[Abortion Thread] (YET ANOTHER POLL!) Taking measure.

[Kowani]

From a pragmatic standpoint, there’s a reason to not let kids starve-less thievery.

That's not much of an imperative. My point was that pragmatism alone would leave to a Hobbesian state of nature where we can't trust each other, and so we need moral reasoning and justice to cooperate.

No it wouldn’t? Pragmatism leads people to trusting each other-nobody can do everything themselves. You think civilization just came about out of the goodness in people’s hearts?

[The Grims]

Based on what? We've already pointed out verses that show that causing a woman to miscarry was punished with a fine, but severely injuring her personally or killing her led to a death sentence.

Non-Christians arguing like sola scriptura fundamentalists will always prevent them from making good religious arguments. Most Christians believe in a Church authority that propagates matters of doctrine. We don't just look at a verse or two in order to justify our modern habits and beliefs (though many Christians do this RIP)

So:
-The actual text of the Bible implies it is no biggie
- Nature implies God thinks it is no biggie since most pregnancies end in a natural abortion anyway by Gods design
- A Church which has a political motive to oppress women and massproduce flock calls it bad

Correct ?

[United Muscovite Nations]

That's not much of an imperative. My point was that pragmatism alone would leave to a Hobbesian state of nature where we can't trust each other, and so we need moral reasoning and justice to cooperate.

No it wouldn’t? Pragmatism leads people to trusting each other-nobody can do everything themselves. You think civilization just came about out of the goodness in people’s hearts?

Certainly no one can do anything themselves, but if we were just pragmatists, we would betray people when it became advantageous to do so.

[Kowani]

No it wouldn’t? Pragmatism leads people to trusting each other-nobody can do everything themselves. You think civilization just came about out of the goodness in people’s hearts?

Certainly no one can do anything themselves, but if we were just pragmatists, we would betray people when it became advantageous to do so.

...Isn’t history your thing? People backstabbed each other all the time! The fucking Samurai were less honorable than the Ninja in the Sengoku Jidai, and ninja are kinda the biggest pragmatists you can get that aren’t the Alpha Legion.

[Neanderthaland]

No it wouldn’t? Pragmatism leads people to trusting each other-nobody can do everything themselves. You think civilization just came about out of the goodness in people’s hearts?

Certainly no one can do anything themselves, but if we were just pragmatists, we would betray people when it became advantageous to do so.

This is a diversion from the topic, but I can't help myself:
This is transparently false. Evolution is purely pragmatic, and has evolved cooperative strategies in animals over and over again.

[Hanafuridake]

For other religious posters here, if you don't believe a soul exists, is there actually a good reason to oppose abortion?

[United Muscovite Nations]

Certainly no one can do anything themselves, but if we were just pragmatists, we would betray people when it became advantageous to do so.

...Isn’t history your thing? People backstabbed each other all the time! The fucking Samurai were less honorable than the Ninja in the Sengoku Jidai, and ninja are kinda the biggest pragmatists you can get that aren’t the Alpha Legion.

There are also instances in history in which cooperation happened when interests would seem to imply it shouldn't. I'd go more into it, but I just finished a 12 page paper on this exact topic so you'll have to forgive that I'm kind of worn out on it.

[Kowani]

...Isn’t history your thing? People backstabbed each other all the time! The fucking Samurai were less honorable than the Ninja in the Sengoku Jidai, and ninja are kinda the biggest pragmatists you can get that aren’t the Alpha Legion.

There are also instances in history in which cooperation happened when interests would seem to imply it shouldn't. I'd go more into it, but I just finished a 12 page paper on this exact topic so you'll have to forgive that I'm kind of worn out on it.

Ouch. Yeah, that’s fair.

[The Free Joy State]

actually wait isn't this a decision that should be left to the people who bear children? ie people with uteruses? people of the female sex?

That WOULD be pretty good.

Of course, that wouldn't make the actual debate moot, as 44% of women identify as pro-life (compared to 47% of men) -- with 19% of both male and female respondents favouring abortion being illegal in all circumstances.

However, if the actual legal issue of whether to have an abortion was ultimately left to the individual woman, that would allow pro-life people to hold their views (freely and unencumbered -- with no need to ever have an abortion) and pro-choice people to hold their views (freely and unencumbered -- with no need to either have an abortion or be pressurised into bearing a child they cannot have).

[United Muscovite Nations]

That WOULD be pretty good.

Of course, that wouldn't make the actual debate moot, as 44% of women identify as pro-life (compared to 47% of men) -- with 19% of both male and female respondents favouring abortion being illegal in all circumstances.

However, if the actual legal issue of whether to have an abortion was ultimately left to the individual woman, that would allow pro-life people to hold their views (freely and unencumbered -- with no need to ever have an abortion) and pro-choice people to hold their views (freely and unencumbered -- with no need to either have an abortion or be pressurised into bearing a child they cannot have).

