Abortion v non Abortion

 
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
The Railpage bug that cuts responses.

I've already typed it once, I cannot be bothered to type it again and likely have it cut off again.


I don't get responses cut off, but sometimes I lose them entirely.  I get a "no post mode specified".  Only happens on long responses, or you try to post a long time after you started the post.

If this happens when I'm:
  • using an iphone, the back button on Safari will take me back to the "post a reply" form, including the full response I typed.  Sometimes hitting "submit" works the second time, or if not, you can go into "View source" mode (press the button that looks like a page icon in the "post a reply" form, next to the smiley face) and then copy all into a new "post a reply" form  
  • using a computer, you can go back but you've lost any typing you did since you last hit "Preview".  So I  hit "Preview" every so often, or copy the post (in View Source mode) before I try to hit "Submit", or I work on a reply offline and then cut and paste into the form.
Sonofagunzel

I rarely use my phone (Samsung) to post as I cannot quote.

I nearly always use my laptop and from time to time certain replies to someones post it will truncate what I've typed after I press send and I have no way to get it back. Sometimes I try and again and it will keep doing it on that message only, why I have no idea. It previews ok (I think, actually I cannot remember).

One way around is to reply without responding to that post. But I've grown tied I doing things twice, I have other things to do in my life and I enjoy the mostly friendly chat and debates here (and yes the occasional reference to something using steel wheels on steel rails) and now mostly just delete the truncated post if I know it was truncated and move on. Afterall we are not competing for Pink Slips.

Sponsored advertisement

  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
Ok replies

[color=#000000][size=2][b]Are you saying that when the baby is able to survive outside the mother, the mother no longer has the exclusive right to determine what to do with her body? In your view, should the state be able to require her to go to full term at that point?[/b][/size][/color]

[color=#000000][size=2]To be honest, not straight forward[/size][/color]
[color=#000000][size=2]- I believe, you have had the choice to terminate and now must commit with this decision[/size][/color]
[color=#000000][size=2]- However if a termination is required, medical reasons no issue, but if its simply I don't want yes then its not easy. But it should not be criminal either as this didn't work in the past and if someone really doesn't want their baby they will find a way.[/size][/color]
[color=#000000][size=2]- Noting that less than 1% of terminations take place beyond 20 - 22 weeks without knowing the cause for late terminations then I don't see it a major issue.[/size][/color]
[color=#000000][size=2]- The right to have control of her own body should still be a priority[/size][/color]

[color=#000000][size=2][b]should the mother entitled to have the foetus removed (alive) prematurely, ie after viability but prior to full term?[/b][/size][/color]

[color=#000000][size=2]Yes[/size][/color]

[color=#000000][size=2][b]Why aren't you a fan of abortion as contraception?[/b][/size][/color]

[color=#000000][size=2]We all make mistakes, once. Twice is not learning and three times is a habit.[/size][/color]

[color=#000000][size=2]I don't know what the stats are of repeat abortions by the same woman.[/size][/color]
[color=#000000][size=2]Abortion should not be promoted as ann alt to taking due care.[/size][/color]

[color=#000000][size=2][b]So it’s ok to inflict pain on, even kill, a live baby because it won’t remember the pain?[/b][/size][/color]
[color=#000000][size=2][b]Can you answer this please? Do you concede that the fact that the baby can't remember the pain is not a good reason to allow abortion (or infanticide, for that matter)?[/b][/size][/color]
[color=#000000][size=2][b]Do you concede that if the foetus can feel pain, that this is something to consider in relation to whether and when abortion should be allowed?[/b][/size][/color]

[color=#000000][size=2]For those guys who got the snip, usually done with no ansethetic and I believe still happens today, do they remember the pain? If not then the question on whether the fetus can feel pain is irrelevent.[/size][/color]

[color=#000000][size=2]Pain is highly variable, is it 1/10 or 10/10? How long does it feel the pain?[/size][/color]

[color=#000000][size=2]When doing a medical related termination does the fetus's pain threshold come into the equation? If not then no.[/size][/color]
[color=#000000][size=2]Pain if its an issue can be managed.[/size][/color]

[color=#000000][size=2]Abortions occur far more significant reasons than a breif moment of pain on the fetus.[/size][/color]

[color=#000000][size=2][b]Laws deal with much more complicated stuff than abortion - murder laws are complex, divorce laws are complex, negligence, corporate regulation, building codes, child custody, etc etc. The law deals with lots of complicated and nuanced situations. Why is abortion so different?[/b][/size][/color]

[color=#000000][size=2][b]What’s wrong with current law?[/b][/size][/color]

[color=#000000][size=2]We have discussed this before, all those issues apply to both sexes. Abortion applies to women and women alone. Its complex in that what is the cut off, what is the reason for the termination, who should give approval, time frame to act is very limited etc. By writing laws by mostly a older male govt to enforce on only women then we are going back to the bad old days of women being under the control of males. By decrminanalising the act, you leave the issue to be resolved by those it affects the most, women.[/size][/color]

[color=#000000][size=2]Without knowing the ins and outs of the current laws, going by the summary I posted previously it would appear ok and I never argued the current laws were right or wrong, simply I and others argued from day 1 in this thread its an issue for women to ressolve.[/size][/color]


[color=#000000][size=2][b]In addition recognizing the law was written by older males and this is very much a female issue and the state to get out of women's bodies.[/b][/size][/color]
[color=#000000][size=2][b]You forgot the baby again.[/b][/size][/color]

[color=#000000][size=2][b]And what, exactly (if anything) is your problem with current Australian law? Or my position on what the law should say?[/b][/size][/color]

[color=#000000][size=2][b]You still haven't really justified why it matters that the the laws were written by older males. So what? If the law is right, who cares who wrote it? If the law is wrong, who cares who wrote it? [/b][/size][/color]

[color=#000000][size=2][b]If your point is that only women should have a say in deciding whether the law is right or wrong, you haven’t justified why this should be the case. Abortion doesn’t just affect women, it affects the baby. In addition, the principles at stake - who has the right to life and who doesn’t - affect or potentially affect everyone.[/b][/size][/color]

[color=#000000][size=2]No, the priorty is with the woman. Its her body.[/size][/color]

