Politics of the Free - It’s because Democrats, stupid. - The Bear and Badger

SpaceGazelle

hunk wrote:

SpaceGazelle wrote:

acemuzzy wrote:

Does anyone think aborting at 39 weeks would be ok?

Nothing here is a black and white issue and of course things are complicated as it depends on circumstance. It's a strange and slightly loaded thing to ask. Why would someone get an abortion at 39 weeks?

39 weeks is a full grown baby, so usually people consider it not ok and infanticide. Generally, 24 weeks is considered the absolute limit when it comes to abortion. This is because before 24 weeks a foetus cannot survive outside of the mother due to underdevelopment of the lungs. Anything after that is....no.

Again it depends. If the mother's life is at risk then it's complicated.

RedDave2

@acemuzzy yeah, for better or worse, I see human life starting at conception. Our daughter came through ivf and I guess because we had to go through many hard years to get to that point as soon as I saw the hint of life I just thought, yes, that's my child.

In the case of abortion, I see it as ending a human life but it's justified. To call it murder seems grossly unfair.

I do believe it has to be the woman's right to choose. I didn't always think this way I must admit - if a women can choose that she doesn't want a child just because she doesn't, than in theory can a man claim no responsibility for a child in a similar way. If it takes 2 to make the baby, and both are responsible then both should decide. But in reality, our society puts the onus on child care far too much on the female that it's a weak point.

hunk

SpaceGazelle wrote:

hunk wrote:

SpaceGazelle wrote:

acemuzzy wrote:

Does anyone think aborting at 39 weeks would be ok?

Nothing here is a black and white issue and of course things are complicated as it depends on circumstance. It's a strange and slightly loaded thing to ask. Why would someone get an abortion at 39 weeks?

39 weeks is a full grown baby, so usually people consider it not ok and infanticide. Generally, 24 weeks is considered the absolute limit when it comes to abortion. This is because before 24 weeks a foetus cannot survive outside of the mother due to underdevelopment of the lungs. Anything after that is....no.

Again it depends. If the mother's life is at risk then it's complicated.

If it is a medical emergency than yeah, it depends.

RedDave2

SpaceGazelle wrote:

RedDave2 wrote:

What's the bias? Because theres more men? That's a pretty harsh assumption. This is a mostly male forum. How many would vote that proposal through? I reckon none.

But that's because there's a general lack of religion here, and that's the point. Religion has always been about control, and that includes the control of women. To assume the issue isn't in some form a biased male view thing is being naive

I'll agree religion is about control but the issue is if the populace vote for it than its a democratic result. People's reasons for votes are their own thing. Yes, organised religions do look to imposes control but a strong political ideology is the same. Look at the average brexit voter. It's mostly middle aged white but there are many exceptions.

SpaceGazelle

RedDave2 wrote:

What's the bias? Because theres more men? That's a pretty harsh assumption. This is a mostly male forum. How many would vote that proposal through? I reckon none.

But that's because there's a general lack of religion here, and that's the point. Religion has always been about control, and that includes the control of women. To assume the issue isn't in some form a biased male view thing is being naive

I'll agree religion is about control but the issue is if the populace vote for it than its a democratic result. People's reasons for votes are their own thing. Yes, organised religions do look to imposes control but a strong political ideology is the same. Look at the average brexit voter. It's mostly middle aged white but there are many exceptions.

I don't get the analogy, but I will say that you can't just vote in laws that affect other laws already in place. Complicated issues have complicated ramifications and you'll often find any attempts to introduce such simplistic stances are later overturned by a court with more power. We see this all the time with the European Court of Justice.

acemuzzy

It was a loaded question to try to highlight that kow's position that "abortion is obviously ok at 1 week; abortion is obviously not ok at 39 weeks" yields difficulty in the middle (which he's not yet acknowledged afaict)

@reddave2 I didn't call it murder, I hope. I would find it a much harder decision late in pregnancy than early though, I guess I find it strange to not feel that too but can kind of get it.

And yes, medical stuff weighing up the life of the mother is difficult for sure.

RedDave2

SpaceGazelle wrote:

RedDave2 wrote:

What's the bias? Because theres more men? That's a pretty harsh assumption. This is a mostly male forum. How many would vote that proposal through? I reckon none.

