If a fetus has no rights and abortion isn't murder, how is this allowed?

[Phier]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/he...n-illegal.html

MPs have voted overwhelmingly in favour of a motion declaring that sex-selection abortion is illegal.

They voted 181 to 1 for a motion brought forward by a cross-party alliance of MPs in an effort to end uncertainty over whether doctors can be prosecuted for the practice. It will now have a second reading in January.

Confusion over the law was exposed last year by the decision of the then Director of Public Prosecutions, Sir Keir Starmer, not to bring charges against two doctors caught on camera agreeing to arrange abortions of baby girls purely because of their sex, in a Telegraph investigation.

Now obviously there are a LOT of problems with sex based abortions, disallowing this (though this seems rather unenforceable) does make sense on MANY levels. I'm not saying its a bad law, in fact its a law desperately needed.

But....

How can you claim "My body my choice" where its "My body my choice unless my choice is for only boys(girls)"?

[Adar]

I must admit that I've never really understood the more self righteous arguments for abortion. I got a more practical view when supporting it.

But I don't understand this law either.

[justicar5]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/he...n-illegal.html


Now obviously there are a LOT of problems with sex based abortions, disallowing this (though this seems rather unenforceable) does make sense on MANY levels. I'm not saying its a bad law, in fact its a law desperately needed.

But....

How can you claim "My body my choice" where its "My body my choice unless my choice is for only boys(girls)"?

it doesn't make sense. Mind you UK abortion law flat out doesn't anyway.

[removeduser_487563287433]

Phier, not that you care, not that you want to discuss the actual matter, you just want to use this as a foil for your own dumb views, but abortion in the UK is not on demand - there has to be a justification for it. This bill is entirely consistent with that.

[Copperknickers II]

Phier, not that you care, not that you want to discuss the actual matter, you just want to use this as a foil for your own dumb views, but abortion in the UK is not on demand - there has to be a justification for it.

The official law is 'two doctors have to believe that abortion carries less physical and/or mental health risks than continuing with the pregnancy'. In other words it's massively subjective. In practice most abortions are because women simply don't want to have children yet.

I agree with this law, abortion is wrong and the more restrictions we place on it the better. It should be for rape victims and underage mothers and such like, it's not a form of contraception, not to mention the crippling psychological damage it does to women who have it.

It shouldn't be a choice, and even if it were a choice, it would be utterly irresponsible of the government to allow people to sabotage the economy by changing the balance between men and women. Imagine if men began to outnumber women, especially in communities like Asians where men are already valued more than women. It would be catastrophic for women's rights.

[AqD]

I agree with this law, abortion is wrong and the more restrictions we place on it the better. It should be for rape victims and underage mothers and such like, it's not a form of contraception, not to mention the crippling psychological damage it does to women who have it.

I'd support that if your government can unconditionally take care of any children who are unwanted or unaffordable by their parents, so they wouldn't ruin the life of the latter.

[themzr]

The official law is 'two doctors have to believe that abortion carries less physical and/or mental health risks than continuing with the pregnancy'. In other words it's massively subjective. In practice most abortions are because women simply don't want to have children yet.

I agree with this law, abortion is wrong and the more restrictions we place on it the better. It should be for rape victims and underage mothers and such like, it's not a form of contraception, not to mention the crippling psychological damage it does to women who have it.

It shouldn't be a choice, and even if it were a choice, it would be utterly irresponsible of the government to allow people to sabotage the economy by changing the balance between men and women. Imagine if men began to outnumber women, especially in communities like Asians where men are already valued more than women. It would be catastrophic for women's rights.

Why do you believe that your opinion that it is wrong is worth more weight than others? What gives you the right to impose on another's free-will to make their own choices and decisions when it has no effect on your life.

[Copperknickers II]

Why do you believe that your opinion that it is wrong is worth more weight than others? What gives you the right to impose on another's free-will to make their own choices and decisions when it has no effect on your life.

Obviously I give my own beliefs higher value than the beliefs of others, or I wouldn't believe them. And I don't have the right to impose on others' free will, or I'd have banned abortions by now. I do have the right however to express my opinion.

But assuming I were the government, I would certainly have the right to impose on others' free will, because I would have the power to impose legislation and the democratically mandated right to do so. That is what law is: stopping people from doing what they want to do in order to uphold what is right and hinder what is wrong, according to the democratic will of the people. And as for it not having an effect on my life, neither does rape, torture and genocide in far away countries, doesn't make mean I don't have the right, and indeed the responsibility, to lobby to stop them.

[Pinarius]

It shouldn't be a choice, and even if it were a choice, it would be utterly irresponsible of the government to allow people to sabotage the economy by changing the balance between men and women. Imagine if men began to outnumber women, especially in communities like Asians where men are already valued more than women. It would be catastrophic for women's rights.

It's the other way round in Murica btw:
http://www.in-gender.com/XYU/Gender-.../#SexSelection

[alhoon]

How can you claim "My body my choice" where its "My body my choice unless my choice is for only boys(girls)"?

Personally, I'm all for this law. Abortion should be the last option and pregnancy seen more than an inconvenience.

Phier, not that you care, not that you want to discuss the actual matter, you just want to use this as a foil for your own dumb views, but abortion in the UK is not on demand - there has to be a justification for it. This bill is entirely consistent with that.

Wow! That's awesome.
What are the justifications needed by the two doctors?
If it's "Well, the baby came at a time I would prefer to spend on my career" then they need to be a bit more strict.

I'm a proponent of whoever wants an abortion should get one for whatever reason they choose, including not wanting their child to be a certain sex.

And I fervently disagree with you and I'm disappointed that educated people hold such low value on human life.

[Stavroforos]

And I fervently disagree with you and I'm disappointed that educated people hold such low value on human life.

I value human life once it leaves the womb.

[alhoon]

I value human life once it leaves the womb.

Oh come on! Are you one of those religious guys that believe a child becomes alive only after leaving the woman's body and before that it's more or less a piece of flesh and bone, like said woman's organs?

[Stavroforos]

Oh come on! Are you one of those religious guys that believe a child becomes alive only after leaving the woman's body and before that it's more or less a piece of flesh and bone, like said woman's organs?

No...I'm not religious.

[Denny Crane!]

On Topic: Ferrets nailed it. Keeping in line with the current law and reasons behind it, this is entirely consistent.

Well Copperknickers I've noticed you seem to pop up in every single abortion thread. Point by point:

In practice most abortions are because women simply don't want to have childred yet. Eminently sensible. Most abortions take place with single women not in stable relationships, more than half. Having a child when not ready will probably result in a poor environment for the child and considerable financial mental and emotional stress on the mother. Most abortions take place at a standardised age of 17.5 for the year of 2013, an age where it would again in our current society not be considered a sensible time to begin raising a child before pursuing education or work and having the necessary mental and financial resources to prepare for that child.

abortion is wrong and the more restrictions we place on it the better.

Quoting yourself here: In other words it's massively subjective. I don't think its wrong and neither do many others. So keep your opinion we'll keep ours.

not to mention the crippling psychological damage it does to women who have it.

Not to mention the crippling psychological and emotional damage to mother and child who have children when ill prepared for it.

[athanaric]

In practice most abortions are because women simply don't want to have childred yet. Eminently sensible. Most abortions take place with single women not in stable relationships, more than half. Having a child when not ready will probably result in a poor environment for the child and considerable financial mental and emotional stress on the mother. Most abortions take place at a standardised age of 17.5 for the year of 2013, an age where it would again in our current society not be considered a sensible time to begin raising a child before pursuing education or work and having the necessary mental and financial resources to prepare for that child.

Moral qualms aside, your stance sounds sensible on the surface, however it engenders and supports irresponsible behaviour IMO. For people who "don't want children yet", there's contraception. It's easily and widely available. And where it isn't, we can always push to change that.

Quoting yourself here: In other words it's massively subjective. I don't think its wrong and neither do many others. So keep your opinion we'll keep ours.

Well, a fetus is a living being, so killing it - outside of emergency situations - ought to raise some eyebrows at the very least. I don't see how that's "massively subjective". Unless you're also cool with the killing of random people and/or animals.

No it doesn't. Or let me put it this way. Your culture requires food and water, it does not require an equal number of men and women. You speak as though your country is a vast herd of homo sapiens managed with all the efficiency of a dairy farm.

Yes it does. Unless you want to deal with roving bands of disenfranchised young men who threaten social order and routinely rape women. Which just so happens to be the case in countries where discrimination of women and selective abortion of female fetuses are common practice.
Your concept of allowing everyone to abort for any reason only works in a large society where both sexes are seen as entirely equal. IOW, nowhere.

[Denny Crane!]

Moral qualms aside, your stance sounds sensible on the surface, however it engenders and supports irresponsible behaviour IMO. For people who "don't want children yet", there's contraception. It's easily and widely available. And where it isn't, we can always push to change that.

If someone isn't ready for that child I have absolutely no problem with them getting an abortion.

Well, a fetus is a living being, so killing it - outside of emergency situations - ought to raise some eyebrows at the very least. I don't see how that's "massively subjective". Unless you're also cool with the killing of random people and/or animals.

I don't agree that a foetus is automatically a living thing sorry. Your equivocation is exactly massively subjective by just arbitrarily equating the killing of an adult with a foetus. Oh and not being OK with the random killing of animals? Ugh yeah I am OK with hunting, fishing and meat eating so it turns out that yes I am OK with that.

[Himster]

Well, a fetus is a living being

A fetus doesn't automatically have it's own metabolism.
Living tissue doesn't mean a living being.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Living tissue doesn't mean a living being.

Then what does? That's really the crux of the issue here after all. We can talk about rights and pragmatism and circumstance and cost/benefit all day, but it's all of little consequence when AFAIK science has yet to define or discover life up to a point that would definitively satisfy the central question of the abortion debate: Is the fetus alive or not? Because after all, if at some point in the future we discover that we've been permitting mass infanticide this whole time, I'd personally feel pretty rotten.

In the meantime I'd prefer to deal with the issue as a sort of "power of attorney" concept. In the case of a brain-dead or otherwise incapacitated person, other relatives or legally vested persons are then given the power to decide whether they should continue treatment. Giving parents the power to kill their unborn children can, I believe, be worked out within existing legal framework under these parameters. Similar to shutting off a ventilator, killing a fetus could be treated legally in the same manner as cutting the fetus off from the "life support machine" that is its mother. However, I think it would be constructive to at least admit that abortion ends a life in the same sense as a patient whose brain is dead and/or whose body can no longer function on its own. After all, without a brain, without Mind, we're all "just tissue," whether a fetus or an 80 year-old meat bag.

Personally I've often wondered why no one has thought of this by now. Maybe someone did and decided its a stupid idea. I don't know. But in my uneducated opinion I think it would serve a valuable purpose to establish uniform legislation and provide a basis of discussion more solid than the current one between extremists; Evangelical Christians on one side and radical feminists on the other.

[Denny Crane!]

Well abortion industry makes a lot of cash, so pro abortion laws have a big lobby behind them.

But a small thought experiment - all the liberal hippy LGTB multiculti feminist groups who are for pro abortion, my body my rules, pro choice, what would they say or think of homosexuality became a screenable thing on fetus, would they still aprove of aborting knowing lots of homosexuals would be aborted, and would they see "pro choice" in the same eyes regarding abortion?

There is no money in abortion in the UK as we have socialised healthcare.

Not one person here is advocating random selection of traits and selection based on them that I have seen. If you were pro sex selection though I see no reason why you couldn't also be pro sexuality choice selection as well. Maybe they could find a racist or bigoted gene and remove that and we could all be tolerant of different sexualities and different races. That is a nice fantasy world that we clearly don't live in right now.

Then what does? That's really the crux of the issue here after all. We can talk about rights and pragmatism and circumstance and cost/benefit all day, but it's all of little consequence when AFAIK science has yet to define or discover life up to a point that would definitively satisfy the central question of the abortion debate: Is the fetus alive or not? Because after all, if at some point in the future we discover that we've been permitting mass infanticide this whole time, I'd personally feel pretty rotten.

See you paint a position of ignorance then go right ahead and discuss it as though we do know and it is definitely life. I'd rather not go with the automatic assumption that it is life from the moment of conception as you do.

[Himster]

Then what does?

Living things are those that display the following characteristics

• an organized structure, being made up of a cell or cells
• requires energy to survive or sustain existence
• ability to reproduce
• ability to grow
• ability to metabolize
• ability to respond to stimuli
• ability to adapt to the environment
• ability to move
• ability to respire

The metabolism is the essential component here, starkly missing from embryos and early fetuses.
Not that I'm saying there's a magical moment where poof - non-life becomes life. That's absolutely absurd. Life does not start as conception, life is defined (by all) as an aggregate of attributes, a series of developments that are slow and very difficult to detect a lot of the time, let alone measure.

That's really the crux of the issue here after all. We can talk about rights and pragmatism and circumstance and cost/benefit all day, but it's all of little consequence when AFAIK science has yet to define or discover life up to a point that would definitively satisfy the central question of the abortion debate: Is the fetus alive or not? Because after all, if at some point in the future we discover that we've been permitting mass infanticide this whole time, I'd personally feel pretty rotten.

The point at which a fetus could theoretically live outside the womb it is alive. Before that it is a component of the woman. That point is (typically) when it develops it's own metabolism.
However there is no perfect test to determine whether the fetus could exist outside the womb without putting it in danger: stopping abortions at week 20/22 is a crude but acceptable substitute for practical reasons.

However, I think it would be constructive to at least admit that abortion ends a life

It ends a potential life, a hypothetical life.