[color=#000000][size=2]I just stated above, the days of men controlling women are over. As we have already stated when it comes to a medical required abortion, the mother's health takes priority hence the mothers priroty extends before just life and death but beyond. It is she who will then sacrifice her body, her mental health and her finacial situation to potentially continue with an unwanted pregnacy. When men can do this bit, then they get a choice.[/size][/color]

[color=#000000][size=2]I would have prefered a woman to respond to your last statement but here goes.[/size][/color]
[color=#000000][size=2]From the moment you were born, you are going to[/size][/color]
[color=#000000][size=2]- earn about 10 -20% less income[/size][/color]
[color=#000000][size=2]- Be the one required in a relatonship to take 6-12mth off for work to have a child[/size][/color]
[color=#000000][size=2]- Be the one who sacrifices their personal life for the child[/size][/color]
[color=#000000][size=2]- Be the one who compromises most their life for their rest of their lives for that child[/size][/color]
[color=#000000][size=2]- have higher cost of grooming[/size][/color]
[color=#000000][size=2]- Have a high cost of dress[/size][/color]
[color=#000000][size=2]- Have less comfortable dress[/size][/color]
[color=#000000][size=2]- Have your dress scruntised daily for potentially always something wrong.[/size][/color]
[color=#000000][size=2]- once a month for 35 years suffer discomfort, mood swings and have to worry about ensuring you are carrying pans/tampons[/size][/color]
[color=#000000][size=2]- at the end of the this 35 years then have 5-10 years of flushes and other issues just to have your body start to have features of the opposite sex[/size][/color]
[color=#000000][size=2]- Have key parts of body be the subject of other peoples discussions, opionions and ogling [/size][/color]
[color=#000000][size=2]- be forced to visit a Dr every 1-2 years to inspect your "bits" for abdomalities.[/size][/color]
[color=#000000][size=2]- feel affraid to walk or do things by yourself at night or other locations[/size][/color]
[color=#000000][size=2]- be potentially the victim of day to day verbal and physical harressment[/size][/color]
[color=#000000][size=2]- Be the victim of forced sex, ie a male wanting to use your body for his pleasure and potential conception[/size][/color]

[color=#000000][size=2]Then I think they earn the right to have some control over what happens to their body.[/size][/color]

[color=#000000][size=2]The father has no controlling input into whether the mother continues with the pregnancy or not. Its fairly simple.I agree. However, although you and I share that view, does that mean that everyone must share that view?[/size][/color]

[color=#000000][size=2][b]Think of it this way. Suppose the mother wants to kill the baby immediately after birth - I’d say the father would have the right to stop it in that case, wouldn’t he? Is it self-evident that the position is different 5 minutes earlier? Is self evident that the father is completely unaffected by and has absolutely no legitimate interest a late term abortion? Is your answer a value judgment or an objective fact?[/b][/size][/color]

[color=#000000][size=2][b]I’m not saying that an individual father should have a say in the mothers’ decision whether to abort their baby. I don’t think he should. The question here is why you think you have the right to prevent someone who doesn’t agree with that view to express their view when voting on what the law should be. You’re arguing not only that that their view is wrong in your opinion, you’re arguing that their view is so wrong that it’s completely illegitimate to even express that view in democratic debate.[/b][/size][/color]

[color=#000000][size=2]Yes, the father by law should not be able to dictate what the mother can do with her pregnacy.[/size][/color]

[color=#000000][size=2]He can express a non controlling view, I never said otherwise.[/size][/color]

[color=#000000][size=2]We are talking pregnancy, not post partum.[/size][/color]

[color=#000000][size=2]Find me examples of 3rd term voluntary terminations and we can continue, otherwise its all mute. As aI said before, less than 1% of all terminations occur in last half of term and this includes medical.[/size][/color]

[color=#000000][size=2]The mother has around 4 months to decide, by which time 99.9% of women will know they are pregnant and after which it gets messy as the baby could be terminated and survive with medical support. The data clearly shows the number of such late terminations is very rare (RTT_Rules[/size][/color]
[color=#000000][size=2]So? Why does that mean that late term abortion shouldn't be banned or heavily restricted?[/size][/color]

[color=#000000][size=2]20- 22 weeks and almost none beyond 24 weeks.[/size][/color]

[color=#000000][size=2]Reading comments of a OBGYN, a third tri-mister medical abortion is normally considered a pre-mature birth. ie the baby had to be removed for medical reasons to save the mother or baby, bt not to terminate the baby. However in extremely rare cases yes the baby is intentially delievred as it has died or will not survive. He goes on to explain that the pro-life movement often make up examples of , is a woman in labour allowed to terminate her pregancy etc etc, but in reality there are no non medical related abortions in 3rd term so its a wasted argument as the decision to keep or terminate the baby has long been made.[/size][/color]

[color=#000000][size=2]Another example is a woman at 26 weeks being offered an abortion as her blood pressure is so high the baby development is affected and weighs 300g, it cannot survive if removed and she will not survive if its not removed.[/size][/color]

[color=#000000][size=2]Again I've looked up various stats now and on the table of termination by gestation there is basically near zero abortions beyond 24 weeks and hence any further debate on non-medical terminations beyond this time frame seems pointless, so perhaps focus any future discussion should focus on
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
Urgh, I copied and pasted your sentances.
  Sonofagunzel Minister for Railways

@RTT_Rules

I fixed the formatting of your post. In the quote boxes below, bold text is quoting me, and plain text is quoting you.

Ok replies

Are you saying that when the baby is able to survive outside the mother, the mother no longer has the exclusive right  to determine what to do with her body?  In your view, should the state be able to require her to go to full term at that point?

To be honest, not straight forward
- I believe, you have had the choice to terminate and now must commit with this decision
- However if a termination is required, medical reasons no issue, but if its simply I don't want yes then its not easy. But it should not be criminal either as this didn't work in the past and if someone really doesn't want their baby they will find a way.
- Noting that less than 1% of terminations take place beyond 20 - 22 weeks without knowing the cause for late terminations then I don't see it a major issue.
- The right to have control of her own body should still be a priority

I don’t understand why you think it shouldn’t be criminal. The thing that didn’t work in the past was a complete ban. As you say here, she now has 20 or so weeks to decide, and after that it’s too late to change her mind (exceptional cases like life threatening situations aside).

