Skyscraper City Forum banner
1 - 20 of 34 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
655 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 · (Edited)
To save the faux Off Topic Outrage here is a thread on abortion.

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=352208&page=589

To respond to some points;

So you can’t avoid getting pregnant then, I’m glad we’ve established that.

You seem to think it’s people sleeping around, getting pregnant and then getting rid of it, or that’s at least how you would put it. Any information to back up your claim? I doubt you can get hold of any.

Isn’t your statement about those waiting until they’ve partnered actually an argument for abortion? Oh dear.

Let me tell you, anyone who has an abortion will never forget it and lives with it for the rest of their lives. It is never a choice made overnight nor one people worry about.
No you cannot 100% avoid pregnancy if you are having sex. That doesn't mean you don't have choice, no choices are unlimited. And as I said, this still doesn't address the point that a child being inconvenient isn't a particularly persuasive reason to kill it.

Where have I stated it's people sleeping around? Like OpenlyJane you are having difficulty responding to the actual statements I make, preferring to make shit up that you assume i'd say. In fact I responded to a comment by OpenlyJane just above yours about all kinds of difficult situations. The point is difficulty is irrelevant to whether an option is unacceptable for the State to sanction.

No, my statement about waiting supports taking responsibility. Economics is not a brilliant argument to kill either.

The gay community doesn’t speak for everyone in it like they think they do. There are those who have their own voice but that’s for another topic.

I don’t recall reading any posts apart from yours that would suggest a woman would be in her rights to abort if she thought a child would be gay.
...So you think being gay is a choice? Congratulations, you've just destroyed the legal basis for gay rights which is predicated on sexuality being an immutable characteristic. Under the law if someone can change sexuality as they change underwear they could not be discriminated against. Do you understand why going down this road is a terrible idea?

Every opposing comment has stated that this is entirely about the mother's rights, even going as far to question why anyone else should have an opinion. That by definition means she would be within her rights to terminate based on any reason. Once the State has held that the mother's right is absolute the State cannot suddenly then arbitrarily step in when the optics look bad (especially as if as above you have gutted the concept of sexuality as a protected class).

I'm sorry but this is nonsense. There's no way on earth that any government of the UK would allow a 'test' to see if an unborn child is gay. Do you really believe that? Just think about what you're saying, it's 2018. It's never going to happen.
What point of law is this based on exactly? Thanks to modern changes to common law the unborn is no longer considered a separate being, which means it is not subject to legal protection against discrimination.

As pointed out earlier is any other testing banned (or possible to ban for that matter)? Sex, physical health? Certain forms of eugenics are perfectly possible right now, it's hardly theoretical.

And we already seem to be accepting in law that abortion is solely about the rights of the mother, on what grounds could the testing be banned?
 

·
Less is more.
Joined
·
6,230 Posts
Because being gay is not a debilitating disability or a life threatening condition. What government in their right mind would even suggest establishing a 'gay test' as common practice just in case some bigoted parents to be want it? I don't mean to be rude but you seem like a crackpot.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
655 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 · (Edited)
Because being gay is not a debilitating disability or a life threatening condition.
In case you hadn't noticed the people I'm arguing with are saying abortion is entirely a matter of choice of the mother and are arguing in favour of abortions from everything from rape to a one-night stand, so this doesn't matter. You are being disingenuous by making out we are only talking about abortions when the mother or child is at risk, that's not what the other posters have been arguing in favour of.

What government in their right mind would even suggest establishing a 'gay test' as common practice just in case some bigoted parents to be want it?
There is no necessity for government to develop a test. The research will happen anyway (and not just on being gay but any other characteristic present from birth like IQ) and when it's perfected it will become available privately at least. Routine sexing of a child began as a natural evolution of monitoring their health. As the science improves all kinds of information is becoming available, again given the advancements that have already occurred I don't know why you find this shocking.

I don't mean to be rude but you seem like a crackpot.
Instead of using ad hominems perhaps you should specify? It just seems to me you are ignorant of how the law is constructed.
 

·
Less is more.
Joined
·
6,230 Posts
In case you hadn't noticed the people I'm arguing with are saying abortion is entirely a matter of choice of the mother and are arguing in favour of abortions from everything from rape to a one-night stand, so this wouldn't matter if they had their way. You are being disingenuous by making out we are only talking about abortions when the mother or child is at risk, that's not what the other posters have been arguing in favour of.



There is no necessity for government to develop a test. The research will happen anyway (and not just on being gay but any other characteristic present from birth like IQ) and when it's perfected it will become available privately at least. Routine sexing of a child began as a natural evolution of monitoring their health. As the science improves all kinds of information is becoming available, again given the advancements that have already occurred I don't know why you find this shocking.



Or perhaps you just haven't thought the issue through?
I've thought it through and it's not going to happen. It will never be legislated through parliament, people using the technology illegally and offering abortions is another matter entirely, another discussion, but here we're talking about legal abortion. There's nothing more to add.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
655 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 · (Edited)
It doesn't have to be legislated through parliament to happen, what would have to be legislated is banning it. But why would it be outlawed?! Thanks to the law as we now have it an unborn child is not subject to anti-discrimination law, there is no legal basis to outlaw it. You are making hand-wavy statements with no substance. And why this and not any other kind of testing? Sexing of a child is not outlawed despite the real threat of infanticide of girls.

To quote OpenlyJane;

Mind your own business what other women decide to do. It has absolutely nothing to do with you.Are you one of those placard waving protestors outside of abortion clinics - trying to shame and blame the women that have made that choice?
Once we start down this road how is parliament going to tell women what they can and can't test in regards to what the law has stated is their own body?



Again as I said you are attempting to obfuscate. The people that were contradicting me in the original thread want all abortion to be legal, so we are discussing "legal abortion" in their eyes.
 

·
Read Only
Joined
·
2 Posts
...So you think being gay is a choice? Congratulations, you've just destroyed the legal basis for gay rights which is predicated on sexuality being an immutable characteristic. Under the law if someone can change sexuality as they change underwear they could not be discriminated against. Do you understand why going down this road is a terrible idea?

Every opposing comment has stated that this is entirely about the mother's rights, even going as far to question why anyone else should have an opinion. That by definition means she would be within her rights to terminate based on any reason. Once the State has held that the mother's right is absolute the State cannot suddenly then arbitrarily step in when the optics look bad (especially as if as above you have gutted the concept of sexuality as a protected class).
Where did I say it was a choice? Nowhere, but please if you want to make yourself look like a fool by twisting peoples words then carry on. To be clear I don’t think it’s a choice. However I did say others within the gay community are allowed to have their own views and not have them dictated by the community (some community) itself.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
655 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 · (Edited)
If you are going to say,

The gay community doesn’t speak for everyone in it like they think they do.
In response to,

Unless you think being gay is a choice, against what the gay community has been saying for decades,
Then the logical conclusion is you were implying you believed it was a choice. That's not twisting words, that's simply following an argument to its logical conclusion. I did at least have the decency to add a question mark signifying you hadn't explicitly stated that in so many words.

But ok, you don't think it is a choice. So why is it surprising it could be tested for? That is the reason we are on this tangent from abortion in general. And more to the point why is abortion only a moral problem when it is potentially gays being aborted?
 

·
Human Being
Joined
·
43,373 Posts
In case you hadn't noticed the people I'm arguing with are saying abortion is entirely a matter of choice of the mother and are arguing in favour of abortions from everything from rape to a one-night stand, so this wouldn't matter if they had their way. You are being disingenuous by making out we are only talking about abortions when the mother or child is at risk, that's not what the other posters have been arguing in favour of.



There is no necessity for government to develop a test. The research will happen anyway (and not just on being gay but any other characteristic present from birth like IQ) and when it's perfected it will become available privately at least. Routine sexing of a child began as a natural evolution of monitoring their health. As the science improves all kinds of information is becoming available, again given the advancements that have already occurred I don't know why you find this shocking.



Instead of using ad hominems perhaps you should specify? It just seems to me you are ignorant of how the law is constructed.

Motherhood is a choice, and a calling, that a woman needs to make for herself. This has been put to the vote in one of the last remaining places in Europe to have restricted access to legal abortion. And the people agreed in very large numbers. Nobody is forcing anyone to terminate a pregnancy that they wish to continue with. And now, no-one is in the position to block access to safe and legal abortion for women who make the decison that termination is the best option for them; even if a painful and regrettable one.

"Choice" might seem like a flippant word to use in such a circumstance, but that is because people such as yourself have made this out to be such a black and white issue. When it comes down to it, women must have the choice about whether to become a mother, with all of the responsibility that entails. You seem to think very little of women; to assume that they make such flippant choices. You also suggest that women must " suffer the consequences of their actions". What sort of compassion is that? Compassion is about sharing fellow feeling. It recognises the position of the other, and it makes no judgment.

Many People in the The 'pro-life' movement have very strong tendencies to project their own personal issues on to the matter. " I wouldn't have been born if...."; or "My son has Down's Syndrome, and he is a worthwhile and loveable human being". Nobody is forcing anyone to terminate a pregnancy if the pregnancy is planned; is wanted; or if the woman decides that she is going proceed in spite of doubt.

You are going to have to accept that in a largely secular world that people now have responsibility for their own choices in life; moral and other choices arising out of their own personal integrity. People must struggle with their own human condition, and make their own decisions, especially about something so huge as becoming a parent. Making something illegal, does not make the matter go away - it merely punishes vulnerable women.

Calling this "murder" in the most hysterical and emotive way, does not change any of this. You cannot guilt trip someone into parenthood, It's too big.

If you believe in God, and I think that you do, you must be aware that the relationship with God resides in a person's own heart. God is not an angry man in the clouds with a big, black book of rules and prohibitions. We must all negotiate our own relationship with 'God', with our own 'Self' and with life's most challenging circumstances. Grown-ups take responsibility for their decisions and choices in life. They do not abdicate it.
 

·
Read Only
Joined
·
2 Posts
If you are going to say,



In response to,



Then the logical conclusion is you were implying you believed it was a choice. That's not twisting words, that's simply following an argument to its logical conclusion. I did at least have the decency to add a question mark signifying you hadn't explicitly stated that in so many words.

But ok, you don't think it is a choice. So why is it surprising it could be tested for? That is the reason we are on this tangent from abortion in general. And more to the point why is abortion only a moral problem when it is potentially gays being aborted?
You’re not worth the argument.

My main problem was you referred to gays as undesirables which led to the tangent. It’s you who has the problem not me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
655 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 · (Edited)
Conservatives, eh? They really care about the foetus, they'll do anything for the unborn, but once they're born and become an actual person they're on their f*cking own.

Conservatives.
I guess you are out of arguments.


"Choice" might seem like a flippant word to use in such a circumstance, but that is because people such as yourself have made this out to be such a black and white issue. When it comes down to it, women must have the choice about whether to become a mother, with all of the responsibility that entails. You seem to think very little of women; to assume that they make such flippant choices. You also suggest that women must " suffer the consequences of their actions". What sort of compassion is that? Compassion is about sharing fellow feeling. It recognises the position of the other, and it makes no judgement.
Pro-choicers came up with the idea to claim this was all about choice. It's not my fault if this is a flawed argument because so much choice already exists. What you are arguing for is the State to sanction a choice that allows the taking of life for any reason. There are obviously cases when taking life is sanctioned by the State such as when the mother's life is in danger, and obviously in wider society things such as self-defence. But you don't seem to recognise any limit to that choice. Sorry but all choice has limits. Please quit the compassion routine, I have more compassion than you as mine also extends to the child that has no choice.


You are going to have to accept that in a largely secular world that people now have responsibility for their own choices in life; moral and other choices arising out of their own personal integrity. People must struggle with their own human condition, and make their own decisions, especially about something so huge as becoming a parent.
No, when the State values life cheaply it affects me. Yes people have more choice than they ever have before. But choices have limits.

Calling this "murder" in the most hysterical and emotive way, does not change any of this. You cannot guilt trip someone into parenthood, It's too big.
The only reason to use modern clinical terms like "termination" is to attempt to normalise it. A duck's a duck.

If you believe in God, and I think that you do,
Please tell me more, i'd love to know my eye colour. Seriously you can't help yourself arguing with this strawman Catholic priest you have in your head.

The concept that your rights end when another's begin is central to enlightenment thought.

Grown-ups take responsibility for their decisions and choices in life. They do not abdicate it.
I'm glad we agree...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
655 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 · (Edited)
You’re not worth the argument.

My main problem was you referred to gays as undesirables which led to the tangent. It’s you who has the problem not me.
I didn't refer to gays as undesirables, I placed "undesirables" in scare quotes signifying it's not my opinion but the opinion of someone who wished to terminate a gay child.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scare_quotes

Scare quotes may indicate that the author is using someone else's term, similar to preceding a phrase with the expression "so-called";
So the problem is a misunderstanding.
 

·
Human Being
Joined
·
43,373 Posts
This is the last time I discuss this issue here, because for me the issue is settled and clear; and the western, modern world agrees.

From your words you seem to suggest that some women are more deserving than others; the implication being that women who have " one night stands" are 'bad women'. Bad women that must be punished and forced to take responsibility for their irresponsible actions. That punishment is to be forced to continue with an unwanted pregnancy. And when she's finished, the state, maybe, can and should remove the child.

With that line of reasoning, we are back to the Magdalen Laundries.

Anyway, society has moved on, even if you haven't. As has been said, nobody is forcing you to carry out acts that you disagree with. The modern state has decided that a woman's decision, over whether or not to continue with a pregnancy, is the over-riding right at the end of the day. And that is her business, not yours.
 

·
Human Being
Joined
·
43,373 Posts
The modern western world does not agree with you, abortion law in this country still has limits.




[Citation needed]

Nothing I have said even remotely suggests that.
I did not say, nor do I believe, that there should be no guidelines or limits. Most abortions are carried out before 12 weeks, anyway. Only in relatively exceptional circumstances does it go much beyond that. Many abortions nowadays are not surgical, but rely on the use of a pill ( chemical). I feel very sorry for a woman who elects, due to exceptional circumstances, to go through an actual, and late, delivery. An awful experience. Quite traumatic. But at the end of the day, her right, in law. I think some people would rather have a dead woman, than a dead baby.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
223 Posts
why on earth should anybody else have the right to tell a woman that she has to have a baby that she doesn't want or feels she can't look after. It's the woman's body and rest of her life and she should be free to choose. The date up to which an abortion can be had is there because until that time the fetus isn't developed enough to be a sentient life. If it isn't a viable life yet it isn't being killed by being aborted.
You can't kill something that isn't yet alive
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
172 Posts
why on earth should anybody else have the right to tell a woman that she has to have a baby that she doesn't want or feels she can't look after. It's the woman's body and rest of her life and she should be free to choose. The date up to which an abortion can be had is there because until that time the fetus isn't developed enough to be a sentient life. If it isn't a viable life yet it isn't being killed by being aborted.
You can't kill something that isn't yet alive

Are you saying no one, unless it is the pregnant woman, has authority over the human population(the foetus is the only group of cells that has the potential to be human) or human evolution(the foetus is evolving)? That is an incredibly sexist, selfish and unnatural point of view.
Women are highly dependent on society in the delivering and raising of the child. You would've had a stronger argument if you were to accept that total authority comes with total responsibility.
 

·
*THEIYR'RE
Joined
·
7,328 Posts
From Wiki:

The overwhelming majority of abortions (95% in 2004 for England and Wales) were certified under the statutory ground of risk of injury to the mental or physical health of the pregnant woman...

...2,085 are as a result of doctors deciding that there is a substantial risk that if the child were born it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped.
Anyway, what Jane says.
 
1 - 20 of 34 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top