UK woman convicted of abortion

[Veterinari]

Full story here www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/woman-given-suspended-sentence-for-having-abortion-in-the-uk-a6968676.html

Very sad. Is there a will in NI to update legislation on this issue? As it stands everyone loses

Augusta You have misunderstood. Read my post again (if you're interested, that is), and see that I say this goes further than a 'bad things happen to bad people' philosophy precisely because that isn't the case every time. My post related to the exchange that had gone before.

urban I don't think it's that the language is ambiguous, I think it's that you don't have much experience with the concepts.

urban Free will is a not a nuanced position. You either have it or you don't.

I disagree with you. Times when free will operates within the constraints of circumstances include:

• You want something you can't afford. You can't have it unless you steal it. You have the free will to steal or not steal, but the outcome of those choices is not within your power to control. If you choose to hit someone, they will be hurt and may well hit you back. You had the free will to choose to hit, but you don't then also* have the free will to choose a happy relationship with the person afterwards. So in a sense, your free will is constrained by knowledge of probable outcomes, based on how the world works and the working of your own conscience. A woman contemplating an abortion is constrained by a multitude of different circumstances that may compromise her decision to make whatever choice she would have made, had circumstances been exactly as she would have liked. It's free will up to a point, but part of the reason that pro-choicers feel so strongly that women should have the freedom to make this* choice is because they may be powerless to make other choices about their lives, meaning that a pregnancy may leave them completely at the mercy of their circumstances. Many pro-choicers believe there is some point after which a woman no longer morally* has the free will to choose to abort a pregnancy. Free will constrained by morality; that's nuanced.

Re: compassion vs condemnation. In plain English, it's possible to feel and show a great deal of compassion without believing that every choice the other person has made is exactly what it should have been. Should anyone be condemning anyone else? Certainly not. Are Christians obliged to pretend they agree with abortion so that people they care about won't feel judged? No, I'm afraid I don't think so. Christians who have a real faith are often deeply aware that they've made a lot of mistakes and are loved regardless. It's perfectly possible to call a behaviour wrong without making an evaluation of the person. The Bible is clear that Christians are called to have endless tolerance for each other (and people of all faiths) but no tolerance for what they perceive to be sin. In real terms, do I think a woman should be punished for an abortion? No. I'm not interested in punishment and I have no desire to see anyone suffer.

very I think the person making assumptions is you, frankly.

tut tut tut, gone when faced with some questions and facts you don't like and can't answer you are just resorting to argumentum ad hominem.

Not at all urban, you are the one who hasn't responded to the points made.

And what were the facts, again?

I don't think you can suggest that morality is a constraint upon free will, or indeed that consequences such as the operation of criminal law are constraints. The point is that every choice people make is dependant on a weighing up of numerous factors; that is part of the process of exercising free will.

The issue for religious people is the suggestion that actually the being who gives us free will is actually constraining that freedom. Yes, we all happily accept the principle "Thou shalt not kill", but non-christians accept it because they believe it to be morally wrong, not just because their God told them not to. If we see nothing morally wrong in terminating pregnancies, and if that position is supported by the law, then woman who terminate should be able to do so without running the gauntlet of so-called christians outside abortion clinics. Equally women who need to terminate should not be punished for doing so just because they don't have the money to enable them do so within the law applicable to one tiny area of the country.

gone You are conflating two different things when you refer to free will. You give several examples of how society agrees to a set of rules so that we can live and prosper productively. This is a choice everyone makes using their free will if they want to be part of that society.
That is different to the free will that a divine entity supposedly grants us without any choice whatsoever as to whether we agree to those rules. I would argue that this is only achieved by brainwashing children and enslaving their minds for life. Anti-abortionists usually invoke the latter version of free will, usually because most advanced free societies have arrived at the superior morally enlightened position that women should have autonomy over their own body and no rational argument even makes a dent in that position.

You begin by implying that abortion has the consequence of a criminal sanction but you then go on to say that no one should ever be condemned. That's exactly what criminalisation of abortion is doing, condemning women. Contradiction. Noone is saying christians should not abhor abortion, we are saying they should not force their opinion on everyone else.

gone So if you are against seeing women punished then when don't you just say you are against abortion but it shouldn't be illegal and if women choose to do it then it's their choice. As it is you keep sounding like you support abortion being illegal and that means condemning and punishing them.

FYI 'argumentum ad hominem' was posted in relation to your claim I just didn't understand and before I read your longer post. I am not a fast typer.

urban Read the thread. I've said many times that I'm in favour of abortion being legal - though not perhaps for the same reasons as you. I disagree whole-heartedly with your view.

gone, I respect your view and whilst I disagree, I would fight to uphold your right to have it. A lot of your posts are very confusing and just seem to contradict that you are in favour of legalised abortion in NI.

Very a man for all seasons! I don't think anyone can deprive me of my views, which you clearly don't respect at all, but thanks. I think you have a very basic, rigid understanding of Christians and fail to grasp the complexities of their position and how their faith works. In doing so, you're underestimating their position and insulting their intelligence. But given that this issue seems to attract the worst of christendom, I can understand why.

Don't try to tell me that my views are arbitrary, not thought through or largely out of line with those principles acknowledged to be timeless and fundamental to our behaving like decent beings. They are carefully reasoned and based on solid moral principles, as I imagine yours are. We've reached different conclusions, that's all.

I remain as aware of the inconsistencies in the pro choice stance as before and didn't hear any reasoned defence regarding the time framework for the right to bodily autonomy, or engagement with why the law is failing to offer babies with downs syndrome the same protection as it affords to those without it. There is no issue with quality of life. It's a matter of convenience, dressed up as a right to bodily autonomy even though that right is acknowledged to be secondary to the rights of a viable unborn child. And a child with downs syndrome is most certainly viable and capable of life, every bit as much as I am. That's no red herring, it's a heartless travesty and taints the whole pro-choice movement for many Christians.

The difficulty with your stance, gone, is that you seem to accept that abortion is fine for children with conditions like anencephaly. How does that differentiate from Downs? Out of interest, what's your stance on children born with conditions that will leave them in constant severe pain?

"complexities of their position" " underestimating their position"

Can you clarify this gone. Do you suggest that christians pay much more attention to their moral attenuation than non- christians? Do you carry extra or specific burdens towards your morality because you are a christian?

I'm amazed that posters who are so conscious of oppression and injustice towards women in society are so apathetic about the dangers of dressing eugenics up as women's rights. Some inconsistencies I would like answers to and which have not had clear answers either:

If women have the right to abort their babies on the basis that they can do as they please with their own body, why is this not carried to its logical conclusion. I.e., in a woman can abort her baby, any baby, right up to the moment of birth? I know some posters on the thread have believed this should be the case, but many others seem distinctly uncomfortable with the idea. Why, if the woman's right to bodily argument is cast-iron and blows any right of the child's out of the water? Or does the moral position change if the foetus is viable? If this is the case, can someone explain why the objective, reasoned basis for this given that the child is still inside the woman's body and the foetus is only slightly viable for a great deal of what remains of the pregnancy? Are you saying that there should* be conditions upon the choices a pregnant woman should make? Or what, exactly? Please don't hide behind the legalities; this conversation has been about morality and underlying logic for quite some time.

If it is* the case that you believe that it is wrong (not just illegal, because it obviously is illegal) for a woman to terminate the pregnancy of a baby old enough to survive outside the womb, could you explain why it becomes less 'wrong' if the baby suffers from conditions that are perceived as 'defects' but which with which it's still possible to enjoy a very high quality of life and often relatively high functioning. Is this not more about eugenics than women's rights? I think it's fair to say that society often has much more of a problem with Down's Syndrome than the person who is affected by it. The argument for abortion if a child is going to have a very limited life span, or experience great pain, is difficult to argue with because it is a merciful decision, often made out of love. But no one who knows much about children and adults with Down's Syndrome could suggest that they would rather not be here, or that the limitations of their condition capacity to find meaning and
fulfilment in their life.

At this point I want to say that I don't think it's fair to point out that having a child with Down's Syndrome is difficult. The pro-choice reasoning seems to rely on the right to bodily autonomy pre-24 weeks and, when this right inexplicably disappears, the right to merciful euthanasia. Well, fair enough if it truly is merciful. But I would like to hear a reasoned justification for why bodily autonomy suddenly becomes absolute if the child has a defect that carries a stigma but doesn't affect quality of life; I'd like to know why it's not what it sounds like, because it sounds like disguised eugenics.

I'm happy to put forward my views to the questions that have been asked, but I feel like I've done a lot of talking in my last view posts and have earned a few answers first.