Late term terminations (other than for serious medical reasons) are rare in Australia because they are illegal. That’s if you believe the figures. I do believe them, I’m just saying that if a doctor performed an illegal late term abortion he or she would record it as a medical issue rather as an illegally performed abortion.

You keep forgetting the baby - and in this case it’s a baby that can survive outside the mother. Of course it should be criminal to abort late term without an exceptionally good reason!  

should the mother entitled to have the foetus removed (alive) prematurely, ie after viability but prior to full term?

Yes

No way. She had 20 or so weeks to decide. Once that baby is able to survive outside of her (if not slightly earlier), she is a mother with legal responsibility to care for the child and must carry it to term.

Why aren't you a fan of abortion as contraception?

We all make mistakes, once. Twice is not learning and three times is a habit.

I don't know what the stats are of repeat abortions by the same woman.
Abortion should not be promoted as ann alt to taking due care.

But you haven’t said why.

So it’s ok to inflict pain on, even kill, a live baby because it won’t remember the pain?
Can you answer this please?  Do you concede that the fact that the baby can't remember the pain is not a good reason to allow abortion (or infanticide, for that matter)?
Do you concede that if the foetus can feel pain, that this is something to consider in relation to whether and when abortion should be allowed?


For those guys who got the snip, usually done with no ansethetic and I believe still happens today, do they remember the pain? If not then the question on whether the fetus can feel pain is irrelevent.

Pain is highly variable, is it 1/10 or 10/10? How long does it feel the pain?

When doing a medical related termination does the fetus's pain threshold come into the equation? If not then no.
Pain if its an issue can be managed.

Abortions occur far more significant reasons than a breif moment of pain on the fetus.
I see what you mean, but I disagree. It’s not just that the abortion hurts, it’s also that once a baby can feel pain, it has started to be a human being with experiences of its own. It might not be a particularly logical line to draw, but as I’ve said previously the only truly logical lines are conception and birth.

As the difference between this line and the ability to survive outside the mother is only a few weeks, we can agree to disagree on this. Certainly the ability to survive outside the mother is a line I would not go past.

Laws deal with much more complicated stuff than abortion - murder laws are complex, divorce laws are complex, negligence, corporate regulation, building codes, child custody, etc etc.  The law deals with lots of complicated and nuanced situations.  Why is abortion so different?

What’s wrong with current law?


We have discussed this before, all those issues apply to both sexes. Abortion applies to women and women alone. Its complex in that what is the cut off, what is the reason for the termination, who should give approval, time frame to act is very limited etc. By writing laws by mostly a older male govt to enforce on only women then we are going back to the bad old days of women being under the control of males. By decrminanalising the act, you leave the issue to be resolved by those it affects the most, women.

Without knowing the ins and outs of the current laws, going by the summary I posted previously it would appear ok and I never argued the current laws were right or wrong, simply I and others argued from day 1 in this thread its an issue for women to ressolve.
Again, you are forgetting the baby. It doesn’t primarily affect the woman - she’s alive either way. It primarily affects the baby - it either lives or dies. It’s a legitimate issue for the law to govern and I don’t see why women should have an exclusive say when we don’t do this in any other cases. Plenty of examples of politicians making laws that will never directly affect them.

The situation is not that complex compared to other legal issues. I think you underestimate the nuances of murder laws, for example. Complexity is no barrier here.

In addition recognizing the law was written by older males and this is very much a female issue and the state to get out of women's bodies.

You forgot the baby again.

And what, exactly (if anything) is your problem with current Australian law?  Or my position on what the law should say?


You still haven't really justified why it matters that the the laws were written by older males.  So what?  If the law is right, who cares who wrote it?  If the law is wrong, who cares who wrote it?  

If your point is that only women should have a say in deciding whether the law is right or wrong, you haven’t justified why this should be the case. Abortion doesn’t just affect women, it affects the baby. In addition, the principles at stake - who has the right to life and who doesn’t - affect or potentially affect everyone.

No, the priorty is with the woman. Its her body.

I just stated above, the days of men controlling women are over.  As we have already stated when it comes to a medical required abortion, the mother's health takes priority hence the mothers priroty extends before just life and death but beyond.  It is she who will then sacrifice her body, her mental health and her finacial situation to potentially continue with an unwanted pregnacy. When men can do this bit, then they get a choice.

I would have prefered a woman to respond to your last statement but here goes.
From the moment you were born, you are going to
- earn about 10 -20% less income
- Be the one required in a relatonship to take 6-12mth off for work to have a child
- Be the one who sacrifices their personal life for the child
- Be the one who compromises most their life for their rest of their lives for that child
- have higher cost of grooming
- Have a high cost of dress
- Have less comfortable dress
- Have your dress scruntised daily for potentially always something wrong.
- once a month for 35 years suffer discomfort, mood swings and have to worry about ensuring you are carrying pans/tampons
- at the end of the this 35 years then have 5-10 years of flushes and other issues just to have your body start to have features of the opposite sex
- Have key parts of body be the subject of other peoples discussions, opionions and ogling  
- be forced to visit a Dr every 1-2 years to inspect your "bits" for abdomalities.
- feel affraid to walk or do things by yourself at night or other locations
- be potentially the victim of day to day verbal and physical harressment
- Be the victim of forced sex, ie a male wanting to use your body for his pleasure and potential conception

Then I think they earn the right to have some control over what happens to their body.
No. You’re forgetting the baby. A baby that can survive outside the mother. A mother that has decided to kill her baby after waiting until it is essentially fully formed to do so.

I’m not going to debate your list - many of them are debateable and many of them untrue or trivial. But regardless of whether they are true or trivial, they are irrelevant. None of that outweighs the fact that there is living human being who is being killed.  And I don’t see what any of that list has to do with the definition of who gets the right to live.

The father has no controlling input into whether the mother continues with the pregnancy or not. Its fairly simple.

I agree. However, although you and I share that view, does that mean that everyone must share that view?

