57
Should be 500m.
all 28 comments
sorted by:
hot
top
controversial
new
old
So... People are rightfully upset at foetus being ripped apart, and the answer is to infringe freedom of protest? How is this okay??
Alternative take: People should be able to undertake one of the hardest personal decisions/actions of their life without the chilling effect of others.
What I don't understand is why it's legal to kill your child before it's born but not after. It doesn't make sense.
If you deny women access to abortion related healthcare, they die. Abortion bans ruin lives, and if you really have to protest abortions (which you shouldn't), direct your attention towards politicians, instead of harassing women who need healthcare and are already having a horrible time.
The article you posted showed how a woman and her unborn children tragically died from a botched abortion. Her death had little to do with the abortion ban. In fact, if abortion was banned nationally, her life would have been saved.
As for politicians- they don't listen. So being able to convince these distressed women that there's other options and help available is our best method.
The great thing is though, it's completely up to you to choose: If you want to carry a child to term, and have the requisite equipment, you can do so.
If someone else doesn't want to, that's their decision too.
Carrying a child to term is the natural outcome most of the time, except from tragic miscarriages. If Abortion was truly autonomy, it wouldn't require clinics
Because it's not yet a child. It has the potential to become one, but it isn't yet. Seriously, you can't be daft enough not to understand the difference.
So where is the line drawn? Because it looks like a child to me.
That’s exactly the answer given to you above - the line is murky and grey, there is no clear point that everyone agrees is the right point.
In such a circumstance, the right answer is open to interpretation, and the right solution for a society is to accept that the best person to make that decision is the person involved.
If you want my answer, it’s when brain cells develop enough to start looking like a functioning brain (somewhere around 16-20 weeks). Before that it’s just a brain dead mass of cells regardless of how it looks.
Clearly you have a different moment, and that’s fine, but you don’t get to ignore that the issue is open to interpretation. Otoh, I admit that both sides are guilty of trying to railroad a “simple” interpretation as the only right answer, it’s always tempting to force a simple answer and declare the problem solved, it’s harder to let people decide for themselves what the right answer is, but that’s the right thing to do when we as a society cannot reach a consensus, and we certainly don’t seem to have a consensus on this one.
I think the best thing to do is actually making the climate desirable to have children. A lot of abortions happen because "I can't afford it" "I can't do it because of education", better access to contraception, etc. I think childcare should be free if you're not like- middle-middle class and pregnant women should get child benefit. However, crisis pregnancy centres are also weirdly called out which is strange considering they are wanting to help care for the child.
This still doesn't change the fact that I cannot see how abortion is moral at all. And it's the same reason why I don't think we should let people harm their children. The "my body my choice" thing won't work with me because I do not consider a foetus part of the woman's body. I saw an ultrasound of an abortion as well and it was shocking, the foetus actively seemed to be trying to escape it. If you asked a child "do you want to die" the answer would obviously be "no". I absolutely abhor how people dehumanise foetus as "mass of cells" or even worse "parasite" and make abortion seem like a normal thing. I abhor people who use abortion as a contraceptive method. I abhor people who are calling for "death penalties" for people who get abortions, as most of the time, they aren't in a good state when they get it.
Cool. Your welcome to feel that way.
But when you intimidate people who disagree with your flawed non scientific ideal of the start of life.
You face restrictions on you right to gather near them.
It is a scientific fact that foetus are human lives - they react to things, have a heartbeat, can feel pain, etc. The anti-science ones are the ones trying to make science say something that agrees with their worldview so people don't have to face the outcome of their actions.
Just say you were convinced that foetus are human lives - would you still be in favour of abortion?
Cells react to things. Dose not mean it is an independent console being.
If you can proove your cancer moles meet the same standards. Would you still agree with removal.
Cancer moles aren't human lives. This is disingenuous.
Nor are cells in a womb. Sorta the point,
Then why do they look human and given enough time, able to graduate university with a master's degree in sociology?
When we see any evidence that conciseness can even exist at the speed of light. Then the potential of someone's cells may be argued to outweigh the current desires of a living, independent being.
Until time travel, you are likely to continue to fail to change the law to consider a collection of cells an independent life form before 24 weeks. The rights of the mother, it requires living, currently outweigh those of something unable to survive alone.