But that's because there's a general lack of religion here, and that's the point. Religion has always been about control, and that includes the control of women. To assume the issue isn't in some form a biased male view thing is being naive

I'll agree religion is about control but the issue is if the populace vote for it than its a democratic result. People's reasons for votes are their own thing. Yes, organised religions do look to imposes control but a strong political ideology is the same. Look at the average brexit voter. It's mostly middle aged white but there are many exceptions.

I don't get the analogy, but I will say that you can't just vote in laws that affect other laws already in place. Complicated issues have complicated ramifications and you'll often find any attempts to such simplistic stances are later overturned by a court with more power. We see this all the time with the European Court of Justice.

Which makes perfect sense, I don't think the proposal was meant to be the issue, more how a government works if its a democracy.

To back track a little, the start of this was what makes a democracy. I still wouldn't agree that protecting minorities or enshrining certain rights such as abortion is what makes a democracy. To be ability of the people to elect representatives to run the seats of power is. To me at least.

RedDave2

Apologies, I didn't mean to imply you or others had used the term murder. It's often a term used by hard Pro life, that's why I thought of it.

Kow

acemuzzy wrote:

It was a loaded question to try to highlight that kow's position that "abortion is obviously ok at 1 week; abortion is obviously not ok at 39 weeks" yields difficulty in the middle (which he's not yet acknowledged afaict)

Sorry, I didn't realise I had to acknowledge something. But I didn't say anything about 1 week just that by 39 weeks most people would agree that it's a human life. For abortion as a law to work there has to be a defined period in which it's acceptable. Within that period it doesn't much matter what your reasons are.

Vela

Regardless of where anyone stands on the issue, its not surprising that both people for and against the procedure harbour strong views.

hunk

hunk wrote:

SpaceGazelle wrote:

acemuzzy wrote:

Does anyone think aborting at 39 weeks would be ok?

Nothing here is a black and white issue and of course things are complicated as it depends on circumstance. It's a strange and slightly loaded thing to ask. Why would someone get an abortion at 39 weeks?

39 weeks is a full grown baby, so usually people would consider it not ok and infanticide. Generally, 24 weeks is considered the absolute limit when it comes to abortion. This is because before 24 weeks a foetus cannot survive outside of the mother due to underdevelopment of the lungs.

Anything after that is....no.

I forgot to add this is the case in the Netherlands where abortion is legal. A person will have to make her mind up before the 24th week to get an abortion. After that time limit passes, that option is off the table. Unless: exceptional circumstances (such as a medical life-threatening emergency).

acemuzzy

Kow wrote:

acemuzzy wrote:

It was a loaded question to try to highlight that kow's position that "abortion is obviously ok at 1 week; abortion is obviously not ok at 39 weeks" yields difficulty in the middle (which he's not yet acknowledged afaict)

Sorry, I didn't realise I had to acknowledge something. But I didn't say anything about 1 week just that by 39 weeks most people would agree that it's a human life. For abortion as a law to work there has to be a defined period in which it's acceptable. Within that period it doesn't much matter what your reasons are.

I think I'm muddling multiple people, and even myself, now. Ho hum. No need to acknowledge nothing!

Diluted Dante

hunk wrote:

39 weeks is a full grown baby, so usually people would consider it not ok and infanticide. Generally, 24 weeks is considered the absolute limit when it comes to abortion. This is because before 24 weeks a foetus cannot survive outside of the mother due to underdevelopment of the lungs. Anything after that is....no.

There aren't hard and fast points where it becomes viable. Some will be before 24 weeks, some won't be after.

The vast, vast majority of abortions (circa 90%) occur in the first 12 weeks. A smaller number happen between then and 24 weeks, becoming smaller and smaller as you go, and after 24 weeks it's 0.1%, which is effectively irrelevant.

Edit - in the UK

hunk

Hence the 24 week limit....

GooberTheHat

The same people that are against abortion are almost always the same people that criticise poor people for having more children than they can afford to raise.

RedDave2

GooberTheHat wrote:

The same people that are against abortion are almost always the same people that criticise poor people for having more children than they can afford to raise.

This always irked me, especially the US ones. No to abortions and er, no to support for when the child is born.

It wouldn't completely remove the reasons for an abortion but a proper support system would certainly help

Kow

So Kushner, who Trump has entrusted with coming up with a Middle East peace plan, has basically come up "Palestinians aren't capable of ruling themselves". And the fantastic Trump plan then is give everything to the Jews. Great work guys.

Diluted Dante

If only it has been obvious he was a clueless fucking idiot.