Think of it this way. Suppose the mother wants to kill the baby immediately after birth - I’d say the father would have the right to stop it in that case, wouldn’t he?  Is it self-evident that the position is different 5 minutes earlier?  Is self evident that the father is completely unaffected by and has absolutely no legitimate interest a late term abortion? Is your answer a value judgment or an objective fact?
I’m not saying that an individual father should have a say in the mothers’ decision whether to abort their baby. I don’t think he should. The question here is why you think you have the right to prevent someone who doesn’t agree with that view to express their view when voting on what the law should be. You’re arguing not only that that their view is wrong in your opinion, you’re arguing that their view is so wrong that it’s completely illegitimate to even express that view in democratic debate.

Yes, the father by law should not be able to dictate what the mother can do with her pregnacy.

He can express a non controlling view, I never said otherwise.

We are talking pregnancy, not post partum.

Find me examples of 3rd term voluntary terminations and we can continue, otherwise its all mute. As aI said before, less than 1% of all terminations occur in last half of term and this includes medical.

You’ve missed the point.

Ignore the point about fathers, it’s just an example. I’m actually making a wider point.

You are saying that men, me for example, should have no say on this issue - even if I disagree with you about whether men should have a say. That’s your opinion. You’re requiring that even if I disagree with you, I have no right to exercise my opinion in a democratic debate and vote.  What gives you the right to do that?  Even if you were female.

Third term voluntary abortions are effectively legal in some U.S. states. They are rare here because they are illegal.

The US stats by state are here: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/ss/ss7009a1.htm. See table 10.

Abortions at >21 weeks represent between 0 and almost 12% of abortions in different states. 11.6% in New Mexico (which is admittedly a significant outlier), 0% in conservative states where it’s presumably illegal. A good indicator might be New York City where these abortions represent 2.2% of their total (1096 of nearly 50,000 abortions). Missouri is 3.7%. New Jersey 2.4%.

Note that some of the states with lax abortions laws do not report stats by gestation age. New Mexico is one state with very lax laws that does provide these stats.

So where late term abortions are legal, they can happen a lot.

The mother has around 4 months to decide, by which time 99.9% of women will know they are pregnant and after which it gets messy as the baby could be terminated and survive with medical support. The data clearly shows the number of such late terminations is very rare

So?  Why does that mean that late term abortion shouldn't be banned or heavily restricted?

20- 22 weeks and almost none beyond 24 weeks.

Reading comments of a OBGYN, a third tri-mister medical abortion is normally considered a pre-mature birth. ie the baby had to be removed for medical reasons to save the mother or baby, bt not to terminate the baby. However in extremely rare cases yes the baby is intentially delievred as it has died or will not survive. He goes on to explain that the pro-life movement often make up examples of , is a woman in labour allowed to terminate her pregancy etc etc, but in reality there are no non medical related abortions in 3rd term so its a wasted argument as the decision to keep or terminate the baby has long been made.

Another example is a woman at 26 weeks being offered an abortion as her blood pressure is so high the baby development is affected and weighs 300g, it cannot survive if removed and she will not survive if its not removed.

Again I've looked up various stats now and on the table of termination by gestation there is basically near zero abortions beyond 24 weeks and hence any further debate on non-medical terminations beyond this time frame seems pointless, so perhaps focus any future discussion should focus on less than 24 weeks.

91% of abortions happen less than 12 weeks.
Nope. See the table I referred to earlier. It’s common in states where it’s legal. We don’t know how common it is in states that don’t report the stats. I wonder why.
  Sonofagunzel Minister for Railways

I think I’ve cracked the post truncation problem you’ve been having.

Don’t use the “less than” symbol!

That symbol seems to be read as code to end the post.

Interestingly, the last two lines of your last long post are cut off when displayed on Railpage, but I see those lines when I click to reply with quoting.  I couldn't get the formatting to work until I replaced the "less than" signs in your post with the words "less than".
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
Defining late term as third trimester or beyond 24 weeks - basically non-medical is nonexistant for any reason and no the baby isn't forgotten. Data globally supports this from what I checked, no further discussion waranted.

Criminalising abortion is pointless and just pushes it underground like happened before.

You cannot effectively legislate what happens inside a womans body. Remember once she is pregnant there is no extensive data follow up on what happens to that pregancy if she dissappears from "the system". Criminalising only pushes us back to the 1960's where terminations are pushed into backrooms.

I'm saying the fathers do not have a controlling input and legally men should not be part of the team who draft and pass any relevent legislation on abortion. I've said it before, I've said it again.

You havn't answer the question on how much pain is incurred and for how long.

What happens in the USA, I care less for and realistically the UA has far greater issues.

~90% of abortions are less than 3mths and before the point of pain. Majority of those beyond this medical related. Despite reducing restrictions in Australia, the abortion rate isn't going up, rather down which goes to show where the focus over the last 20 years as been and needs to continue. There are still parents out there who think think their 15 year old daughters are christian angles who don't look at boys and will be virgins at marriage and I have a friend just like this.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
I think I’ve cracked the post truncation problem you’ve been having.

Don’t use the “less than” symbol!

That symbol seems to be read as code to end the post.

Interestingly, the last two lines of your last long post are cut off when displayed on Railpage, but I see those lines when I click to reply with quoting.  I couldn't get the formatting to work until I replaced the "less than" signs in your post with the words "less than".
Sonofagunzel
Ok cool, just happened again and I changed to "less than" fixed.
  Sonofagunzel Minister for Railways

Defining late term as third trimester or beyond 24 weeks - basically non-medical is nonexistant for any reason and no the baby isn't forgotten. Data globally supports this from what I checked, no further discussion waranted.
RTT_Rules


If you mean that "no further discussion is warranted" in this conversation about when the cut-off for freely available abortions should be, then fine.  I've stated or explained my position, and so have you, we're not that far apart, and I think we've both said our piece.  IMHO there's no real logical principle driving the cut off unless the cut off is conception or birth - the former is unpalatable to society from a pragmatic perspective, the latter unpalatable to society from a moral perspective (even among women, I suspect).

If you mean that "no further discussion is warranted" ever, anywhere, then I disagree.  Because this is arbitrary, it is always up for debate.  Further, the arbitrary line may (and in some cases should) change with shifting scientific knowledge, medical technology, societal values and philosophies, societal circumstances, demographics, and other things. That's regardless of who you or I think is entitled to have a say.

Criminalising abortion is pointless and just pushes it underground like happened before.

