You can't be killed before being born, can you? I believe it's called child destruction. Semantics I know, but the emotive language used here can misrepresent.

 

So in your world if a 24 week or younger Stephen Hawking could have been tested positively for a future with MND then you would have had him killed. You wouldn't have given Helen Keller a chance, either.

 

There are enough people on this planet already that in principle we could afford to be a little more selective regarding the newcomers.

As far as unborn children are concerned they neither know nor have anything to be deprived of. That comes later.
There are far too many irrelevant emotions surrounding the subject of abortion, and of course there's religion.

 

Isn't Stephen Hawking's take on life (and the meaning of) somewhat at odds with yours?

 

I had to look Helen Keller up. Ironically you've made the same mistake twice, as she lost her hearing and sight at 19 months after an illness and was in fact born healthy.

That aside the choice is ultimately the parents as we're not in 1930's Germany or a 1970's Swedish mental hospital, although had your scenario existed I would have sanctioned an abortion request from Hawking's parents and we'd all be none the wiser as regards what he might have done.
There are plenty of others who might have been big achievers, or equally well might not.

 

Not really. We're both seekers who've drawn different conclusions. Or, if you'd prefer, we use different language to describe the same thing.

https://www.scoobynet.com/849424-ste...l#post10695287

 

Rape?
Incest?
Peadophilia?
Forced Marriage?
Forced oppression on females?

 

The reasoned voice.
We need more women in positions of power in religion or politics to keep the equalibrium.

 

Like we're running out of babies on the world ..

 

There's always one ffs.

Lets look at this scenario. Your wife is gang raped at knifepoint by 12 disgusting scum. They force you to watch. She gets pregnant as a direct result but mother and baby are physically fit and well.

Do you and your wife keep the baby (which will for ever be a direct reminder of what happened because a "life has been created"?

 

There's irony for you

 

So you're unashamedly pro-eugenics; well, at least you're honest. Would you euthanise post-birth or just pre?

 

Ok for very special reasons including health reasons that are 100% proven, not just the woman can't be arsed using contraception and then two witch doctors signs it ok over mental health issues! Approx 200,000 abortions per year in the UK at the moment,, this is totally unacceptable behaviour!

 

Don't let the physical resemblance confuse you. At that point, in the womb, its a developing collection of cells with no sense of awareness or existence (as I've said before)

Whilst foetuses at that age and younger born prematurely have survived, they can only survive with significant medical intervention.

 

At what age does this "collection of cells" develop a "sense of awareness or existence"?

 

You make having children sound like driving a car...

 

Better than 200,000 unwanted children, most of whom would not be adopted and many of whom would suffer as a result.

I'm quite sure that there are not 200,000 abortions per year just because the woman can't be arsed using contraception.

Instead of simply banging on about it being unacceptable, why don't you explain why you think it is unacceptable?

 

Most recent research indicates that its from the minute they are born.

What actually made you re address your view on this JT? Pictures on the internet?

 

What about from rape, incest, peadophilia, oppression? You seem to avoid the answer to that one?

 

So why not abort at anytime up to say eight and half months?

No, I've only really looked at those during this discussion. I guess (and I apologise in advance to NSR's numerous anti-theists) it's the prospect of man playing dice with lives that could have been and the sanctity of those lives. If I'm honest, I haven't really marshalled my thoughts around the subject, yet. I think threads like this help to gain perspective. I imagine if I were a policy maker I'd declare myself privately (philosophically, ethically) pro-life, but endorse pro-choice legislation on the ground that I'm also a liberal and a secularist. It sounds paradoxical, but actually it would mean both sets of principles would remain intact.

 

Is that as unacceptable, or more so, than the millions born into poverty and disease in Africa due to a religious or otherwise aversion to contraception?

 

It's easy to pick an extreme example like that because most reasonable people would agree with you. However 99% of abortions in this country will not be due to gang rape.

We have, as JB points out and I can confirm, abortion on demand in this country. Lets discuss the real everyday situation, not the outliers.

 

I think it is fare to say that there are no winners in this argument

any absolutist view, whether it is Abortion on demand on one hand, and the life is life from the moment of conception, on the other

is "wrong" imo

Ultimately I am pro-choice, but not an unqualified pro choice,

ironically most pro lifers in the US are pro death penalty to

 

This is not me having a go at blokes, but I do wonder if the number of unwanted pregnancies would go down, if more people held that view.

It seems to me, reading some posts here, and just more generally what I've heard over the years, that the majority of responsibility is placed on the female. Assuming a lot of abortions are the result of lack of contraception as opposed to failure of contraception, or extreme cases (i.e. rapes etc), then how about men are more insistent on using condoms, if the woman isn't on the pill or whatever? I hear over time of men saying they don't like using condoms, well, news flash, not all women like the various forms of birth control available to them. Yet it seems when it all goes wrong, and the woman ends up pregnant, it is largely her fault, and she then gets demonised by some, for opting to abort.

I stand by what I said earlier, that ideally abortions should not be used as a form of contraception basically, but perhaps more needs to be done from a young age to encourage joint responsibility when it comes to protection, and a responsible attitude towards sex. I wouldn't describe myself as a feminist, but I think it's a tad unfair that it seems the lying share of blame is placed on women in these circumstances, just because she is the 'host' if you like.

 

Yes there does seem to be an abdication of responsibility on the part of a large proportion of men, something I was guilty of when I had my early scare, I was more interested in "getting some" than the possible consequences of not using contraception. I dismissed the chances of pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases, thankfully I got away with it on both counts, but it's not a dice that anyone should be rolling on a regular basis.

 

giving women power of their own body is a very good way of addressing lack of education and poverty, especially in Africa

and along side this making men more accountable

what is interesting, is that to a lot of women in Africa - pregnancy is not an addendum to their life, it is 100% part of it

African women often become pregnant by the age of 15 and are continually in a state of pregnancy or childbirth until they reach the menopause

 

Absolutely Deep, but sometimes you need to roll out the extreme examples to question sweeping generalisations.

 

Agree 100% Lisa. Its as much the mans fault as the woman's, and if there is a need to abort it should be very much a joint responsibility. Its more than a tad unfair - its a disgrace.

 

Having spent 7 months in a NICU recently, I've seen babies born at 24 weeks. One couple that we got to know quite well now have their baby at home who is doing very well. Yes, they needed a lot of major medical intervention and had lots of subsequent issues, but those babies were very much more than a collection of developing cells. They were babies, human beings; strong enough to fight and continue their lives.

Sadly, we also experienced those for whom the fight was too much, but I'm left with no doubt in my mind that at 24 weeks they are very much viable, very much alive, very much a baby in the truest sense.

 

24 weeks is far too late IMO.