That's not exactly a compromise and misses the fundamental issue the pro-life movement has with abortion.

[The Free Joy State]

Of course, that wouldn't make the actual debate moot, as 44% of women identify as pro-life (compared to 47% of men) -- with 19% of both male and female respondents favouring abortion being illegal in all circumstances.

However, if the actual legal issue of whether to have an abortion was ultimately left to the individual woman, that would allow pro-life people to hold their views (freely and unencumbered -- with no need to ever have an abortion) and pro-choice people to hold their views (freely and unencumbered -- with no need to either have an abortion or be pressurised into bearing a child they cannot have).

That's not exactly a compromise and misses the fundamental issue the pro-life movement has with abortion.

The issue is that it will never be possible to make the 19% that want an outright ban happy without risking many women's lives unnecessarily and hampering midwifery care (because midwives and obstetricians won't be able to care for the mother properly if it harms the foetus -- which already happens in countries where there is a ban).

So, then you're left with allowing some abortions.

Which? Imminent death (which so lets down women like Savita Halappanavar)? Rape of a woman with mental disability (as in Ecuador, where 25% of all pregnant girls aged 15-19 are pregnant as a result of rape)? Rape and incest (which brings so many issues within the pro-life side)? Foetal abnormality?

The other issue is is that, while pro-choice legislation offers freedom, pro-life legislation takes it away from half the population.

Would it not be more effective to try and reduce the number of abortions through other methods -- better sex education, better healthcare, better welfare? Make it so women do not feel driven to this option?

If you had a choice -- you were given one billion pounds and could use it to either lobby for hard pro-life legislation (an abortion ban) or to invest in better healthcare, sex education and welfare (things shown to reduce the numbers of abortion) -- what would you do?

[United Muscovite Nations]

That's not exactly a compromise and misses the fundamental issue the pro-life movement has with abortion.

The issue is that it will never be possible to make the 19% that want an outright ban happy without risking many women's lives unnecessarily and hampering midwifery care (because midwives and obstetricians won't be able to care for the mother properly if it harms the foetus -- which already happens in countries where there is a ban).

So, then you're left with allowing some abortions.

Which? Imminent death (which so lets down women like Savita Halappanavar)? Rape of a woman with mental disability (as in Ecuador, where 25% of all pregnant girls aged 15-19 are pregnant as a result of rape)? Rape and incest (which brings so many issues within the pro-life side)? Foetal abnormality?

The other issue is is that, while pro-choice legislation offers freedom, pro-life legislation takes it away from half the population.

Would it not be more effective to try and reduce the number of abortions through other methods -- better sex education, better healthcare, better welfare? Make it so women do not feel driven to this option?

If you had a choice -- you were given one billion pounds and could use it to either lobby for hard pro-life legislation (an abortion ban) or to invest in better healthcare, sex education and welfare (things shown to reduce the numbers of abortion) -- what would you do?

The fallacy is that we have to choose one or the other. And it doesn't offer freedom, not to the children that are killed by abortions. It's not an issue I'm willing to compromise on one bit, for the same reason that you wouldn't compromise on the issue of putting Jews in gas chambers.

[Napkizemlja]

So, then you're left with allowing some abortions.

Which? Imminent death

There is your answer.

[The Free Joy State]

The issue is that it will never be possible to make the 19% that want an outright ban happy without risking many women's lives unnecessarily and hampering midwifery care (because midwives and obstetricians won't be able to care for the mother properly if it harms the foetus -- which already happens in countries where there is a ban).

So, then you're left with allowing some abortions.

Which? Imminent death (which so lets down women like Savita Halappanavar)? Rape of a woman with mental disability (as in Ecuador, where 25% of all pregnant girls aged 15-19 are pregnant as a result of rape)? Rape and incest (which brings so many issues within the pro-life side)? Foetal abnormality?

The other issue is is that, while pro-choice legislation offers freedom, pro-life legislation takes it away from half the population.

Would it not be more effective to try and reduce the number of abortions through other methods -- better sex education, better healthcare, better welfare? Make it so women do not feel driven to this option?

If you had a choice -- you were given one billion pounds and could use it to either lobby for hard pro-life legislation (an abortion ban) or to invest in better healthcare, sex education and welfare (things shown to reduce the numbers of abortion) -- what would you do?

The fallacy is that we have to choose one or the other. And it doesn't offer freedom, not to the children that are killed by abortions. It's not an issue I'm willing to compromise on one bit, for the same reason that you wouldn't compromise on the issue of putting Jews in gas chambers.

The woman needs to be considered in this scenario, and I feel the pro-life side doesn't always consider her.

A four-week embryo is not the same as a newborn child.

So, if a woman is diagnosed -- when four weeks pregnant -- with cancer and told her best chance of treatment is abortion (not just for her, but the foetus, which may be negatively impacted by the chemo she needs), should she have to have to wait until she delivers? Put her faith in God and hope the cancer hasn't progressed too far by the time she can have an early delivery (six or so months away)? Or, should she abort and give herself the best chance of survival and having more children, of being around for her family and any other children she may have?

[United Muscovite Nations]

The fallacy is that we have to choose one or the other. And it doesn't offer freedom, not to the children that are killed by abortions. It's not an issue I'm willing to compromise on one bit, for the same reason that you wouldn't compromise on the issue of putting Jews in gas chambers.

The woman needs to be considered in this scenario, and I feel the pro-life side doesn't always consider her.

A four-week embryo is not the same as a newborn child.

So, if a woman is diagnosed -- when four weeks pregnant -- with cancer and told her best chance of treatment is abortion (not just for her, but the foetus, which may be negatively impacted by the chemo she needs), should she have to have to wait until she delivers? Put her faith in God and hope the cancer hasn't progressed too far by the time she can have an early delivery (six or so months away)? Or, should she abort and give herself the best chance of survival and having more children, of being around for her family and any other children she may have?

The impossibility of viability isn't a compromise, it's simply medical treatment at that point, but for any reason other than medical necessity, no, absolutely no ground should be given.

We consider it morally the same as a newborn child, as it is imbued with a soul.

[The Free Joy State]

So, then you're left with allowing some abortions.

Which? Imminent death

There is your answer.

And here's your answer.

Savita Halappanavar was denied an abortion in an Irish hospital when she was having a sceptic miscarriage, because the foetus was not yet dead (it was dying, but still had a heartbeat) and she was not yet dying. Seven days later, she died of septicaemia.

With an abortion, she'd certainly have lived.

[United Muscovite Nations]

There is your answer.

And here's your answer.

Savita Halappanavar was denied an abortion in an Irish hospital when she was having a sceptic miscarriage, because the foetus was not yet dead (it was dying, but still had a heartbeat) and she was not yet dying. Seven days later, she died of septicaemia.

With an abortion, she'd certainly have lived.

He said imminent death would be an allowable situation.

[Napkizemlja]

There is your answer.

And here's your answer.

Savita Halappanavar was denied an abortion in an Irish hospital when she was having a sceptic miscarriage, because the foetus was not yet dead (it was dying, but still had a heartbeat) and she was not yet dying. Seven days later, she died of septicaemia.

With an abortion, she'd certainly have lived.

Yes, you asked us under what circumstances we'd allow for one and I indicated medical emergency.

[The Free Joy State]

And here's your answer.

Savita Halappanavar was denied an abortion in an Irish hospital when she was having a sceptic miscarriage, because the foetus was not yet dead (it was dying, but still had a heartbeat) and she was not yet dying. Seven days later, she died of septicaemia.

With an abortion, she'd certainly have lived.

Yes, you asked us under what circumstances we'd allow for one and I indicated medical emergency.

That was what Northern Ireland's law allowed, abortion to save the mother's life. But Savita's situation was not viewed as an emergency enough -- despite the fact the foetus could not live and infection was setting in. That was why she died.

[Napkizemlja]

Yes, you asked us under what circumstances we'd allow for one and I indicated medical emergency.

That was what Northern Ireland's law allowed, abortion to save the mother's life. But Savita's situation was not viewed as an emergency enough -- despite the fact the foetus could not live and infection was setting in. That was why she died.

*Ireland's and...okay. I don't see your point here.

[Novo Vaticanus]

Imagine unironically thinking it's ever justified to kill another human

[Neanderthaland]

Imagine unironically thinking it's ever justified to kill another human

Abraham did.

[The Grims]

Imagine unironically thinking it's ever justified to kill another human

Is it ever justified to let another human die if you can prevent it ?

[The Free Joy State]

That was what Northern Ireland's law allowed, abortion to save the mother's life. But Savita's situation was not viewed as an emergency enough -- despite the fact the foetus could not live and infection was setting in. That was why she died.

*Ireland's and...okay. I don't see your point here.

That the abortion law you are supporting -- allowing abortion only when life is in imminent danger -- is insufficient.

As in Italy, where a woman pregnant with twins died after a hospital denied abortion when she was admitted to hospital in premature labour at 19 weeks. She was desparately ill and one of the foetuses was struggling to breathe. Her blood pressure and temperature kept dropping, but her doctor refused to abort because "he was a conscientious objector to abortion". She contracted an infection and died.

Abortion for imminent danger only leads to the needless deaths of women.

[Napkizemlja]

*Ireland's and...okay. I don't see your point here.

That the abortion law you are supporting -- allowing abortion only when life is in imminent danger -- is insufficient.

Not really, it's actually quite sufficient.