You cannot effectively legislate what happens inside a womans body. Remember once she is pregnant there is no extensive data follow up on what happens to that pregancy if she dissappears from "the system". Criminalising only pushes us back to the 1960's where terminations are pushed into backrooms.
RTT_Rules

You can't effectively legislate to stop a woman's body doing what it does naturally.  You can effectively legislate to stop a woman or others from taking action to interfere with those processes.  Whether we should is debateable, that's what we're discussing, but saying you can't is just silly.

Criminalising abortion is not pointless.  It can stop or reduce abortions, or control them, limit their availability, and/or make them safer.  You think it's pointless because you don't want to stop/reduce/limit them.  Sensible restrictions like we have in Australia don't push it underground - women have a clear window to decide, but once the cut-off is reached, that window closes (or substantially narrows at least).  You won't get many backyard coathanger abortions if they are freely, privately and discreetly available for up to 20 weeks or so.  Remember, it's illegal in Australia after that point (give or take a few weeks for State variations).  Even you acknowledge that post 24 week elective abortions in Australia are rare - unlike in say New Mexico - don't you think the law has something to do with that? Do you think that Australian law in this area is pointless or pushing it underground?  

You haven't dealt with this point at all.

I'm saying the fathers do not have a controlling input and legally men should not be part of the team who draft and pass any relevent legislation on abortion. I've said it before, I've said it again.
RTT_Rules

By all means, refrain from exercising your democratic rights on that issue.

But you are saying that only women should have any say.  If you were Premier for a day, would you have your party pass legislation to that effect?  Would I, as a man and fellow hypothetical MP, have a right to vote against that?  Or would you just be discouraging male MPs not to participate, but not preventing them?

Personally, I think both of those options (ie discouragement and prevention) are wrong.  I'm not sure you've really dealt with any of the arguments I've previously put forward on this.  Those arguments are not in this post - here I'm just asking for some clarification.

You havn't answer the question on how much pain is incurred and for how long.
RTT_Rules

Because when you're killing someone, it doesn't make it alright if you give them a general anaesthetic first.  My argument isn't that abortion is wrong cause it hurts.  My argument is that when the foetus develops the ability to have experiences - pain being the most basic experience - I think that's a morally important threshhold.

But certainly it would be better if they gave the foetus a painkiller before the abortion.  That doesn't change the morality of the situation overall.  It does at least acknowledge that the foetus is another person whose needs should be considered.


What happens in the USA, I care less for and realistically the UA has far greater issues.

~90% of abortions are less than 3mths and before the point of pain. Majority of those beyond this medical related. Despite reducing restrictions in Australia, the abortion rate isn't going up, rather down which goes to show where the focus over the last 20 years as been and needs to continue.
RTT_Rules

As I said, late term abortions are rare in Australia partly because they are illegal.  Look at New Mexico, where it's legal - nearly 12% of abortions are late term.

You should care what happens in the US, if only because we often have an unfortunate tendency to follow their lead.  It's also interesting.


There are still parents out there who think think their 15 year old daughters are christian angles who don't look at boys and will be virgins at marriage and I have a friend just like this.
RTT_Rules
Not sure what relevance this has.
  Valvegear Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Banned
Well done, RTT, but you're wasting your time here. The passionately committed are just that; debate is futile.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
The number of late term abortions, ie beyond 24 weeks is so low its not worth govts time and there are better ways to help reduce the extreme few numbers that still occur, although mostly for medical reasons.

There is no clear biological line in the sand, that is clear. But for an area where numbers are so low then its not worth trying to make one, the time, money and effort could be better off preventing in the first place or saving other lives. Its called the law of diminising returns.

The number of abortions is decreasing AFTER reducing legal constraints, so clearly criminalisation didn't help.

Again, I don't care what the USA does or doesn't do, I don't live there or vote for there, in Australia 91-92% of abortions occur before 12 weeks. In Australia less than 2% occur after week 20 and most before week 24. The very few that occure beyond this are mostly for medical reasons such a lack of brain development which cannot be detected until week 22-24. While a very very small number, there are some women who some women who progress this far not knowing they are pregant, in denial (usually young or older) or as a few reports I've read also given wrong information early on. Obviously the later the decision the more ethical it gets and while I'm not a fan of late term non-medical abortions, its their body, their choice, their decision. No I would not stop it, get involved or propose govt legislation to do so. Again extremely small numbers and declining.

And laws on abortion should be a concsious vote by Female MP's only. No party lines, just what they and the people they represent and not just their seats find acceptable.

The world is full of more people than it needs driving climate change, deforestation, loss of species etc. This for me is a greater priority than putting rules in place that will only add to the problem. Abortion rates are in decline for the right reasons, ie the pregancies are not occuring because the far right lost their "Christian" position of ban on contraception, ban on sex-ed and their effective ban on female empowerment. There is no need to come from the other side.


By putting on a condom, pulling out, wife taking pill etc, I'm effectively preventing a human from walking on this planet. Honestly I don't see the difference. Any experiences it may have from the point of conception to termination is a sand grain in the universe to what it will get if it was to live.

My wife and I always wanted a boy and a girl, but after two sons going for a third with a 50% chance was a choice we said would impact on our finacical position, her career and the attention we believe we can offer. We also don't believe in large families and one kid for each parent is enough. The old saying one for the country, is there for immigration, not from us. We don't believe in peoples choice to have large families should be funded by those who choose not to and personally child endowment should max out at the third pregnancy (assuming all alive). If you don't have the money, then don't have them. If you or your wife want to be a stay at home parent, then its your choice, why should I pay for it? We believe its fair that women be supported finacially for pregancy and the first 9mths after, soicety needs reproduction and only women can do it. It shouldn't be funded by company benefit, but rather the state, but the gravey train stops there.  My wife, my mother, her mother and her sister all went back to work in some form after 6 - 12mth. We have govt aided child care, child support and other govt hand outs. There is no need to pay people not to work.

No country in the world will open its doors to low income breeders who cannot afford their off-spring.

With birth rates now well below replacement rates in most developed and emerging economies, including I think India (Aust and Europe is 1.1 - 1.5, replacement rate is 2.1) Mostly driven by access to birth control and sex-ed as the church losses its grip on womens bodies, abortions globally are in rapid decline. But for now we still don't need more unwanted mouths to feed. Not surprisingly the larger families and often poorer families as a result are often highly religious, this tells us where the problem really is.  

Relevence was that most anti abortionists think their daring agnels are not what they think. I find it amusing watching girls grow up in these families and then seeing what they are like away from their parents. ie shagging their arses off.
  Mr. Lane Chief Commissioner

You won't get many backyard coathanger abortions
Sunofagunzel
Worth pointing out that this is likely to never be the case again in the western world even where abortions are illegal. These days women have access to abortion pills, either legally or illegally, for terminating first trimester pregnancies.

The experience is said to not be ideal, but this is the way many women have abortions in US states that make them difficult to attain. If Roe vs Wade is overturned, which it likely will be, then women in states where abortions will become illegal will need to obtain these drugs illegally, which shouldn't be a problem given the totally uncontrolled drug trade in the US.

The problem though is if women have complications and need to tell medical staff that they terminated a pregnancy, which would now be a criminal act they are confessing to.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
Mr. Lane
Another reason to decrimonalise abortion as it just pushes it underground, regardless of the gestational term of the abortion and has minimal impact on the actual abortion rate.

In addition in this day and age, they can also easily hop on the plane and fly to somewhere it is legal, as used to be standard practice for Irish women flying to UK. For the USA, they can easily get access to Canada and Mexico although the likely hood for total ban within USA is unlikely.

Again we fall back to this being a woman's decision. Older males trying to control them is as pointless and demeaning today as it was in the past.
  Sonofagunzel Minister for Railways

Exceptional cases aside, I think we agree that early-term abortion should be legal.  This has been the position from the beginning.

However, you now seem to be arguing that abortion should be continue to be legal right up to the point of birth.  This is different to your original answer to my hypothetical, where you said:

Simple answer to your questions above is, if the fetus has the capabilty of self sustaining life (with medical aid) then its future is now controlled by the state and deemed a human and termination at 9mths is murder.
RTT_Rules
Can you clarify?

If you are arguing that abortion should be legal up to birth, can we focus the discussion where we disagree, ie late term abortions?  I'm noticing that every time I make a point about late term abortions, you come back with an argument that really only relates to early term abortions (examples below).

You said:

The number of late term abortions, ie beyond 24 weeks is so low its not worth govts time and there are better ways to help reduce the extreme few numbers that still occur, although mostly for medical reasons.
RTT_Rules
... and you also said:

The world is full of more people than it needs driving climate change, deforestation, loss of species etc. This for me is a greater priority than putting rules in place that will only add to the problem.
RTT_Rules
So:
  • late term abortions are so rare there's no need to ban them; AND
  • late term abortions are so common that banning them would increase the population to such a degree that it would add to the problem climate change, deforestation, loss of species etc.

Bit of a contradiction there, no?

The number of abortions is decreasing AFTER reducing legal constraints, so clearly criminalisation didn't help.
RTT_Rules
What legal restrictions have been relaxed for late term abortions, and where, and over what period?  What's your evidence that legal restrictions don't help reduce the number of late term abortions? Link please.

How do you explain the fact that late term abortions represent nearly 12% of abortions in New Mexico (where late term abortions are legal), but barely 1% in states that only allow it for medical necessity? Even 4% seems too high to be explained entirely by medical necessity.  

Again, I don't care what the USA does or doesn't do, I don't live there or vote for there
RTT_Rules
But you want to move towards the type of laws they have in some states there.  Isn't it a useful example of what might happen?  Isn't it instructive to look at the experience there on both sides of the debate?  Would you be comfortable with 12% late term abortions - even though early term abortion is freely available?

In Australia 91-92% of abortions occur before 12 weeks. In Australia less than 2% occur after week 20 and most before week 24. The very few that occure beyond this are mostly for medical reasons such a lack of brain development which cannot be detected until week 22-24. While a very very small number, there are some women who some women who progress this far not knowing they are pregant, in denial (usually young or older) or as a few reports I've read also given wrong information early on. Obviously the later the decision the more ethical it gets and while I'm not a fan of late term non-medical abortions, its their body, their choice, their decision. No I would not stop it, get involved or propose govt legislation to do so. Again extremely small numbers and declining.
RTT_Rules
Aren't late term abortion stats low in Australia because it's illegal?

By putting on a condom, pulling out, wife taking pill etc, I'm effectively preventing a human from walking on this planet. Honestly I don't see the difference.
RTT_Rules
I'm trying to be civil, but it's very hard when you write stuff like this.  

You honestly don't see the differences between pulling out and late-term abortion?  Really?

Unpacking all the ethical, legal, physical, philosophical, causational and logical fallacies in those two sentences could easily fill a few pages.  Please let this particular point die quietly.

Any experiences it may have from the point of conception to termination is a sand grain in the universe to what it will get if it was to live.
RTT_Rules
Exactly.  You have killed something that has become capable of experiences, and being killed is the only experience it will ever have.  It's entire life, the good and bad, has taken away.  And you've chosen to wait until it can feel.

Just to be clear, I'm refraining from using more explicit and accurate language here.  Use your imagination to fill in the bits I'm not making explicit.

And laws on abortion should be a concsious vote by Female MP's only. No party lines, just what they and the people they represent and not just their seats find acceptable.
RTT_Rules
Once again, you repeat your position but don't justify it or deal with any counterarguments presented.
  Sonofagunzel Minister for Railways

You won't get many backyard coathanger abortions
Worth pointing out that this is likely to never be the case again in the western world even where abortions are illegal. These days women have access to abortion pills, either legally or illegally, for terminating first trimester pregnancies.

The experience is said to not be ideal, but this is the way many women have abortions in US states that make them difficult to attain. If Roe vs Wade is overturned, which it likely will be, then women in states where abortions will become illegal will need to obtain these drugs illegally, which shouldn't be a problem given the totally uncontrolled drug trade in the US.

