Pro-life / Pro-choice

Well, if "murder" = "unlawful killing" then no, a soldier killing an enemy combatant in wartime isn't murder, because declaring war makes the subsequent killing legal. That's not a very palatable thing to think about, perhaps, but that's kind of the point of declaring war.

So, since abortion is legal, it is lawful killing if it is killing at all, which I would debate. It's certainly not killing a person. And here's the thing, if it is lawful killing, how can it be murder?

Finally, you say there's a balance that tips different ways, and the default should be that the balance tips towards the foetus (which, incidentally, isn't a baby.

BUT: Why should the balance tip towards the foetus and not the woman, Super?

I have skimmed the thread.

I had an abortion earlier this year in slightly unusual circumstances (can't link from my phone but feel free to search for the thread)

For dh and I it was the toughest decision and Tbh it never occurred to me to think of it from a feminist pov. Ultimately, although it was a joint decision for dh and I alongside the medical advice and opinion, it was still my body and my signature on that consent form. I could have stopped the process at anytime, despite the stats and the professional opinion of others.

My experience has made me pro choice. Even knowing someone else's circumstances can not put you in their shoes and I can not and will not judge them for it.

Wow. you havent read my posts at all have you.

You were wrong on the law. I was right.

ive already said i believe there could be an exception where the risk of death of the mother was raised above normal risks of pregnancy.

Kind of invalidates your last sarcastic post non.

So, what...

It may only kill or incapacitate the woman, but that's no biggie... I mean, there's plenty more women where that one came from...

Misogyny is getting a bit boring these days...

There's no brilliant solution to this sports. It's all about balancing rights.

Hmm. You seem to be at loss how to answer my two posts superdiva. Could it be because you have realised your arguments were over simplistic and failed a simple logic test?

(b)that the termination is necessary to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman; or .
(c)that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk to the life of the pregnant woman, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated; or .
(d)that there is a substantial risk that if the child were born it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped.

Not really that exceptional. In fact 3 out of the 4 subsections in the act allow abortion up until birth.

Yes FrothyDragon how dare you attempt to discuss this issue when you have KNOW IDEA?

There's a balance that tips different ways. Default position should be to the baby. IMO.

There's no brilliant solution to this sports. It's all about balancing rights.

Abortion is only legal after 24 weeks under exceptional circumstances.

Stop being so flippant.

You are right i do believe women should have sovereignity over their bodies. unborn babies' bodies are their own bodies and they should have sovereigntiy over them.

But apparently they cease to have sovereignty in your book if they are a)going to die before or during birth or b) their mother is at risk?

Be consistent superdiva - do they or do they not have sovereignty?

superduperdiva, that very question is something I struggle with.

we kill others in war. is that murder? should our war heros be put on trial? life isnt black and white (as you all say, often.)

You read the text differently?! you are engaging in this debate when you have KNOW IDEA what the law is!

ABORTION IS LEGAL IN THIS COUNTY UP UNTIL BIRTH.

Well. I'm pro-choice and more so after having a child, precisely because it makes me realise just how precious and important a child's life is. It's something I feel very strongly about.

I've also never got the abortion is murder unless I say it isn't for x,y,z reason. It either is or it isn't.

Right, as you insist on being inflammatory, I'm refusing to engage with you further.

Just because I read the text differently to you does not mean that you have the right to be so rude towards me.

Yeah the or at the end is kinda fundamental.

Seriously do i have to spell it out for you???

From the Abortion Act 1967

"(1)Subject to the provisions of this section, a person shall not be guilty of an offence under the law relating to abortion when a pregnancy is terminated by a registered medical practitioner if two registered medical practitioners are of the opinion, formed in good faith?

[F1(a)that the pregnancy has not exceeded its twenty-fourth week and that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman or any existing children of her family; or "

As you were saying...

You are right i do believe women should have sovereignity over their bodies. unborn babies' bodies are their own bodies and they should have sovereigntiy over them.

I'm obsessed with the fact that most people in our soceity value men's lives above those of women, yes. I think that's so horrific that it's jusitfiable to be siighttly obsessive about it.

It's so facile to say that believing women should have sovreignty over their bodies, means you hate babies. That can only come form someone who cannot think in nuances.

you really shouldnt be participating in a debate when you dont know the basic facts.

Dont call me I do know different. You are wrong. go read the abortion act.

You bet not?!! Errr of course I would! Why on earth do you keep mentioning men. Youre obsessed!

I believe abortion should only be allowed if the child is 100% going to die upon birth/before birth. Or if the mother is at a raised risk of death. ONLY.

I don't understand that. If you hold that abortion is murder and murder is wrong, how can you justify it in those two circumstances? Because it will still be murder and the child will still be dead.

All you are saying is that murder is OK in certain circumstances that you subjectively happen to define, but not in others.

(Not to mention that it is statistically unlikely that you can be 100% certain that a children is going to die upon birth/before birth. So you could have murdered a child unnecessarily. And how far should as mother's risk be raised before you decide murder is OK in those circumstances - 1%, 10%, 50%....?). Where do you set the risk/benefit ratio? You are in fact still saying the same as those pro-choicers you oppose i.e. the mother's life trumps the child's. The only difference is that you are using your own criteria instead of that of the pregnant woman.

You say it's barbaric. But apparently it's OK to be barbaric if the two circumstances in which you would subjectively agree abortion should be allowed are met?

If you are pro-life and believe abortion is murder you should be pro-life, full stop, because murder is murder. Or are some murders less wrong than others, but only if they meet your own specific criteria?

I am pro-choice because I do not believe my criteria or views should be imposed on another who may have different criteria.

Pro-choice does not equal baby hater, don't be so ridiculous!

I think the fact that you are prepared to say that women should undergo even a small risk of death against their will, shows how much you value women's lives.

It's not just the risk of death either. It's the risk of tears, cuts, knackered pelvic floor, fissures, PND, PTSD , sexual function etc etc. To say nothing of the psychological risks and the effect it has on long term earning power.

Is there any circumstance that you would be prepared to force men to undergo such risks against their will? I bet not. Becasue men's lives matter.