Just like my need for a new kidney in no way gives me or the law the right to force you to donate yours against your will.
As for it looking like a human. So does any ape fetus at that time. It has little to do with its total development. Just like when you build the frame of a boat that frame looks boat like. Because all the bits that require a boat to float and run require a frame to be placed in.
Its shape is ion no way a valid argument for its completeness. This is science and law, not art.
More specifically, this is law. And ever since, the ban on abortion was lost. (due to the real death of living humans able to make choices). People of your (no more than religiously defined) opinion have been fighting to change the law. You have failed.
And while you have the right to protest that and feel this way. As I said right at the beginning. You do not have the right to intimidate others following the law rather than protest at parliament to change it.
The value of the law. And your non-scientific definitions of when a human is indeed human. Have no actual relation to the topic of this thread. The history of intimidation of people following the law who do not agree with your views is all that dose.
And if you think they can change people's mind on those actions by quoting your unfounded ideas.
Honestly, you're as daft as I am thinking my opinions matter to you. But when you call them scientific. Go fuck off, you are at best uninformed of what the word means and how the scientific process works. And more likely miss informed about the difference between individual facts and proof of a hypothesis being evaluated, challenged and accepted as a theory.
The amount of mental gymnastics and presumptions about me here is absolutely astounding. Me not donating a kidney to you is not the same as me ripping you apart from limb to limb. The equivalent would be, just say a pregnant woman would need to take a medical treatment to prevent a miscarriage. Do I think it should be illegal for her to refuse the treatment? No! As letting nature play out is not actively intervening and murdering someone.
Also, I hear atheists flip flop between "we can have morals too, even though we believe that there is no god" to "you are only holding this moral about life being worth something because of your belief in god" and it's astonishing.
I still believed abortion was wrong before I took the Bible seriously as a guideline for my life. I also believed in other things that aren't biblical at the time. I challenged the social norm and still came to the conclusion that religion aside, it's immoral. The only influence religion has on my opinions surrounding abortion is that I believe that morality exists and that human life is sacred. Which is why I am also against the death penalty and I am against refusing to help people who are dying.
You are misinterpreting my words. And it's hard to claim not intentionally.
- I said the law should not be able to force you to make the donation. Nothing at all about your desire.
This is the same as forcing a mother to donate her body and long term health to birth another being. You have no right to intimate her into dong so. And the law has decided the being has no rights until 24 weeks. Where evidence indicates it can survive without the mother.
- I never made any accusations about your religion or the motive of your actions. Read it again. I said your definitions of life and humanity are no better than religion. IE, they have zero evidence to back them up. Only that of your non-scientific opinion.
Everything you provide argument wise is based on your personal definition of when a collection of cells is human. You do not have the ability to make that judgement. Nor do I and nor has science. But we do have the ability to judge when it is no longer a parasite (hard luck if you don't like the term, nor do I. But it is technically correct) depending on the will of another being to live. And our laws consider its right to out weight the mothers at that point. Is it up for debate. Of course. But that is in no way the topic of this thread.
Your very first response to me came back with bullshit scientific reasons why my claim your definition of human was unscientific. I have attempted to point out your misapplication of those facts. They are not a scientific answer. They are facts that fail to proove the cells are as you claim an independent human life.
And as I keep saying. While you outright choose to ignore it as you have no answer.
Non-off them give you or anyone who thinks as you do. The right to intimidate people following the law as it is now. That is the only reason the laws announced here have been created. And the only thing those laws stop you doing.
You're acting as if pregnancy just randomly occurs like an illness. It does not. I wouldn't believe in a religion that doesn't have evidence to back it up, so your presumption that I would still doesn't make any sense. Offering support to a distressed person about to jump off a bridge is okay, so why isn't it okay to offer support to a distressed person about to allow someone to murder her child? Both believe that what they're going to do is the right thing.
Your acting like you have a point.
You dont.
And I never said anything about uour religion. It has no officialnopinion on abortion. And the bible actually gives guides to do it.
But it is freaking clear you have no idea what evidence actully is.
But non of your opinions give you the right to intimidate people rather then try to change parlimentary votes. And that is the subjeect of this law.
And the bible actually gives guides to do it.
Excuse me but what?
But it is freaking clear you have no idea what evidence actully is.
Then can you give me evidence to where this so-called abortion guide is in the Bible?