The problem though is if women have complications and need to tell medical staff that they terminated a pregnancy, which would now be a criminal act they are confessing to.
Mr. Lane
These are early-term abortions.  I'm not arguing that these should be illegal.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
To be clear one more time

- Late Abortions are very very rare, not enough to get excited over
- The tail in the stats up to week 24 shows that in Australia and other data I foudn elsewhere there is no way in hell even if no restrictions would there be a significant increase in the abortion rate
- New Mexico stats are more than likely off-set by other going there for a late term abortion and not representative of people only from NM.
- NM abortion rate is decling, along with everyone else, result of stopping the wako's from preaching and controlling women
- Hungary's stats are not because of any family planning BS claims, following same trends as everyone else.
- I don't deal with hypothtical situations, because it usually results in extremists making extreme claims as it was normal in their effort to try and make a point but in reality very very rare.
- The fetus has not experienced life, its a parasite that is 100% dependent on its host for survival.
- A fetus terminated at 1 week, 10 weeks, 20 weeks has the same effect using contraception. A self sustaining life human is not produced.

Moral of the story
- Its a woman's body, its her right to control it. Forcing the issue didn't work in the past and doesn't work today. Making it illegal just means it doesn't show up on the stats.


You want to reduce or prevent abortion, you focus on clearly what works and avoid what doesn't over the last 40 years.

1. Get out of women's bodies. They own their body parts, not you. They have to live with these bodies parts, its benefits and its concequences 24/7/36 for their life. As I read by one woman once who cannot have kids. The hardest part of not being able to have kids is having to live in a body that is designed to do that.
2. As males we all get our 3min of fun, but then its over and for them to pick up the pieces, regardless of what that involves, ie wet spot in their undies to being tied to another human being for the next 18 years.
3. Focus on women's rights, fairness, equality and everything else not related to abortion because as these have improved so has the abortion stats.
4. Don't pretent late term abortions are zero because its ilegal. ie decrimalise abortion.
5. Ensure all women choosing an abortion have a fair and impartial counselling for 48 h from the minute they arrive to when they go through the procedure, if they finally choose to continue.
6. Ensure abortion clinics are not located in hard to get to back blocks of cities. The late term abortion stories I have found include women living in remote areas, or hard to get clinics with long waiting lists and often given biased advise which delays the termination.
7. Rather than critise or pretend non-medical late abortions either do not happen or don't happen, understand why these women are choosing to abort a healthy fetus at this stage without judgement, ie read their stories and work towards preventing repeats at the cause, not by putting up STOP signs.
  Sonofagunzel Minister for Railways

To be clear one more time

- Late Abortions are very very rare, not enough to get excited over
RTT_Rules
But later you said ...

Making it illegal just means it doesn't show up on the stats.
...
4. Don't pretent late term abortions are zero because its ilegal. ie decrimalise abortion.
...
The late term abortion stories I have found include women living in remote areas, or hard to get clinics with long waiting lists and often given biased advise which delays the termination.
...
7. Rather than critise or pretend non-medical late abortions either do not happen or don't happen, understand why these women are choosing to abort a healthy fetus at this stage without judgement, ie read their stories and work towards preventing repeats at the cause, not by putting up STOP signs.
RTT_Rules
So are late-term abortions of healthy babies with healthy mothers rare and not worth worrying about, or are they common and necessary but driven underground by illegality? You're not being consistent and you're shifting your facts to suit your argument.

And in any case, is it really relevant?  Would you decriminalise murder if we had a low murder rate?  

As for the reasons for later abortions, this is what the experts say:

What percentage of women getting later abortions are doing it to protect their own health or life or because of a fetal abnormality?

A Congressional Research Service report published in April 2018 quoted Diana Greene Foster, the lead investigator on the study above and a professor at UCSF’s Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health as saying “[t]here aren’t good data on how often later abortions are for medical reasons.”

“Based on limited research and discussions with researchers in the field, Dr. Foster believes that abortions for fetal anomaly ‘make up a small minority of later abortion’ and that those for life endangerment are even harder to characterize,” the report stated.
The Washington Post


- The tail in the stats up to week 24 shows that in Australia and other data I foudn elsewhere there is no way in hell even if no restrictions would there be a significant increase in the abortion rate
RTT_Rules
Link please.

- New Mexico stats are more than likely off-set by other going there for a late term abortion and not representative of people only from NM.
RTT_Rules
... which, even if true, would only mean that the stats from some other states were understated.  And remember, we don't have stats on liberal states like California at all.

- NM abortion rate is decling, along with everyone else, result of stopping the wako's from preaching and controlling women
RTT_Rules
Is that supposed to be an argument, evidence, or just abuse of people you disagree with?

- Hungary's stats are not because of any family planning BS claims, following same trends as everyone else.
RTT_Rules
Hungary might have relevance in the other thread, but not this one.  

- I don't deal with hypothtical situations, because it usually results in extremists making extreme claims as it was normal in their effort to try and make a point but in reality very very rare.
RTT_Rules
This the most ridiculous response you've written.  How can this topic possibly be discussed without appropriate hypotheticals?

Are you embarrassed about the logical consequences of your own position?  

Can't explain why your position has shifted?

Is it because you've suddenly realised that the obvious and correct answer to my hypothetical undermines your position?


- The fetus has not experienced life, its a parasite that is 100% dependent on its host for survival.
- A fetus terminated at 1 week, 10 weeks, 20 weeks has the same effect using contraception. A self sustaining life human is not produced.
RTT_Rules
Seriously?

You ignored my response about parasites, and just repeat the claim afresh?

As for abortion being the same as contraception, you might as well argue that posting on Railpage is the same as late-term abortion because you were posting here rather than shtupping your wife.

And you continue to answer points about late term abortion with points about early term abortion.


Moral of the story
- Its a woman's body, its her right to control it. Forcing the issue didn't work in the past and doesn't work today. Making it illegal just means it doesn't show up on the stats.
RTT_Rules
Yeah, forget the baby.  It has no political rights, can't protest, is utterly powerless.  Forget that it's there because of the voluntary choices of two adults, and the fact that it had no choice to be there, and that the mother waited till the baby was fully formed to decide to kill it.  Forget that you're offering this baby far less legal protection than a dog or cat.  That little sucker is in the way of your views on women's rights, so it must die.

And again, previous abortion bans were bad because they were total bans of both early and late-term abortions.

And this is yet another response point of yours that relates to early term rather than late term.

You want to reduce or prevent abortion, you focus on clearly what works and avoid what doesn't over the last 40 years.
RTT_Rules
I've never said that maintaining our current laws restricting late term abortion is the only thing we need to do.  

