Morality of abortion

[PointOfViewGun]

You're reading the debate backwards: it is the radical who attempts to hijack "virtually non-existent" or fringe case-studies in an effort to justify the eradication of a general principle. The moment I posited that third trimester fetal terminations were unethical, it was the "pro-choice" advocates who lurched toward the extremities. My claim that "I am yet to hear of an instance where a woman's life was contingent upon the deliberate termination of a viable third trimester fetus" was a rebuttal to those who were appealing to the extremes of reproductive complications to condone fetal terminations beyond the 28th week.

Going back the chain of messages I don't see that happening. You were the one insisting on this idea. Don't argue like it was brought upon you. You first incorrectly classified abortion on demand, which concerned first trimester abortions at the time, as a radical idea. When called upon on it you tried to switch it to third trimester abortions. When people wanted to let the doctors and the mother decide together whether a woman needs an abortion at third trimester you tried to hijack the entirety of it by insisting that you heard no case where an abortion was needed at third trimester. People are not trying to eradicate a general principle. They're trying to contextualize that principle to make sure mother's don't have to die.

[basics]

Whatever happened to that natural instinct that one would die for their children? Apparently not as some see their own lives to be more important.

[Cope]

Going back the chain of messages I don't see that happening. You were the one insisting on this idea. Don't argue like it was brought upon you.

False. My detractors sought to invoke outlying cases to rebuke my position. Please read my previous post for more details.

You first incorrectly classified abortion on demand, which concerned first trimester abortions at the time, as a radical idea.

False. I claimed that the acceptance of first trimester abortions was a "standard liberal position"; that I do not agree with unconditional abortions during the first trimester does not mean that I find that view to be "radical".

When called upon on it you tried to switch it to third trimester abortions.

False. My view has never been that the acceptance of first trimester abortions is a radical position.

When people wanted to let the doctors and the mother decide together whether a woman needs an abortion at third trimester you tried to hijack the entirety of it by insisting that you heard no case where an abortion was needed at third trimester.

False. In response to the claim that my view of third trimester terminations would result in adult fatalities, I highlighted the effective nonexistence of medical circumstances which would ever necessitate third trimester fetal terminations. You accidentally agreed with me on this point when you were wrongly accusing me of obscuring the debate by appealing to the statistical extremities.

People are not trying to eradicate a general principle. They're trying to contextualize that principle to make sure mother's don't have to die.

My view does not require any maternal fatalities to occur, nor does it require the existence of fringe hypotheticals to prove its value. On the contrary, and as I have shown, it was my detractors who relied upon fringe hypotheticals to discredit my general proposition.

[Gaidin]

17 weeks is not the third trimester.

man, you think I care? The fact that it wasn't 3rd trimester proves my point more. The mother DIED BEFORE THE THIRD TRIMESTER BECAUSE THEY WEREN'T WILLING TO TAKE STEPS. If the baby had been aborted she'd had survived. Get the frak over yourself. Ireland amended their fundamental law due to this incident. Not something you can argue with.

Ask yourself this: How much does the mother's health matter? When you can answer this, reply to my post.

This, this, is literally a case that breaks your perfect bull. You can't just pull the 17 week fetus out and have the NICU deal with them. This is a 17 week fetus that has screwed over the mother and she is dying and by law the hospital they couldn't help her. And even after it took them years to fix it but by god they did. But you know what that fix was?

ABORTION!

[Cope]

man, you think I care? The fact that it wasn't 3rd trimester proves my point more. The mother DIED BEFORE THE THIRD TRIMESTER BECAUSE THEY WEREN'T WILLING TO TAKE STEPS. If the baby had been aborted she'd had survived. Get the frak over yourself. Ireland amended their fundamental law due to this incident. Not something you can argue with.

Ask yourself this: How much does the mother's health matter? When you can answer this, reply to my post.

This, this, is literally a case that breaks your perfect bull. You can't just pull the 17 week fetus out and have the NICU deal with them. This is a 17 week fetus that has screwed over the mother and she is dying and by law the hospital they couldn't help her. And even after it took them years to fix it but by god they did. But you know what that fix was?

ABORTION!

The case-study you provided isn't relevant to our conversation: a non-viable second trimester fetus is not the equivalent of a viable third trimester fetus. At best, the case you presented served only to demonstrate that a series of concurrent medical misdiagnoses resulted in a second trimester fatality. According to your own source, the physicians overseeing Savita Halappanavar's care failed to abort her fetus, not because it was unlawful for them to do so, but because they misunderstood the nature of her condition and were unaccustomed to the clinical circumstances. This according to the HSE investigation:

"The clinical condition in this case of ruptured membranes, presence of infection and a live fetus is a rare clinical scenario. Therefore, staff would not be used to managing cases with this clinical context."

Your characterisation of the case as being one in which medical professionals were legally prevented from intervening to save the life of the mother is therefore fallacious.

All of this notwithstanding, you are still arguing against a straw man: I have never claimed that abortions should be disallowed in instances where the procedure is necessary to protect the life of the mother.

[Aexodus]

https://www.thejournal.ie/eighth-ame...77441-Apr2018/

Why Ireland's law fundamentally changed.

Savita’s death was because of medical incompetence and a misdiagnosis, not Ireland’s abortion laws. Repeat, Ireland’s abortion laws were not at fault here, the doctors were for not detecting a threat to her life. In Ireland an abortion was legal when the mother’s lifw was at risk

In the case of a life threatening third trimester pregnancy, premature delivery is the answer and an abortion is medically unethical.

[Cope]

Savita’s death was because of medical incompetence and a misdiagnosis, not Ireland’s abortion laws. Repeat, Ireland’s abortion laws were not at fault here, the doctors were for not detecting a threat to her life. In Ireland an abortion was legal when the mother’s lifw was at risk

In the case of a life threatening third trimester pregnancy, premature delivery is the answer and an abortion is medically unethical.

Correct.

[Aexodus]

I wish pro-choice campaigners wouldn’t abuse her case as a reason to abolish protections for unborn as they did in 2018, but here we are.

[PointOfViewGun]

False. My detractors sought to invoke outlying cases to rebuke my position. Please read my previous post for more details.

False. I claimed that the acceptance of first trimester abortions was a "standard liberal position"; that I do not agree with unconditional abortions during the first trimester does not mean that I find that view to be "radical".
False. My view has never been that the acceptance of first trimester abortions is a radical position.
False. In response to the claim that my view of third trimester terminations would result in adult fatalities, I highlighted the effective nonexistence of medical circumstances which would ever necessitate third trimester fetal terminations. You accidentally agreed with me on this point when you were wrongly accusing me of obscuring the debate by appealing to the statistical extremities.
My view does not require any maternal fatalities to occur, nor does it require the existence of fringe hypotheticals to prove its value. On the contrary, and as I have shown, it was my detractors who relied upon fringe hypotheticals to discredit my general proposition.

Sigh... You're trying to muddy the waters to step away from the mess you've created. On post #1376, you did classify abortion-on-demand, which includes first trimester, as radical. You changed the focus to third trimester abortions with your post #1379. This was your doing. You started with blanket statements and whined when people wanted to contextualize them. You did not highlight nonexistence of anything. You highlighted your lack of knowledge of such case's existence. Insisting that it was others who relied upon fringe cases when you yourself base your entire premise at virtually non-existent cases to blanket ban abortions at third trimester doesn't grant your position more merit.

[Gaidin]

I wish pro-choice campaigners wouldn’t abuse her case as a reason to abolish protections for unborn as they did in 2018, but here we are.

It doesn’t matter what you think about her case as it led to Ireland amending their law.

[Cope]

On post #1376, you did classify abortion-on-demand, which includes first trimester, as radical. You changed the focus to third trimester abortions with your post #1379. This was your doing.

The term "abortion-on-demand" refers to the unconditional availability of fetal terminations during all stages of pregnancy; the third trimester is included within all stages of pregnancy. Since an acceptance of third trimester fetal terminations is contained within a view which accepts abortion-on demand, there is no contradiction in claiming that both are radical propositions. I can only assume that your accusation of argumentative shape-shifting is predicated on the faulty premise that the term "abortion-on-demand" could refer exclusively to the first trimester. It cannot.

You started with blanket statements and whined when people wanted to contextualize them.

A self-evidently fallacious and incendiary claim which requires no further explanation.

You did not highlight nonexistence of anything. You highlighted your lack of knowledge of such case's existence.

Beyond being a semantic irritant, this claim would only serve a substantive purpose if you could show how my "knowledge" was incongruent with reality. That would require you to present a case in which a third trimester fetal termination was necessary to save the life of the mother.

Insisting that it was others who relied upon fringe cases when you yourself base your entire premise at virtually non-existent cases to blanket ban abortions at third trimester doesn't grant your position more merit.

Another self-evidently false claim. My detractors attempted to rebuke my view by appealing to fringe hypothetical scenarios and you interpret my responses to their claims as evidence of my reliance on fringe hypothetical scenarios. What risible nonsense.

Post Script: I won't be responding these attempts to score rhetorical points in the future; it's tedious for everyone and you're never going to be as good at it as Ferrets was.

[Infidel144]

It seems that in the UK the State can compel women to have abortions:
UK court orders forced abortion for disabled woman
https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/n...ed-woman-34728

[Gaidin]

It seems that in the UK the State can compel women to have abortions:
UK court orders forced abortion for disabled woman
https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/n...ed-woman-34728

Leaving out the same context you did, I’m gonna ask, “So?”

[Infidel144]

Leaving out the same context you did, I’m gonna ask, “So?”

Do you see the link to the article?

[Aexodus]

That is sick. The national health service takes far too big a role in deciding what’s best for patients.

[Infidel144]

That is sick. The national health service takes far too big a role in deciding what’s best for patients.

22 weeks along and both the pregnant woman and her mother, who is her guardian, I presume, and the woman's social worker are against it, if I read the article correctly. Can't get it to open now to double check. UK has more restrictive abortion laws than the US. Isn't the limit is 24 weeks or some such?

[Aexodus]

What? No the UK has more lax laws the America I would say.

[Infidel144]

Really? How so?

"In England, Scotland and Wales, the legal grounds for abortion are set out in the 1967 Abortion Act. Abortion is legal if:•you are less than 24 weeks pregnant and;
•two doctors agree that continuing the pregnancy and having a baby would be worse for your physical or mental health than ending the pregnancy by having an abortion."
https://www.brook.org.uk/our-work/abortion-law

This is not the case in the US (though some states are changing their laws).

Has something changed in the UK?

[PointOfViewGun]

22 weeks along and both the pregnant woman and her mother, who is her guardian, I presume, and the woman's social worker are against it, if I read the article correctly. Can't get it to open now to double check. UK has more restrictive abortion laws than the US. Isn't the limit is 24 weeks or some such?

Also this from the article if you read it correctly:

The woman is believed to have the mental capacity of a grade school-age child.

The judge said she did not believe the woman understood what it meant to have a baby.

“I think she would like to have a baby in the same way she would like to have a nice doll,” Lieven said.

[Gaidin]

Do you see the link to the article?

Yea. I just don't see a problem with it. I more see a lack of information. How old is the grandmother? Says former midwife so I would assume retired. Someone who could die then, while the child is in school. Right when she needs a mother taking care of her, and hers is, well, a child. How good are the adoption agencies in the UK?

I'm more interested in who statutorily raped the mother.

See, this is how useless your article is. And every other thing that comes up on google uses this as a source article so there's no more information to find. Great bias here. And you don't even convey the information that's in it onto the forum. I'm not saying, like, copy-paste the article. Just convey some information. Not paste a link and facepalm like you did. When I read just your post I get kinda the same sinking feeling you do. Fair. But when I read that article I get a few details and I go, "Well, no wonder they ordered that to be done."

This is what happens when you get information that is available to the story. This is what happens when you hope people don't read your links. Your story has a case where a family with a rape victim literally can not care for their child for eighteen years. What in mother-frakking god's name do you expect a court to order? Until more details come out, indifference.