Abortion

[Fragony]

Not here. But it shows pretty well what it could have been. 2 weeks or 22 weeks what is the difference it's taking a life, I wish the 'mothers' a grand time trying to work out what their child could have become.

[Ser Clegane]

2 weeks or 22 weeks what is the difference it's taking a life,

If that is the case, I wonder if all those who oppose the abortion of 2 week old cells are also advocating a complete ban of alcohol for women and any smoking in the presence of women who could potentially be in the first weeks of a pregnancy...

[Fragony]

If that is the case, I wonder if all those who oppose the abortion of 2 week old cells are also advocating a complete ban of alcohol for women and any smoking in the presence of women who could potentially be in the first weeks of a pregnancy...

Going to be very carefull here but I think there is a difference between being irresponsible and not taking responsibility at all. It are not just cells they are a human in progress and we just don't have the right to not allow it to live, if it is unfit for life it will die anyway and I am a lot harsher there but it should get the chance imho being alive is your most fundamental right.

[Ser Clegane]

Going to be very carefull here but I think there is a difference between being irresponsible and not taking responsibility at all. It are not just cells they are a human in progress and we just don't have the right to not allow it to live, if it is unfit for life it will die anyway and I am a lot harsher there but it should get the chance imho being alive is your most fundamental right.

I am aware that we are starting to touch a somewhat fuzzy issue here - but would abortion by binge drinking simply be irresponsible and frowned upon or would it already fall under the "not taking responsibility at all" which should be forbidden by law?

If one seriously considers the abortion of 2 week old human cells to be comparable with the murder of a baby - killing the same cells by negligence should not be acceptable at all (even if you are not aware of the pregnancy - ignorance can hardly be an excuse for killing a human being).

[Fragony]

I am aware that we are starting to touch a somewhat fuzzy issue here - but would abortion by binge drinking simply be irresponsible and frowned upon or would it already fall under the "not taking responsibility at all" which should be forbidden by law?

If one seriously considers the abortion of 2 week old human cells to be comparable with the murder of a baby - killing the same cells by negligence should not be acceptable at all (even if you are not aware of the pregnancy - ignorance can hardly be an excuse for killing a human being).

In law it would be the difference between neglectance and criminal intent which we handle differently. It's ultimatily up to from which you define it to be alive, I say from the go.

[Rodion Romanovich]

In law it would be the difference between neglectance and criminal intent which we handle differently. It's ultimatily up to from which you define it to be alive, I say from the go.

But what if it is neglectance of a kind where you know the consequences of the neglectance will be death? Is there really any reason to treat that differently from murder? Note that in this case the neglectance also isn't inactivity, but rather a deliberate activity which will lead to this consequence, so you can't apply the principle that inactivity can't be a crime in this case.*

* OT: this principle that inactivity isn't a crime, by the way, doesn't really work as intended unless complemented with the idea that certain actions come with responsibilities and that you accept this responsibility by taking that action. For example, that getting pregnant means you have accepted the responsibility for treating your child well, whereas you have no obligations at all before you accept any responsibilities by own choice in this manner. I.e. the idea of "accepted responsibility", which I think is very sensible.

[Fragony]

But what if it is neglectance of a kind where you know the consequences of the neglectance will be death? Is there really any reason to treat that differently from murder? Note that in this case the neglectance also isn't inactivity, but rather a deliberate activity which will lead to this consequence, so you can't apply the principle that inactivity can't be a crime in this case.*

* OT: this principle, by the way, doesn't really work as intended unless complemented with the idea that certain actions come with responsibilities, such as getting pregnant meaning you have a responsibility for treating your child well. I.e. the idea of "accepted responsibility", which I think is very sensible.

How much of a scumbag a drunk roadkiller may be he didn't have the intention but there is such a thing as criminal neglect and that should apply there. It's pretty bad but it's not -not going to say it-

[Tribesman]

Its funny isn't it , people say oh but what about rape cases and threats to the mothers health/life .
We don't have abortion over here ...well unless of course its a case of rape or threat to health case...in which case it goes through the courts,and medical hearings , and the courts and the courts ...and the courts and medical hearings again ...just to be sure you know as we wouldn't want any mistakes .
So while we don't have abortions we have a process that makes sure any abortions dealt with under the process are in the much later term than they would be without the ban on abortions .
It really is a no-win situation .

[Caerfanan]

I am aware that we are starting to touch a somewhat fuzzy issue here - but would abortion by binge drinking simply be irresponsible and frowned upon or would it already fall under the "not taking responsibility at all" which should be forbidden by law?

If one seriously considers the abortion of 2 week old human cells to be comparable with the murder of a baby - killing the same cells by negligence should not be acceptable at all (even if you are not aware of the pregnancy - ignorance can hardly be an excuse for killing a human being).

You've got a point there mate.

And what about those woman who kill themselves while trying to get rid of a baby they got because they got raped three months ago by their uncle and they are 15 and living in a place where it's forbidden? What about the future of a child born of a single unwilling mom wo will hate the baby and make it responsible for whatever. Im' waaaaaaaaay more favorable to contraception, then abortin in special case and the most early as it is possible. But sometimes it's hard... I met two women who had to have an abortion (yes, Frag, I know it was technically possible for them to fall in love with the baby and raise it). Trust me, except maybe in case of a rape, it's painful, psychologically for the woman who does it. Really painful...

About the "while you think of people trying to have a child and who can't". Shall I eat like an ogre and have a heart attack at 35 because there are so many people starving out there and because I can eat a lot if I wish?

[Rodion Romanovich]

If that is the case, I wonder if all those who oppose the abortion of 2 week old cells are also advocating a complete ban of alcohol for women and any smoking in the presence of women who could potentially be in the first weeks of a pregnancy...

Good point, I agree completely! Taking drugs while pregnant hurts the fetus tens or hundreds of times as much as it does a grown-up. Drinking or taking drugs before the 4th month is very harmful, and drinking more than one glass of wine per week after that is also risky. Better to have a mega-celebration party with getting really drunk AFTER the child is born! But then you're probably drunk/high enough by the joy of having a child anyway , no drugs can substitute the real joy and happiness that nature can give.