'defect'

ok gone i will try and answer your questions. (FYI, I think it's pretty disgustion to describe abortion as eugenics)

First: Morality in the real world has to be based upon what is possible, so it becomes a debate between the balance of what is practical verses what is desired. Eg we might be horrified at killing a cow but happy to eat a bigmac. This can change and if in the future if we stop farming animals but enjoy lab grown burgers, could we call ourselves more morale? In terms of abortion, society has determined over time that the harm done to women is greater than the harm done to a few cells/embryo/foetus if abortion is illegal.

The morale debate then becomes at what point in the pregnancy would it be wrong to abort, and here is where we get into the grey area where it's very hard to pick an exact time. England has reached a similar conclusion to other civilised countries. Most abortions and miscarriages currently occur when it's just a few cells/embryo, that's pretty straight forward.

At the other end where the foetus more closely resembles a baby it's easy to say abortions possibly shouldn't happen. But what about when the baby won't survive birth or the mother won't survive? Again most civilised societies have concluded that the life of the mother comes first and abortion should be allowed, under strict conditions up to birth. After all, we know the mother is alive but it's debateable whether or not the baby is or would continue to be so.

Then we come to the tricky grey area in the middle. Here we have relied on empirical evidence, the time up until which most fetuses aren't viable outside the womb combined with when it becomes arguable the foetus becomes a life. This has changed over history as medical science becomes better but it is still overwhelmingly around 24 weeks. We know that the the conscious processing of sounds is only made possible after the 26th week and brain structures necessary for conscious experience of pain do not develop until 29-30 weeks. So 24 weeks is a pretty good cut off for most abortions, given where we are.

I don't know of any society in the world that has come to a better morale position, that does less harm. If anyone who thinks otherwise perhaps you could enlighten us?

gone: On your second point, I assume your talking about the morality of aborting ‘disabled’ children against not being allowed to abort ‘non-disabled’ children after 24 weeks? You make a good point but you are conflating morality with emotion. Most people would agree that there is debate about what quality of life constitutes ‘enough’ but someone has to make that decision and who is that going to be? Society has decided the best people to make that decision is the parents and the doctors. Maybe for one family the quality of life for a Downs Syndrome baby is sufficient to continue with the pregnancy, others might decide it isn’t, there is more than one factor involved in that decision.

What is the alternative, to imprison women and force them to give birth against their will? To compare that decision to eugenics is pretty disgusting! To imply you know what an unborn baby wants is just stupid, until birth the foetus remains heavily sedated and cannot have conscious thoughts the way we do.

hope that answers your points.

Society has decided that the best people to make that decision are the parents and the doctors.

Cop. Out. [hmmm]

And you think I believe things without a good reason because God tells me to urban

No, that doesn't begin to remotely engage with the points raised.

What's the alternative, to imprison women and force them to give birth against their will?

Yes, because that's exactly what we are forced to resort to with women who are carrying healthy babies post-24 weeks. Obviously there is no other option but to imprison them...

To imply you know what a newborn baby wants is just stupid

Right, so it's just stupid to consider the rights or welfare of this child at all because we can have no possible idea what they want. There's no moral obligation to consider the probable quality of life lying ahead for this child unless it's likely to be poor, in which case we are very concerned, because it will tie in nicely with a desire to abort imperfect children. Despite the hundreds of thousands of healthy, happy, functioning people with Down's Syndrome in the world (and not appreciably more unhappy or in pain than anyone else in the world), we simply have no idea what they would want in the future so it's pointless to consider.

You know, I have never been so thoroughly disgusted with the pro-choice basis as I am now. Whatever the pro-life movement is guilty of in terms of lack of care, circular reasoning, convenient reasoning, arguments that break apart in the face of inconvenient scenarios - it is more than mirrored on the pro-choice side.

I have a friend who has a child with Down's Syndrome. His life is amazing and not at all limited by pain (how inconvenient had his mother wished to abort him). He has as much of a right to be here as anyone else and that should be protected in law and recognised by a decent society. I don't think a doctor's medical degree enables him to judge this in that particular instance any better than anyone else - it doesn't require a medical degree to understand the challenges faced by people with Down's Syndrome, and it requires a lot more than a medical degree to weigh up the moral consequences of what our society has decided it's morally acceptable to do. That is the truly disgusting feature of this, not the use of the word eugenics, which is, unfortunately, the correct word to use.

My questions on my previous post remain unanswered.