British Expats

British Expats (https://britishexpats.com/forum/)
-   Take it Outside! (https://britishexpats.com/forum/take-outside-67/)
-   -   After birth 'abortions'??!! (https://britishexpats.com/forum/take-outside-67/after-birth-abortions-750005/)

fatbrit Feb 28th 2012 11:22 pm

Re: After birth 'abortions'??!!
 

Originally Posted by dollface (Post 9926486)
Got it in one, sounds like 2 Italian Catholics making a point that "murder" is just that, whether at conception or otherwise - load of sh1t.

Why?

It is wrong to kill an innocent human being.
A human fetus/new-born baby is an innocent human being.
Therefore it is wrong to kill a human fetus/new-born baby.

Which part of the syllogism do you disagree with?

dollface Feb 28th 2012 11:23 pm

Re: After birth 'abortions'??!!
 

Originally Posted by fatbrit (Post 9926525)
Why?

It is wrong to kill an innocent human being.
A human fetus/new-born baby is an innocent human being.
Therefore it is wrong to kill a human fetus/new-born baby.

Which part of the syllogism do you disagree with?

Seriously?

fatbrit Feb 28th 2012 11:24 pm

Re: After birth 'abortions'??!!
 

Originally Posted by dollface (Post 9926528)
Seriously?

Yes! I'm afraid sh!t doesn't explain your stance to me. I'd like to understand it.

dollface Feb 28th 2012 11:31 pm

Re: After birth 'abortions'??!!
 

Originally Posted by fatbrit (Post 9926530)
Yes! I'm afraid sh!t doesn't explain your stance to me. I'd like to understand it.


My stance is pretty straight forward really - pro-choice in terms of LEGAL abortion and the rest, in terms of the thread title, is a load of sh1t.

fatbrit Feb 28th 2012 11:40 pm

Re: After birth 'abortions'??!!
 

Originally Posted by dollface (Post 9926539)
My stance is pretty straight forward really - pro-choice in terms of LEGAL abortion and the rest, in terms of the thread title, is a load of sh1t.

So you defer your ideas of morality to the state obviating the necessity to otherwise consider them? I suppose it's a safe track to take in a modern democracy.

dollface Feb 28th 2012 11:46 pm

Re: After birth 'abortions'??!!
 

Originally Posted by fatbrit (Post 9926547)
So you defer your ideas of morality to the state obviating the necessity to otherwise consider them? I suppose it's a safe track to take in a modern democracy.

I have ZERO intention of getting into a debate with you. My opinion, is just that, MY opinion - you, are at liberty (thankfully!) to choose the path that sits best with you.

fatbrit Feb 28th 2012 11:51 pm

Re: After birth 'abortions'??!!
 

Originally Posted by dollface (Post 9926554)
I have ZERO intention of getting into a debate with you. My opinion, is just that, MY opinion - you, are at liberty (thankfully!) to choose the path that sits best with you.


I'm conflicted on the whole issue. I'm open to suggestions.

Sally Redux Feb 29th 2012 12:02 am

Re: After birth 'abortions'??!!
 

Originally Posted by fatbrit (Post 9926559)
I'm conflicted on the whole issue. I'm open to suggestions.

It's certainly not straightforward. Abortion at 40 weeks is legal in some situations (at least in the UK, not familiar with the law here). The difference between that and infanticide becomes a technicality. Discussion of the point at which we deem someone to have become human is worthy of debate.

fatbrit Feb 29th 2012 12:06 am

Re: After birth 'abortions'??!!
 

Originally Posted by Sally Redux (Post 9926566)
It's certainly not straightforward. Abortion at 40 weeks is legal in some situations (at least in the UK, not familiar with the law here). The difference between that and infanticide becomes a technicality. Discussion of the point at which we deem someone to have become human is worthy of debate.

Striking P2 is the usual pro-choice argument. However, the gradual nature of growth makes it impossible to define adequately a time when life becomes human.

I presume the authors of the paper followed Singer and attacked P1.

dollface Feb 29th 2012 12:07 am

Re: After birth 'abortions'??!!
 

Originally Posted by Sally Redux (Post 9926566)
It's certainly not straightforward. Abortion at 40 weeks is legal in some situations (at least in the UK, not familiar with the law here). The difference between that and infanticide becomes a technicality. Discussion of the point at which we deem someone to have become human is worthy of debate.

Really? what circumstances? ( or are you quoting The Guardian? )usually no more than 24 weeks.

Sally Redux Feb 29th 2012 12:10 am

Re: After birth 'abortions'??!!
 

Originally Posted by fatbrit (Post 9926576)
Striking P2 is the usual pro-choice argument. However, the gradual nature of growth makes it impossible to define adequately a time when life becomes human.

I presume the authors of the paper followed Singer and attacked P1.

I don't know what that means.

Originally Posted by dollface (Post 9926579)
Really? what circumstances? usually no more than 24 weeks.

Handicap, but I believe doctors have leeway in other circumstances.

dollface Feb 29th 2012 12:12 am

Re: After birth 'abortions'??!!
 

Originally Posted by Sally Redux (Post 9926585)
I don't know what that means.

Handicap, but I believe doctors have leeway in other circumstances.

But surely with all the 3D scans etc you would know in advance of 40 weeks, some women would have given birth naturally by that time - I had.

fatbrit Feb 29th 2012 12:17 am

Re: After birth 'abortions'??!!
 

Originally Posted by Sally Redux (Post 9926585)
I don't know what that means.

The syllogism I gave in #91 contains two premises (commonly denoted P1 and P2) and a conclusion. Arguments about the time human life begins attack P2 to make it the conclusion invalid. Singer (a contemporary philosopher) caused great controversy by attacking P1 instead. The paper about infanticide (I haven't read it yet) presumably follows Singer down this path.

Sally Redux Feb 29th 2012 12:20 am

Re: After birth 'abortions'??!!
 

Originally Posted by dollface (Post 9926587)
But surely with all the 3D scans etc you would know in advance of 40 weeks, some women would have given birth naturally by that time - I had.

It is my understanding that very late abortions are permitted in some cases, however it will need someone with more concrete knowledge to confirm.

Sally Redux Feb 29th 2012 12:21 am

Re: After birth 'abortions'??!!
 

Originally Posted by fatbrit (Post 9926591)
The syllogism I gave in #91 contains two premises (commonly denoted P1 and P2) and a conclusion. Arguments about the time human life begins attack P2 to make it the conclusion invalid. Singer (a contemporary philosopher) caused great controversy by attacking P1 instead. The paper about infanticide (I haven't read it yet) presumably follows Singer down this path.

Ah right I understand. Thanks.


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:53 am.

Powered by vBulletin: ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.