Posts by Bart Janssen
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Speaker: Abortion: morality and health, in reply to Lucy Telfar Barnard,
But if you want abortions to be available beyond that point, then it can only be because you think some women will want to have abortions then
Nope that’s not my reason. The problem I have with any marker is that immediately allows for marker creep. That has been the way the anti abortionists have operated since forever.
I really do get your point, there is a stage where it is probable that the fetus will survive on its own with relatively minimal medical support. And for most folks that’s a good point to say ya’ know lets not allow a mother to abort. I did say my position was at one extreme end.
I guess for me I’d rather operate from a position of saying lets say this is legal and in certain exceptions we’ll decide to overrule the mothers’ choice because in the expert opinion of these 3 doctors and psychologists the fetus will survive and be healthy and continuing with the pregnancy will pose no physical and mental risk to the mother.
That’s as opposed to the current position of saying this is illegal and if you speak nicely to these doctors well let you do something illegal … because we don’t think this experience is shitty enough for you anyway so we’re going to add a criminal stigma as well.
ETA what Danielle said
-
Speaker: Abortion: morality and health, in reply to TracyMac,
So can we please stop pissing around with 1 in a million (or whatever) extreme scenarios and simply consider that we should just let women control their own bodies?
+1
-
Speaker: Abortion: morality and health, in reply to Lucy Telfar Barnard,
What about viability without medical intervention?
I wouldn't even go there at all. I was born naturally at full term but my kidneys didn't start up until after I was given a full transfusion to kick start them, that's a medical intervention.
Most premature babies would suffer tremendous harm without medical intervention. I just don't think it's a measure that works well at all.
I do know what you mean though there is a point where the fetus will probably survive but as with most other measures it's a statistical measure and useless on an individual basis.
I shouldn't need to point this out but I really really doubt there would be many really late term abortions ever. Most mothers either want a baby at that time or not and know pretty early on. To me this is an edge case and not a reason to change the principle of mothers choice takes priority.
-
Speaker: Abortion: morality and health, in reply to George Darroch,
Because at that point the fetus has sufficient character to be considered human.
Which leads you down the path of finding a marker for "human".
Even if you decide that at some point a fetus is "human" you are asking, no forcing, another human to risk their life and health for that fetus.
I don't think there is any other law that forces someone to risk their life for another person. For some reason we think it's OK to send a mother into a burning building when we don't even force firemen into burning buildings.
There are plenty of laws that make inaction a crime providing that action does not place undue risk. But lets be serious childbirth is not the sweetness, light, roses and cuddly animals that we portray it as, while a burning building might not be an entirely fair comparison it is closer to the mark than the current law.
-
Speaker: Abortion: morality and health, in reply to George Darroch,
But if you don’t define your terms, you create an absence.
But this for me is the problem with defining terms about this. Every single term you define simple states that at some point you value the life of the fetus more than the freedom of the mother.
I recognise that my view is extreme but personally I think absent of any reasonable other marker then until birth the mother has the rights.
I hate the survival markers because they are always going to creep back towards fertalisation and make the mothers rights ever more subservient to the fetus.
I strongly doubt that there will be many late term abortions for anything other than medical reasons, but frankly for me the law should accept that will happen because the alternative is forcing the mother to take a risk with her life and health. I strongly doubt that any clinic would carry out a late term abortion without serious counseling before and after.
For me, the law should accept that the mother has the dominant right to make the choice. Limiting that right should be the exception not the current arse-about-kite rule.
And yet again I insist that my opinion is irrelevant. This law should be made by women.
-
Speaker: Abortion: morality and health, in reply to BenWilson,
Not if there is some minimum level you pick as significant.
Nope I strongly disagree. There is no point in brain development that is consistent from individual to individual. Any marker you place will have individuals who achieve that marker early late or never.
-
Speaker: Abortion: morality and health, in reply to BenWilson,
the curve of opinion in the range of conception to birth on when abortion should be allowed.
I'm almost certainly on the extreme end. But here's my OWG thinking.
It's the mother's choice.
What I believe is acceptable is largely irrelevant except for the purposes of having a discussion, with that in mind.
There are cultures where children are not named until two years after birth because many of those babies will die - some of them because they were not fed because the family simply couldn't afford to feed another mouth. For most cultures that is a really extreme case - yet given the circumstances understandable.
We now know brain development doesn't stop, ever, and significant changes occur well into the mid twenties. So as a marker brain development is largely useless.
We know children born prematurely almost all suffer more health issues than those carried to full term indicating there is significant development of the fetus right up until birth - so that's pretty useless as a marker.
We've seen medical interventions keep younger and younger fetuses alive to maturity and there is no reason to expect that trend to stop. At some point I expect it will be medically possible to keep a fertilized embryo alive to maturity. So that is a useless marker.
In short all the things you can stick a flag in and say "this defines a human" are largely useless as markers.
So for me, and this is only my OWG opinion, the only useful decision is at what point does the life of the developing human stop putting the life of the mother at risk. Up until that point the decision can only be that of the mother, they are the ones risking their lives and health.
It is simply unreasonable for society to label that decision illegal, by doing that we are forcing someone, by law, to put their life at risk.
But that is only my old male opinion and as I said irrelevant.
-
Speaker: Abortion: morality and health, in reply to Iain Thorpe,
There isn’t any good system of rules or morality that punishes people for what they might do. If Russell is not around to moderate then comments should be shut down for everyone, not just intransigent “pro-lifers ”.
Most of the people here can be trusted to either not say anything particularly harmful OR if they do and get called on it apologize and try and make amends.
Trust is earned over time. Quite simply kiwi_guy hadn't been here long enough to have earned that trust and in his brief time here had made comments that strongly indicated that he was likely to make comments that would be harmful.
You can argue one rule for all but that really isn't applicable.
Meanwhile in his absence people have been able to make meaningful contributions based on personal experience - I am not certain that would have been possible with kiwi_guy here, even if his comments were being moderated.
-
Speaker: Abortion: morality and health, in reply to Deborah,
I think we can treat women as autonomous moral adults, and allow them to make that decision for themselves.
This!
-
It's the problem with prohibition. When you prohibit something people want you eliminate any form of regulation. People still want it and they will try to get it but because of the lack of regulation there is every chance they will get something much more harmful instead of what they want.
It's about doing the least harm and prohibition has never been successful at doing that.