Numbers 5.21
I'm sorry but... what?
Numbers 5:11-31 ESV
[11] And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, [12] “Speak to the people of Israel, If any man’s wife goes astray and breaks faith with him, [13] if a man lies with her sexually, and it is hidden from the eyes of her husband, and she is undetected though she has defiled herself, and there is no witness against her, since she was not taken in the act, [14] and if the spirit of jealousy comes over him and he is jealous of his wife who has defiled herself, or if the spirit of jealousy comes over him and he is jealous of his wife, though she has not defiled herself, [15] then the man shall bring his wife to the priest and bring the offering required of her, a tenth of an ephah of barley flour. He shall pour no oil on it and put no frankincense on it, for it is a grain offering of jealousy, a grain offering of remembrance, bringing iniquity to remembrance. [16] “And the priest shall bring her near and set her before the Lord. [17] And the priest shall take holy water in an earthenware vessel and take some of the dust that is on the floor of the tabernacle and put it into the water. [18] And the priest shall set the woman before the Lord and unbind the hair of the woman’s head and place in her hands the grain offering of remembrance, which is the grain offering of jealousy. And in his hand the priest shall have the water of bitterness that brings the curse. [19] Then the priest shall make her take an oath, saying, ‘If no man has lain with you, and if you have not turned aside to uncleanness while you were under your husband’s authority, be free from this water of bitterness that brings the curse. [20] But if you have gone astray, though you are under your husband’s authority, and if you have defiled yourself, and some man other than your husband has lain with you, [21] then’ (let the priest make the woman take the oath of the curse, and say to the woman) ‘the Lord make you a curse and an oath among your people, when the Lord makes your thigh fall away and your body swell. [22] May this water that brings the curse pass into your bowels and make your womb swell and your thigh fall away.’ And the woman shall say, ‘Amen, Amen.’ [23] “Then the priest shall write these curses in a book and wash them off into the water of bitterness. [24] And he shall make the woman drink the water of bitterness that brings the curse, and the water that brings the curse shall enter into her and cause bitter pain. [25] And the priest shall take the grain offering of jealousy out of the woman’s hand and shall wave the grain offering before the Lord and bring it to the altar. [26] And the priest shall take a handful of the grain offering, as its memorial portion, and burn it on the altar, and afterward shall make the woman drink the water. [27] And when he has made her drink the water, then, if she has defiled herself and has broken faith with her husband, the water that brings the curse shall enter into her and cause bitter pain, and her womb shall swell, and her thigh shall fall away, and the woman shall become a curse among her people. [28] But if the woman has not defiled herself and is clean, then she shall be free and shall conceive children. [29] “This is the law in cases of jealousy, when a wife, though under her husband’s authority, goes astray and defiles herself, [30] or when the spirit of jealousy comes over a man and he is jealous of his wife. Then he shall set the woman before the Lord, and the priest shall carry out for her all this law. [31] The man shall be free from iniquity, but the woman shall bear her iniquity.”
There's absolutely no mention of abortion here- in fact, verse 28 makes it clear that she "shall be free to conceive", so it shows that she wasn't even pregnant to begin with. It's clearly talking about a woman becoming infertile if she cheats on her husband, and nothing to do with an abortion or terminating a pregnancy. I don't know what conclusions you jumped to in order to even think this was about abortion
I feel it is important to clarify evidence.
Numbers 5.21 is evidence of the words in the bible. So that humans who wrote the bible had no compunction with the death od a unborn fetus.
Not in anyway evidence for or against the existance of god. Or its views on any subject.
Science is agnostic. My personal view is athiest
Evidence and understanding its meanong is the difference between the 2.
This is why I habe pointed out several times I am in no way critisising your religion. Just your use of religiose like ideas to proove scientific or lefal points.
That things look the same is not evidence they are the same.
this post was submitted on 18 Sep 2024
57 points (100.0% liked)
United Kingdom
4060 readers
53 users here now
General community for news/discussion in the UK.
Less serious posts should go in !casualuk@feddit.uk or !andfinally@feddit.uk
More serious politics should go in !uk_politics@feddit.uk.
Try not to spam the same link to multiple feddit.uk communities.
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.
Posts should be related to UK-centric news, and should be either a link to a reputable source, or a text post on this community.
Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.
If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread.
Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.
Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS