Remember the abortion shit going on over here a couple of years ago? Thread Well, they did sweet fuck all about it - passed an act called "Protection of Life During Pregnancy" which marginally weakens the requirement to carry a baby to term by ensuring that the life of the mother is given consideration. And now we have this shit happening. Be angry.
17 weeks pregnant? That's well out of the first trimester. Whether keeping the girl's functions going was right or wrong, if the fetus has reached this stage, aborting it would be monstrous.
At what point does a woman's uterus become the property of someone or something other than herself? Whatever point you believe that to be, fuck off and die you monstrously misogynistic slaver piece of shit.
Suppose a woman is in labor and, as she's being wheeled into the delivery room, says "Stop! I want an abortion!" Is that her right? Would anyone who opposed her be a "monstrously misogynistic slaver piece of shit?" Remember, YOU said so clearly you accept no limits. But at what point does the human life she's carrying become entitled to the rights of a human being?
This is a fascinating twist in the thought process of what I'd call a thinking libertarian, as opposed to the usual "Mmm, yummy fetuses for breakfast!" type that constitute the majority of self-styled libertarians here. There's no religious impetus. They're impervious to the medical facts. And the fact that a living human being now needs to remain an insensate piece of meat for the sake of a potential human being that might or might not survive (and who pays for the months of life support, eh? Not their problem) somehow seems reasonable to them. And their usual disdain for government is forgotten as they cling to a merely legal definition of the first trimester as if it's some sort of scientific Rubicon. Damn silly, considering that even pinpointing the transition to the second trimester is impossible. I don't get it.
The woman at issue is already dead. The question at hand is "should the fetus die, too?" I actually don't agree with the first trimester limit, but I acknowledge the pragmatic reasoning behind it. Few people would call a sperm or an ovum a human being, and (virtually) everyone would call a full-term fetus one. For purposes of LAW, there has to be a demarcation between the "not-a-human" and "human" states, since the protection of human rights extends mainly to, y'know, humans. The objection that the boundary is not clear supports both sides of the argument. Since it's not clear where a fetus becomes human, do the mother's rights take precedence unless the fetus is unmistakably a human being? Or should the fetus be protected since it's not clear if it's a bona fide human being? Consider what happens if either side is wrong... What happens if the fetus is not human but we protect it anyway? A mother is essentially forced to carry a baby to term. Pretty awful, right? What happens if the fetus is human but we don't protect it? A human being is killed for the sake of convenience of another human being who had other options. Even worse. My position comes down to that. My position is not the least bit religious as I am an avowed atheist and consider most aspects of religion (modern or otherwise) to be absurd or unnecessary. I am not misogynistic. I do not oppose birth control and I do not condemn women for having recreational sex.
But with a nationalized health care system priorities change. That fetus was a future tax payer who would eventually help support the system and expand the risk pool. The state can't just throw away a future revenue stream because of some airy fairy emotional appeal.
White Knight Liet here to save the day! Why don't you fly over with a pair of tongs and scoop that pussy out yourself, you pathetic piece of shit?
FTFY, lest some (not necessarily you) turn this into a Bash Crhistians thread. But there are plenty of nutters that would love to pull some shit liek that in this country if they could get away with it.
Said it before. I'll say it again. I'm 100% pro-abortion, even -- hell, especially -- in cases where it's simply for convenience. In cases of rape, incest, and where the woman's life is jeopardized by the pregnancy, slice that pre-human into compost. Planet's got plenty of talking monkeys already, slowing down the flow of crotch-spawn from vaginas won't hurt this species or the planet one bit. In cases where it's due to irresponsibility or stupidity on the part of the woman, that's a bitch we don't want breeding.
The bolded bit - - hands up who'd like to go through life knowing mummy was raped and tortured to give you life? Come on, who wouldn't tell that tale every birthday over a few drinks and whilst fucking a stripper over a pool table? Good times! Fuck, the hospital may as well drop a business card for heroin dealers in your nappy as you leave hospital with your weeping grandparents, safe in the knowledge you'll probably need a little something to take the edge of the horror of your creation.
According to the bible it does not have a soul yet. the soul comes a month after birth so according to the christian thing it seems to be just a bunch of cells developing into a vessel that god will put a soul in after it is born.
We're not even talking about abortion. An abortion is the active termination of a pregnancy by (ideally) a medical professional. We're talking about letting the fetus die naturally after the mother died naturally. I find it somewhat abominable that we would use technology to keep this sideshow going.
On the positive side, there's a guy who has just been appointed health minister who (despite disagreeing with him ideologically) I think would like to do something about this situation and who seems capable of standing up for principle. He made a good speech about it last week. We need a constitutional change though, which will be difficult to get through.
