When is it ok to have an abortion?

[SnailyBoy]

3 minutes ago, makapaka said:

No - your problem with people disagreeing with the original post?

I don't have a problem with people disagreeing. It's up to them to try and justify their reasoning.

[Cyclone]

6 hours ago, SnailyBoy said:

Ok, lets look at post 1, bearing in mind the basis of the post was a from a third party who can't respond.

 

Do you think there should be limitations on a woman's right to choose what happens to her body?

I think that you're trying to trick me into taking a position that I haven't expressed.

 

Personally I'm interested in post #85 and whether that poster believes that they should be able to have an elective abortion at 8+ months of pregnancy.

5 hours ago, SnailyBoy said:

The argument is female bodily autonomy and should there be limitations on that.

 

My argument isn't daft, that would be yours, and it's predicated on that terminating a pregnancy (at 8months and 31 days )will result in the  death of the baby, therefore female bodily autonomy should be limited.

 

What do you think happens to women who have to late terminations due to a danger to their own health or carrying a foetus with  abnormalities that would adversely affect them after birth?

 

The 'mechanics' you're struggling to identify are already there, it happens all the time, it's called a C Section or induction, whichever happens to be best for the welfare of the woman concerned.  The problem you have is that it doesn't routinely result in the death of the baby, which doesn't fit with this frankly ridiculous hypothetical situation, that has no basis in reality, of a woman suddenly deciding on a whim that she wants to terminate her pregnancy at 9 months and walk away.

 

Look at the stats of terminations in late pregnancy and then come up with an argument that the state should limit the rights of women to choose what happens to their bodies.

 

 

The medical definition of abortion is that the foetus dies.  If it doesn't, that isn't an abortion, and at the late stage you're discussing, that's called having a baby, be it through inducing, naturally or caesarean.

You are trying to redefine the medical term abortion to include a situation where a live child is the result, you can't, that simply isn't what it means.

Edited June 13, 2019 by Cyclone

[WiseOwl182]

3 minutes ago, SnailyBoy said:

I don't have a problem with people disagreeing. It's up to them to try and justify their reasoning.

Do you agree or disagree with the scenario in the OP? Should a woman be able to choose to abort a healthy baby at near enough full term? 

[Cyclone]

3 hours ago, SnailyBoy said:

Where did I say that?

 

I'd be interested what you think the medical process would be for terminating a pregnancy within a few days of a due date.

 

Would it be different to what happens now?

 

You're trying to reframe the argument from aborting, which is in the topic and the opening post, to terminating, which you also wish to redefine as to include completing with the outcome of a successful birth, which it still doesn't mean.

[SnailyBoy]

1 minute ago, Cyclone said:

I think that you're trying to trick me into taking a position that I haven't expressed.

 

Personally I'm interested in post #85 and whether that poster believes that they should be able to have an elective abortion at 8+ months of pregnancy.

No trick, just a question on bodily autonomy.

 

I can change it if you like.

 

Do you there should be no limitations on a woman's right to choose what happens to her body?

 

 

[Cyclone]

2 hours ago, SnailyBoy said:

You really are callous.

 

Are you really suggesting that's a solution for healthy women with viable pregnancies at term, what actually goes through your mind?

 

Come up with your scenario, I want to read it.

That scenario is precisely and entirely what this whole topic is about as described by the OP and then agreed with by post #85.

1 minute ago, SnailyBoy said:

No trick, just a question on bodily autonomy.

 

I can change it if you like.

 

Do you there should be no limitations on a woman's right to choose what happens to her body?

 

 

No, I think that the law as it stands is broadly correct.  And since I've answered your question, can you answer it as well?  Do YOU think that there should be NO limitations on a woman's right to choose what happens to her body?

[Guest makapaka]

2 minutes ago, SnailyBoy said:

I don't have a problem with people disagreeing. It's up to them to try and justify their reasoning.

But that’s been done.

 

The  original post said someone should be able to have an abortion at any point in the pregnancy regardless of the circumstances set out in the nhs guidelines- guidelines which you say you agree with. 

 

To justify the reasoning of the original post you would need to explain why those guidelines should be changed but you’ve said they shouldn’t be.

 

for women’s rights to be extended beyond the current rights in this scenario you’ve said you’re not qualified to argue and can’t put forward any reasons to justify it.

 

you’ve basically come out swinging on behalf of women’s rights and not really thought about it - and accused people of being like Donald trump in the process.

 

Any justification on the debate needs to come from you now - not others.

 

 

 

[Cyclone]

25 minutes ago, SnailyBoy said:

Desperate or what?

 

But this is precisely what the topic is about, you're attempting to reframe it for purposes unknown, whilst asking people lots of questions but not really volunteering much of an opinion of your own...

[SnailyBoy]

 

11 minutes ago, Cyclone said:

No, I think that the law as it stands is broadly correct.  And since I've answered your question, can you answer it as well?  Do YOU think that there should be NO limitations on a woman's right to choose what happens to her body?

That's interesting, so you're advocating different rights for men and women when it comes to bodily autonomy?

 

Unless you can come up with a restriction for men that I'm not aware of.

Edited June 13, 2019 by SnailyBoy

[Cyclone]

1 hour ago, SnailyBoy said:

I'm not qualified to give you an answer to that.

So you've spent pages arguing about a topic on which you don't think you have the ability to form an opinion?  So to what point are you arguing and questioning people?

Way back on page 9 or something you seemed offended that I tried to ask for clarity from the poster of post #85, who, you'll remember, agreed with the idea from the opening post that women should be able to abort right up until birth.
Not give birth, not have a cesarean, the specific opinion they were agreeing with was abort up until birth.

Just now, SnailyBoy said:

 

That's interesting, so you're advocating different rights for men and women when it comes to bodily autonomy?

 

 

I won't answer any more questions until you answer them as well.  You seem to think you're in a position to keep simply demanding answers without offering any of your own.

10 hours ago, SnailyBoy said:

Actually you're playing the word games yourself, you're using the term abortion in the sense that it would automatically result the the death of the foetus, viable or not.

 

So, what medical procedure would be used to terminate a pregnancy at nine months?

 

For example, a woman at the end of her tether, shouting 'I want this thing out of me, right now'

What do you think would happen?

 

 

Back on page 9 you accused me of playing word games, we've established that it is actually you trying to change the meanings of established medical terms, trying to reframe the debate and trying to shift the topic to be something other than that given in the opening post.

This is a) obvious and b) disingenuous.  What point do you think you're making here?