Welcome to Gilead

[malvolio]

FTFY.

It is not just women who can have abortions.

I will agree - but only when you can show me a bull dropping a calf, or a cow siring one.

[d000hg]

What is about religious fundamentalists and the repression of women?

They think unborn babies are people. Based on this axiom, it's not repression to tell a mother they may not kill their child, it's just an extension of normal morality.
The entire messy debate comes down to whether you believe that axiom or not and this explains why you cannot really have meaningful dialogue between the two sides since it's a such a fundamental disagreement. Viewed through this axiom it also makes most of the side-arguments seem fairly superfluous to the main issue - a mother who kills her baby if it is the result of rape or incest has still killed a baby, "if she can't kill her baby legally she'll do it at home or down some back-street", etc. "My body my choice" relies on the fact it is only your body affected.

It all boils down to that one single question - and no it's not only religious types, there are plenty of atheist and humanist pro-life groups.

BTW this is simply an explanation, neither advocacy for pro-life or pro-choice. Don't attack me personally for positions you assume I hold.

---

On a lighter note my favourite bit was when BBC news reported the story, they included a young lady "asked what emoji would best represent how they were feeling about abortion being banned?"

[TheDude]

They think unborn babies are people. Based on this axiom, it's not repression to tell a mother they may not kill their child, it's just an extension of normal morality.

There is quite a high body count in The Bible though.

[SueEllen]

There is quite a high body count in The Bible though.

Ahh but they were all evil...

[malvolio]

They think unborn babies are people. Based on this axiom, it's not repression to tell a mother they may not kill their child, it's just an extension of normal morality.
The entire messy debate comes down to whether you believe that axiom or not and this explains why you cannot really have meaningful dialogue between the two sides since it's a such a fundamental disagreement. Viewed through this axiom it also makes most of the side-arguments seem fairly superfluous to the main issue - a mother who kills her baby if it is the result of rape or incest has still killed a baby, "if she can't kill her baby legally she'll do it at home or down some back-street", etc. "My body my choice" relies on the fact it is only your body affected.

It all boils down to that one single question - and no it's not only religious types, there are plenty of atheist and humanist pro-life groups.

BTW this is simply an explanation, neither advocacy for pro-life or pro-choice. Don't attack me personally for positions you assume I hold.

---

On a lighter note my favourite bit was when BBC news reported the story, they included a young lady "asked what emoji would best represent how they were feeling about abortion being banned?"

The dividing line medically is fairly well established, it's whether or not the foetus can sustain life outside the womb, which is 20 weeks. Of course, demonstrating that point in reality is a little difficult...

[ladymuck]

There is much debate about "when life starts". Some say it is at the moment of conception, even though many women conceive and then lose the zygote (for that is what it is at that stage) without ever knowing they were pregnant so how you can say that a zygote is alive is beyond me.

There is also the discussion around the viability of the foetus. This is where contention really gets going. Viable life is the stage at which the foetus can be born and survive with minimal medical intervention - i.e. it can feed on its own, breathe on its own, etc. That seems to occur from around the 24 week mark onwards. Therefore abortion up to 20 weeks is considered fair and that's where most services are aimed at (there are some later stage abortion services).

However, for a foetus to reach that age/stage, it is most likely "viable" (as you'd have miscarried if it wasn't) and therefore you are killing a potential human being.

I can completely understand the arguments against abortion even though I am very firmly in the pro-choice camp. There are many reasons why an abortion is wanted or even necessary and to blanket ban it is entirely wrong.

It is especially wrong if child care provision, support for new parents, cost of medical care, etc is prohibitively expensive or non-existent. You can't force people to keep a child they know they can't raise and then refuse to support them. You could make the child be carried to term and then given up for adoption which feels cruel to both child and mother. Mistakes happen, rape happens, incest happens, genetic disorders happen. To have a choice as to how you deal with those scenarios is the sign of a liberal and caring society.

Also, don't forget. Northern Ireland still has draconian abortion laws. The UK is nowhere near the perfect utopia some people in the media are making it out to be.

[SueEllen]

The dividing line medically is fairly well established, it's whether or not the foetus can sustain life outside the womb, which is 20 weeks. Of course, demonstrating that point in reality is a little difficult...

It's actually 21 weeks.

Regardless most hospitals in developed countries have a limit on how young they resuscitate premature babies. So they are unlikely to resuscitate one under 22 weeks.

The issues that are ignored with the abortion ban are (as I highlighted in another post) if a woman who has a miscarriage is given a D&C to pro-lifers that is considered an abortion. Then those who have a child who they are told is incompatible with life, which depending on the condition can be found out by genetic testing quite early. They have to go all or nearly all the way through pregnancy and give birth.

[vetran]

Ahh but they were all evil...

So apparently are little children if they aren't baptised - well according to religious nuts.

On Linkedin which is becoming more Facebooky by the day Roe V Wade has larger implications than just abortion. Its dependence on privacy and self determination preclude other acts by government against an individual. I wonder is this realistic have they thrown the baby out with the bath water?

Personally I think on demand abortion for social reasons after 12 weeks should carefully regulated, for health and criminal abuse reasons abortion makes a lot of sense.

[SueEllen]

So apparently are little children if they aren't baptised - well according to religious nuts.

On Linkedin which is becoming more Facebooky by the day Roe V Wade has larger implications than just abortion. Its dependence on privacy and self determination preclude other acts by government against an individual. I wonder is this realistic have they thrown the baby out with the bath water?

Personally I think on demand abortion for social reasons after 12 weeks should carefully regulated, for health and criminal abuse reasons abortion makes a lot of sense.

It is restricted - you have to have 2 doctors sign you off and you can't go beyond 23 weeks and 6 days of pregnancy (gestation). Most clinics won't touch you weeks before that.

[vetran]

It is restricted - you have to have 2 doctors sign you off and you can't go beyond 23 weeks and 6 days of pregnancy (gestation). Most clinics won't touch you weeks before that.

the accusation in the UK was this was done by Fax in some cases.