1. Get out of women's bodies. They own their body parts, not you. They have to live with these bodies parts, its benefits and its concequences 24/7/36 for their life. As I read by one woman once who cannot have kids. The hardest part of not being able to have kids is having to live in a body that is designed to do that.
2. As males we all get our 3min of fun, but then its over and for them to pick up the pieces, regardless of what that involves, ie wet spot in their undies to being tied to another human being for the next 18 years.
3. Focus on women's rights, fairness, equality and everything else not related to abortion because as these have improved so has the abortion stats.
RTT_Rules
We can do more than one thing at the same time.

4. Don't pretent late term abortions are zero because its ilegal. ie decrimalise abortion.
RTT_Rules
Don't pretend that late term abortions won't increase if you make them legal.

5. Ensure all women choosing an abortion have a fair and impartial counselling for 48 h from the minute they arrive to when they go through the procedure, if they finally choose to continue.
6. Ensure abortion clinics are not located in hard to get to back blocks of cities. The late term abortion stories I have found include women living in remote areas, or hard to get clinics with long waiting lists and often given biased advise which delays the termination.
7. Rather than critise or pretend non-medical late abortions either do not happen or don't happen, understand why these women are choosing to abort a healthy fetus at this stage without judgement, ie read their stories and work towards preventing repeats at the cause, not by putting up STOP signs.
RTT_Rules
Again, we can do more than one thing at a time.  And if there are good reasons for late term abortion we haven't dealt with, we can deal with them.  But they seem to be the exceptional cases that shouldn't mean it has to be a legal free-for-all in all cases.
  Sonofagunzel Minister for Railways

How many people agree with your views compared to mine, RTT-Rules?

Here is a comprehensive report by Pew Research - probably the best and most reputable and unbiased research organisation in the world.

At least 66% of people think that abortion at or after 24 weeks should be illegal subject to exceptions like the mother's life being in danger or the baby being severely disabled.  It could be up to 73%, because a further 7% say it should be legal, subject to exceptions.

Only 19% agree with your view that abortion should be legal in all cases.  

"It's all those evil controlling MEN!", I hear you say.  Nope.  The views of men and women are very similar.  

Here are the relevant stats and extracts:




Fewer adults say abortion should be legal 24 weeks into a pregnancy – about when a healthy fetus could survive outside the womb with medical care. At this stage, 22% of adults say abortion should be legal, while nearly twice as many (43%) say it should be illegal. Again, about one-in-five adults (18%) say whether abortion should be legal at 24 weeks depends on other factors.

Respondents who said that abortion should be illegal 24 weeks into a pregnancy or that “it depends” were asked a follow-up question about whether abortion at that point should be legal if the pregnant woman’s life is in danger or the baby would be born with severe disabilities. Most who received this question say abortion in these circumstances should be legal (54%) or that it depends on other factors (40%). Just 4% of this group maintained that abortion should be illegal in this case.
Pew Research


  Valvegear Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Banned
I would take far more notice of an Australian survey.
The Americans are used to governments snooping and legislating in absurd ways, to the point where I have asked some of them when they are going to remove "... the land of the free..." from their National Anthem.
  Sonofagunzel Minister for Railways

Let's see what excuse you give for rejecting this one:

Call for early abortion to be lawful: poll

The nationally representative poll of Australians over 18 years found 61 per cent said abortion should be lawful without question for a woman in her first trimester of pregnancy, while 26 per cent said it should be lawful depending on the reason.

In the second trimester (12 to 24 weeks), support for outright lawful abortion was 12 per cent while 57 per cent said it depended on circumstances, such as whether her mental or physical health was at risk or there was deformity or impairment in the developing child.

For third trimester or late-term abortions, just 6 per cent said it should be outright lawful while 42 per cent said it depended on circumstances.

The combined result of 48 per cent matched those who said abortion should be unlawful in the third trimester.

Another part of the survey did show broad support for doctors not to face a penalty if they performed a late-term abortion under certain scenarios, including where a woman's life was at risk or where there were ''severe abnormalities'' in the developing child. ''People are much less black and white about ethical questions when they are provided with specific details and asked to think about what they would want for themselves or their family members,'' said Dr Lachlan de Crespigny, who also contributed to the paper.

A clear majority (78 per cent) said doctors should not face sanction if they performed a late-term abortion if a woman's life was at risk.

Just 30 per cent said doctors should not be penalised if they performed a late-term abortion because a woman could not afford to raise the child.
The Age
So in terms of whether abortion should be lawful on or after 24 weeks:
  • 6% said lawful
  • 48% said unlawful
  • 42%  said depended on circumstances.

In terms of what "depended on the circumstances" means for late-term abortions, we can look at when they said doctors should be able to perform the abortion without being penalised:  
  • 78% if the woman's life was at risk.
  • 30% if the woman could not afford to raise the child.

If anything, the results indicate less support for late-term abortion than the US survey I quoted.

Certainly the "legal in all circumstances" brigade is much smaller here: 6% in Australia versus 19% in the US.
  Sonofagunzel Minister for Railways

Crickets.

Can’t say I’m surprised.














Wait, lemme guess. Your response will be something like …

Sono,

you have been struggling to make any relevent points for 5 pages now, especially with your political inspired responses. Where as numerous people here, not just been have been right to the point.

My reference was to the stats was to demonsrate the strerotype backgrounds of the anti-abortioin brigade, for which you are on point with the sterotype.
RTT_Rules
Uh huh. I don’t think you’ve made a single relevant point against my position in this debate. Your arguments were so illogical you literally started arguing against yourself.

And we can all see now why you wouldn’t provide a link to your demographic stats. Rather inconvenient to your argument, weren’t they?

Only 6% of Australians agree with you, and something like 70-80% hold the same view as I do. And a clear majority of women agree with my view, not yours. So who’s really the radical crackpot here?  

At least we can all agree that…

The passionately committed are just that; debate is futile.
Valvegear
  Carnot Minister for Railways

Getting back to the heart of the issue, a powerful essay in First Things magazine on artist and poet Leonard Cohen's lost children:

https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2022/07/leonard-cohens-lost-children


A difficult read.

Sponsored advertisement

Display from: