EPTI should add, in Sweden, you are only allowed to abort up until the 18th week, and the 22nd if there are medical complications etc. After 22 weeks the fetus is considered formed enough to diswarrant abortions.
Indiana bans abortion past 20th week - Page 36
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Catch]22
Sweden2683 Posts
I should add, in Sweden, you are only allowed to abort up until the 18th week, and the 22nd if there are medical complications etc. After 22 weeks the fetus is considered formed enough to diswarrant abortions. | ||
|
gimpy
United States72 Posts
On November 04 2011 08:39 LostnFound wrote: Here's an excellent video attempting to get to the heart of the abortion debate. User was warned for this post Wow, this video is riviting. Wow, wow, wow. Thought I'd just watch a snippet, suddenly GLUED TO MONITOR. Find yourself in the interviewies. You're there. | ||
|
henkel
Netherlands146 Posts
for me this has never been a science issue but always an ethics issue. in my opinion, every country, state in this case should be able to decide what in their view is considered abortion or murder about the law spreading, i guess it will be like any law some people will be in favor and some opposed to it. if it stick, more pro-life states may accept it but i don't think generally pro-choice states will incorporate it. and to be honest i find 20 weeks a decent time to make the choice/find out | ||
|
BadgerBadger8264
Netherlands409 Posts
| ||
|
LUTROSIS
United States54 Posts
| ||
|
Piledriver
United States1697 Posts
On November 04 2011 10:36 gimpy wrote: Wow, this video is riviting. Wow, wow, wow. Thought I'd just watch a snippet, suddenly GLUED TO MONITOR. Find yourself in the interviewies. You're there. OK, first off I'm in the middle of the line here. I believe that there should be acceptable limits of time (like 15-20 weeks) before which the woman can chose to keep or abort her baby, after that the decision is no longer hers to make. Having said that, that video is complete bullshit. Its like those people were put under tremendous emotional stress, being on camera and also being asked about killing a field full of jews, and they are in a kind of vulnerable spot and suddenly...BAM...they just get blindsided by the question on abortion. It was totally disingenuous, disgusting, manipulative and he was just shocking people into accepting his viewpoint. It was horrible to watch, and even more ridiculous to see people linking and saying "it attempts to go into the heart of abortion". No it does not. You would be a fool to believe that. | ||
|
Alay
United States660 Posts
On November 04 2011 11:09 Piledriver wrote: OK, first off I'm in the middle of the line here. I believe that there should be acceptable limits of time (like 15-20 weeks) before which the woman can chose to keep or abort her baby, after that the decision is no longer hers to make. Having said that, that video is complete bullshit. Its like those people were put under tremendous emotional stress, being on camera and also being asked about killing a field full of jews, and they are in a kind of vulnerable spot and suddenly...BAM...they just get blindsided by the question on abortion. It was totally disingenuous, disgusting, manipulative and he was just shocking people into accepting his viewpoint. It was horrible to watch, and even more ridiculous to see people linking and saying "it attempts to go into the heart of abortion". No it does not. You would be a fool to believe that. I dunno... that video kinda shows that nazis and pro-choicers have a lot in common... /sarcasm. It's more or less a complete sham, trying to play on emotions to keep people from making a logical statement. | ||
|
danl9rm
United States3111 Posts
On November 04 2011 11:12 Alay wrote: I dunno... that video kinda shows that nazis and pro-choicers have a lot in common... /sarcasm. It's more or less a complete sham, trying to play on emotions to keep people from making a logical statement. Actually, it was the people he was interviewing judging by their emotions. He was the one being logical. Sounded pretty fair to me. | ||
|
sc4k
United Kingdom5454 Posts
On November 04 2011 11:19 danl9rm wrote: Actually, it was the people he was interviewing judging by their emotions. He was the one being logical. Sounded pretty fair to me. It's a terrible and disingenuous way to make your point. It's the equivalent of an anti-evolutionist throwing his arguments at high school students and using their discombobulated, unresearched, unauthoritative responses as clear evidence of the validity of his points. The arguments for and against abortion are tricky and this guy is horrifically oversimplifying them. Murder per se is not morally wrong. Murdering a mad paedophile rapist who is chasing a child with a chainsaw is not morally wrong. You can't load the act of murder with per se moral baggage. You have to be reasonable. To my mind, a foetus that can't survive outside of the womb is nothing more than a growth of cells within the mother. If you want to argue 'but it has the potential to grow into a human therefore it's murder', then you have to accept all these things are murder: - using contraception - interrupting coitus between two parties - discouraging your friend from having unprotected sex with his girlfriend. I'm sorry but you have to be reasonable. I don't know if Americans use the term 'reasonable' much in their legal system, but ours is littered with it. The actus reus (guilty act) of murder in the UK is (to use a useful definition by Coke) 'unlawful killing of a reasonable person in being under the queen's peace'. The important phrase is 'reasonable person in being', which means an entity who it would be reasonable to say is a human being. You have to make a reasonable point of distinction. While I accept that the foetus does indeed carry the potential to turn into a human being, I believe that it is entirely the choice of the mother whether she allow this collection of cells to continue to drain her nutrients and turn into its own self or to terminate the process in favour of herself, for whatever reason. Where there is a reasonable point at which the baby can survive outside of the womb, without a ludicrous assortment of complicated medical equipment and paraphernalia, you can switch to say that abortion becomes trickier to defend. I think the analogy with the jews is awful and flawed, and manipulative. There is no way to honestly reconcile the moral dilemma of being ordered to kill jews with having an abortion. The two concepts merely give the impression of moral compatibility. EDIT: I made a bit of a mess of the actus reus of murder part. For anyone who caught my edits. Sorry it's late here :/ | ||
|
Megaliskuu
United States5123 Posts
On November 04 2011 10:36 gimpy wrote: Wow, this video is riviting. Wow, wow, wow. Thought I'd just watch a snippet, suddenly GLUED TO MONITOR. Find yourself in the interviewies. You're there. That video was terrible, ive never seen such trash. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States43385 Posts
On November 04 2011 11:38 sc4k wrote: It's a terrible and disingenuous way to make your point. It's the equivalent of an anti-evolutionist throwing his arguments at high school students and using their discombobulated, unresearched, unauthoritative responses as clear evidence of the validity of his points. The arguments for and against abortion are tricky and this guy is horrifically oversimplifying them. Murder per se is not morally wrong. Murdering a mad paedophile rapist who is chasing a child with a chainsaw is not morally wrong. You can't load the act of murder with per se moral baggage. You have to be reasonable. To my mind, a foetus that can't survive outside of the womb is nothing more than a growth of cells within the mother. If you want to argue 'but it has the potential to grow into a human therefore it's murder', then you have to accept all these things are murder: - using contraception - interrupting coitus between two parties - discouraging your friend from having unprotected sex with his girlfriend. I'm sorry but you have to be reasonable. I don't know if Americans use the term 'reasonable' much in their legal system, but ours is littered with it. The actus reus (guilty act) of murder in the UK is (to use a useful definition by Coke) 'unlawful killing of a reasonable person in being under the queen's peace'. The important phrase is 'reasonable person in being', which means an entity who it would be reasonable to say is a human being. You have to make a reasonable point of distinction. While I accept that the foetus does indeed carry the potential to turn into a human being, I believe that it is entirely the choice of the mother whether she allow this collection of cells to continue to drain her nutrients and turn into its own self or to terminate the process in favour of herself, for whatever reason. Where there is a reasonable point at which the baby can survive outside of the womb, without a ludicrous assortment of complicated medical equipment and paraphernalia, you can switch to say that abortion becomes trickier to defend. I think the analogy with the jews is awful and flawed, and manipulative. There is no way to honestly reconcile the moral dilemma of being ordered to kill jews with having an abortion. The two concepts merely give the impression of moral compatibility. EDIT: I made a bit of a mess of the actus reus of murder part. For anyone who caught my edits. Sorry it's late here :/ Well if you're referring to the interviewer in the movie (Ray Comfort) being "reasonable", you've got a problem. Ray Comfort is well-known as being a complete nutjob. He's a super-Creationist and anti-evolution evangelist, who just pretty much makes shit up as he goes along. He's also known for creating a video about how bananas prove that God exists, spoilered here: + Show Spoiler + Obviously, he became a laughingstock, everyone was quick to disprove him (and pretty much everything else he says about anything), and even other pro-religious groups distance themselves from his radical approaches to... well, everything. But to address your other point, I also wonder if it's a slippery slope or a logical extension to say that if a woman can't abort a baby due to rape because a fetus is a potential baby... then can't all sperm and eggs be potential babies? Do people of that mindset have to be against contraception or stopping sex as well (as you said), because that's also prohibiting a future life? And what about a woman passing an egg every month? Each one of those is a potential baby! And let's not forget about masturbation... Or is the key there the actual pregnancy? | ||
|
koreasilver
9109 Posts
| ||
|
Luepert
United States1933 Posts
Is this supposed to be "later"? Is this true? If so the law still allows causing pain to fetuses. Kind of weird they would even include that statement if they weren't even going to do anything about it. | ||
|
Krikkitone
United States1451 Posts
On November 04 2011 12:50 Luepert wrote: "In addition, doctors are required to tell women that abortions may cause infertility and that fetuses can experience pain at 20 weeks or earlier." Is this supposed to be "later"? Is this true? If so the law still allows causing pain to fetuses. Kind of weird they would even include that statement if they weren't even going to do anything about it. Laws allow a lot of causing pain. (it might not be practical to outlaw causing pain in all circumstances though) | ||
|
Chezinu
United States7429 Posts
On November 04 2011 10:36 gimpy wrote: Wow, this video is riviting. Wow, wow, wow. Thought I'd just watch a snippet, suddenly GLUED TO MONITOR. Find yourself in the interviewies. You're there. Wow! That's a great video, totally worth the watch. | ||
|
Luepert
United States1933 Posts
On November 04 2011 13:01 Krikkitone wrote: Laws allow a lot of causing pain. (it might not be practical to outlaw causing pain in all circumstances though) They why the frick would they say it if it has nothing to with the law?? "Oh by the way, I know your in a tough situation, and you're probably in panic, but what you might choose to do could cause someone(or something depending how you define) pain too, and there's nothing to do about it!" | ||
|
arbitrageur
Australia1202 Posts
what's the difference between consciousness that exists at t=0 and consciousness that can possibly exist at t=future? Why is it that you value t=0 consciousness more than t=future consciousness? is there a difference between the atoms that constitute a current person's brain, that you'd value, and the future configuration of atoms that this fetus will grow up into at t=future? Why does the exact point that we currently exist in on the timeline even play into this moral consideration? btw: - I hate religion - I'm a materialist so yep Condensed question: Plz adduce some rational or evidence based reasoning that justifies the value difference that you attribute to t=0 consciousness above and beyond t=future consciousness. | ||
|
fenix404
United States305 Posts
spoiler cause might be nsfw (language) + Show Spoiler + try to make sure to stay through the whole thing, particularly the last half. | ||
|
Puph
Canada635 Posts
On April 28 2011 11:08 Indrium wrote: This actually seems pretty regular to me. Doctors warning about side effects seems like something should be happening anyway. 20 weeks is about halfway through a pregnancy, and something less than 2% of abortion happen after that. I'm not worried unless they do what they did in South Carolina and start forcing anyone that has an abortion to view an ultrasound. That's messed up. Blatant waste of resources to seemingly create a guilt trip. Amazing, isn't it? I hope for humanity's sake that is not he case anymore or never was. As for OP, seems about right to me. Gives time to decide whether you want it or not and (somewhat) appeases to the whole "it's a human" crowd. | ||
|
Viciousvx
United States83 Posts
The Bill defunds Planned Parenthood Indiana The Only Progressive women's care united states in the entire united states. It was aready difficult with hard to find clinics, 6 doctors in the entirety of the U.S and states with different laws. The Law could have been "Water is a Liquid.......and planned parenthood will be defunded." "Children are the offspring of Humans.......... and planned parenthood is defunded" "team liquid is filled with idiots.......and planned parenthood is defunded" Abortion is already relatively completely banned within the united states. This Bill is about The Nail in the Coffin for Women in Indiana. it Distracts the public with ridiculous information, while the meat of the law is actually being fought or shrugged at by progressive groups. GG to the Red State of Indiana. | ||
| ||
