anywhere people consider themselves to a modern caring society.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

Actually legally late term abortions can be carried out if the doctors agree.

I believe that in England there have been plenty of calls to look at cases where failed abortions have been born alive and instead of seeking medical services they are either dispatched or left in a cupboard till they stop crying.

Such a practise you'd think would be outlawed anywhere people consider themselves to a modern caring society.

The England approach is a hypocritical nonsense. Apparently if two doctors agree that termination is safer for the woman than carrying to full term then it is justified. Many doctors believe that termination (at least up to an advanced stage) is always safer than risking full term, so that amounts to abortion on demand.

But I was really addressing Purple's plausible point. Clearly if a woman has no moral qualms in killing her unborn child because of the likelihood of severe handicap she should have absolutely no moral qualms in killing her new born child on finding it actually has that severe handicap. But that's not the point. Most people agree that once born all persons are entitled to the protection of the State (whether the mother is threatening suicide or not). That does not mean that it is inconsistent to suggest that at least in the early stages the unborn should not be entitled to the same level of protection.

 

[michaelm]

One thing I would like to add, that's not really considered very often, is the possibility of adoption.

Adoption is a positive option which should be hugely promoted; it could render unnecessary, expensive and protracted inter-country adoptions, and offer an alternative for some to multiple IVF cycles.

The state should provide much more support for those with crisis pregnancies. Perinatal hospice and palliative care should be provided when the unborn child has a life-limiting condition. Any right to life should not be predicated on how conception transpired; punish the rapists not the innocents.

Abortion is not a treatment for suicidal ideation. Our legislation in that regard is a political nonsense (X set no legal precedent and no onus exists on governments to enact laws based on Supreme Court cases). Hard cases make bad law.

Ireland's two-patient model has served mothers and babies well. Necessary medical treatment is never denied to expectant women, even where that will result in the loss of the unborn child's life. The 8th underpins all this and acts as a bulwark to a creeping culture of death. I hope we recognise the humanity of the unborn child and not sacrifice the 8th in the name of liberal modernity.

 

[S.L.F]

The England approach is a hypocritical nonsense. Apparently if two doctors agree that termination is safer for the woman than carrying to full term then it is justified. Many doctors believe that termination (at least up to an advanced stage) is always safer than risking full term, so that amounts to abortion on demand.

But I was really addressing Purple's plausible point. Clearly if a woman has no moral qualms in killing her unborn child because of the likelihood of severe handicap she should have absolutely no moral qualms in killing her new born child on finding it actually has that severe handicap. But that's not the point. Most people agree that once born all persons are entitled to the protection of the State (whether the mother is threatening suicide or not). That does not mean that it is inconsistent to suggest that at least in the early stages the unborn should not be entitled to the same level of protection.

I know

I was just pointing out that late term abortions are carried out in the UK way past 24 weeks

 

[cremeegg]

... abortion is the destruction of human life, and no woman should have to carry a child against her will.

You can't have both views.

I certainly can. In fact I do.

If you are trying to say that either view taken to the extreme would preclude the other. Then certainly that is true. In my opinion the abortion debate has too much extremism.

It is easy to become extreme and feel all virtuous in defence of the unborn, or to take an extreme position in support of a woman's bodily integrity and feel equally virtuous.

The reality is that anybody who does either to the exclusion of the other is at best being dishonest with themselves, or at worst has no concern for either the unborn or the woman.

 

[S.L.F]

I certainly can. In fact I do.

If you are trying to say that either view taken to the extreme would preclude the other. Then certainly that is true. In my opinion the abortion debate has too much extremism.

It is easy to become extreme and feel all virtuous in defence of the unborn, or to take an extreme position in support of a woman's bodily integrity and feel equally virtuous.

The reality is that anybody who does either to the exclusion of the other is at best being dishonest with themselves, or at worst has no concern for either the unborn or the woman.

You are saying that murder is perfectly fine if a woman makes a choice to kill her baby.

If you are going to make a moral stand then it should be based on morals.

Either murder is wrong or it isn't.

That's why I don't think you can have both views.

[Edit]

woman's bodily integrity

The problem with this line is that when she kills the child it is not her body she is killing.

 

[cremeegg]

Stop telling me what I am saying or what I can think.

You seem to think that abortion is murder. Fair enough.

I am suggesting that this view looks only at one side of the issue. Your position would be more rounded if you looked at the other side as well, no matter what you view then was.

 

[S.L.F]

Stop telling me what I am saying or what I can think.

You seem to think that abortion is murder. Fair enough.

I am suggesting that this view looks only at one side of the issue. Your position would be more rounded if you looked at the other side as well, no matter what you view then was.

I'm merely going by your posts,

Do women who are pregnant think that the body they carry is part of their own or that it is just a parasite leeching off them?

When a child passes from a woman, is that the time they by magic get the right to life?

That's the problem with the whole issue of abortion, they forget there are two bodies to consider not one.

If you decide to kill the child then yes it is murder in my eyes just like if you kill the child after birth.