Armitage_Shankburn

Kow wrote:

So Kushner, who Trump has entrusted with coming up with a Middle East peace plan, has basically come up "Palestinians aren't capable of ruling themselves". And the fantastic Trump plan then is give everything to the Jews. Great work guys.

Israelis, not Jews. Why do you have to bring Jews in general into this? Even my fellow travellers on the loony left say "the Zionist enemy", which is less offensive than lumping all Jews together

Armitage_Shankburn

Anyway Kushners solution has been rejected by the Israeli govt as unacceptably pro-palestinian

Kow

I'm not really part of this Labour anti-semitism panic. The Israeli government is, as far as I know, entirely Jewish. I'm not suggesting Trump is giving everything to Jews everywhere and my intention is not to disparage Jews in general.

Armitage_Shankburn

It is not a labour antisemitism thing. It's a racism thing.its a politeness thing. And it's an accuracy thing. I have many Jewish friends who revile the Israeli government. I have many more who would call it out a hell of a lot more if they didn't feel like it's critics tend to use anti-Semitic language.

You aren't being a friend to the Palestinians, to the many civil organisations within Israel who are resisting and helping Palestinians, by dropping hard Js like that, to use a sunnyism.

Kow

Well I didn't intend it like that. I know plenty of Jewish people who are pro Palestinian too. But I don't really see the offense in it any more than the using Catholic/Protestant interchangeably with terrorist groups. It's just generalizing for convenience. It isn't any more correct to say Israelis, as many of them are pro Palestinian too. It's understood what's meant. But I'll stop using it interchangeably with Israeli if it will make you feel better

Armitage_Shankburn

Np, understood and appreciated

SpaceGazelle

Most international Jews are pro Israeli and that is a problem. Can you generalise? A bit, but those sensible Jews who aren't extremists acknowledge the problem.

It's like someone thinking the British are brilliant and being offended when someone points out we're the most destructive cunts in history. It's true and we shouldn't shy away from it.

Yossarian

I don’t think that’s really a fair comparison, not least because nobody has ever tried to exterminate the British for the crime of being British.

Antisemitism has a long and violent history, one which reaches into living memory and which is still expressed today. We need to be more careful of our language around minority groups so as to not provide cover for those who would persecute them. Not conflating Israel and Jews is one part of that.

Armitage_Shankburn

Yeah I personally do not judge even my pro Israeli Jewish friends. Takes a tad of empathy to realise what it is to have stories in your family of what hapoened. Imgaine if your grandfather walked meekly to his death Inna gas chamber, after years of slavery, starvation, humiliation. I understand the idea of "never again". All you can do is empathize and calmly point out (in a less blunt way) that it's no excuse for humiliating an innocent third party.

Kow

@yoss It's not really a conflation though, as Israel describes itself as a Jewish state. It has a predominantly Jewish population. It was created expressly for Jewish people. It takes great pride in, and places great importance on its Jewish heritage. I honestly can't see how referring to the people that live there as Jews is offensive. Particularly in distinguishing them from the other people who live there and who are not Jewish but are Israeli. But as I said, I won't interchange the terms if it causes offence. And I could also be completely out of touch with all this as I'm an old curmudgeon who lives in a place with hardly any Jewish population.

SpaceGazelle

Yossarian wrote:

I don’t think that’s really a fair comparison, not least because nobody has ever tried to exterminate the British for the crime of being British.

Wtf. My point was we tried to exterminate everyone else for not being British and there is a valid comparison here with the Israeli gov, and I would judge pro israeli jews in exactly the same way as i judge pro British twats. It's condescending not to.

Yossarian

Kow wrote:

@yoss It's not really a conflation though, as Israel describes itself as a Jewish state. It has a predominantly Jewish population. It was created expressly for Jewish people. It takes great pride in, and places great importance on its Jewish heritage. I honestly can't see how referring to the people that live there as Jews is offensive. Particularly in distinguishing them from the other people who live there and who are not Jewish but are Israeli. But as I said, I won't interchange the terms if it causes offence. And I could also be completely out of touch with all this as I'm an old curmudgeon who lives in a place with hardly any Jewish population.

That’s what Israel does, sure, but that doesn’t make it a two way street. And can you imagine what it would be like to be held responsible for the actions of a place you may never have visited or even particularly give a shit about just because it is claimed to have been set up in the name of your ethnicity? Even more so if your ethnicity makes you the target of attacks and hate anyway.

Edit: @Kow in case it gets lost in the page turn.

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories