hunk wrote: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.SpaceGazelle wrote: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?acemuzzy wrote:Does anyone think aborting at 39 weeks would be ok?
SpaceGazelle wrote:hunk wrote: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.SpaceGazelle wrote: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?acemuzzy wrote:Does anyone think aborting at 39 weeks would be ok?
Again it depends. If the mother's life is at risk then it's complicated.
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
RedDave2 wrote: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.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 naiveWhat'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.
SpaceGazelle wrote:RedDave2 wrote: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.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 naiveWhat'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.
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.
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)
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 think I'm muddling multiple people, and even myself, now. Ho hum. No need to acknowledge nothing!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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!