Abortion revisited

[hermeneutika]

Surely in a ideal world everyone has the right to choose what they do with "their" bodies...male or female. However i do not have the right to decide what you do with your body. Everyone seems to be banging on,maybe even quite rightly, about the womans right to choose. However i have not heard one arguement that deals with the "rights" of the unborn child. If i were to rend a 6 month old baby limb from limb, i would be done for murder. if i do the same to a foetus of 6 months its called legal abortion.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 02/07/2022 16:01, hermeneutika wrote:

> Surely in a ideal world everyone has the right to choose what they do with "their" bodies...male or female. However i do not have the right to decide what you do with your body.

Quite agreed. The problem is that abortion is not about what you (some
female) does with her body, but what she does with the body that is
growing within her.

> Everyone seems to be banging on,maybe even quite rightly, about the womans right to choose. However i have not heard one arguement that deals with the "rights" of the unborn child. If i were to rend a 6 month old baby limb from limb, i would be done for murder. if i do the same to a foetus of 6 months its called legal abortion.

Quite so. As an amusing aside, apparently the demand for vasectomies has
sky-rocketed in America as men who were quite content to get their
girlfriends pregnant and then pressure them into having an abortion, now
face the prospect of paying child support for life!

Which just goes to show that abortion was being seen and used as a form
of contraception, which in my opinion is a very great evil.

God bless,
Kendall K. Down

[steve hague]

On 02/07/2022 16:01, hermeneutika wrote:

> Surely in a ideal world everyone has the right to choose what they do with "their" bodies...male or female. However i do not have the right to decide what you do with your body. Everyone seems to be banging on,maybe even quite rightly, about the womans right to choose. However i have not heard one arguement that deals with the "rights" of the unborn child. If i were to rend a 6 month old baby limb from limb, i would be done for murder. if i do the same to a foetus of 6 months its called legal abortion.
>
>

If you haven't heard one argument for the rights of the unborn child,
you must be a very selective lstener. A few minutes on youtube will show
you plenty.
Steve Hague.

[Mike Davis]

On 02/07/2022 16:01, hermeneutika wrote:

> Surely in a ideal world everyone has the right to choose what they do with "their" bodies...male or female. However i do not have the right to decide what you do with your body. Everyone seems to be banging on,maybe even quite rightly, about the womans right to choose. However i have not heard one arguement that deals with the "rights" of the unborn child. If i were to rend a 6 month old baby limb from limb, i would be done for murder. if i do the same to a foetus of 6 months its called legal abortion.

You clearly haven't been listening!

In parts of the USA, they have 'partial birth abortion' where birth is
induced, but the baby is given a lethal injection while in the birth
canal and is thus dead, by the time it emerges into the 'world'!

However, it's important to understand that the Roe v Wade ruling that
has just been overturned by the Supreme Court isn't about 'abortion'
(RvW was, of course) - it's a ruling that RvW shouldn't have been
adjudicated by the Supreme Court but it was/is an issue for each State
legislature. You forget that the USA is the United *States* - each of
which make their own laws.

Things can now only get worse!

Mike
--
Mike Davis

[Kendall K. Down]

On 03/07/2022 22:51, Mike Davis wrote:

> In parts of the USA, they have 'partial birth abortion' where birth is
> induced, but the baby is given a lethal injection while in the birth
> canal and is thus dead, by the time it emerges into the 'world'!

That is shocking.

> However, it's important to understand that the Roe v Wade ruling that
> has just been overturned by the Supreme Court isn't about 'abortion'
> (RvW was, of course) - it's a ruling that RvW shouldn't have been
> adjudicated by the Supreme Court but it was/is an issue for each State
> legislature. You forget that the USA is the United *States* - each of
> which make their own laws.

I wonder where the "united" bit comes from?

[Stuart]

In article <t9tol1$39soc$1...@dont-email.me>,

Kendall K. Down <kendal...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On 03/07/2022 22:51, Mike Davis wrote:

> > In parts of the USA, they have 'partial birth abortion' where birth is
> > induced, but the baby is given a lethal injection while in the birth
> > canal and is thus dead, by the time it emerges into the 'world'!

This has been illegal in the states since 2003

--
Stuart Winsor

Tools With A Mission
sending tools across the world
http://www.twam.co.uk/

[Kendall K. Down]

On 04/07/2022 08:57, Stuart wrote:

> This has been illegal in the states since 2003

I'm glad to hear it - but still horrified that it was ever thought
acceptable.

[Mike Davis]

On 03/07/2022 22:51, Mike Davis wrote:

> On 02/07/2022 16:01, hermeneutika wrote:
>> Surely in a ideal world everyone has the right to choose what they do
>> with "their" bodies...male or female. However i do not have the right
>> to decide what you do with your body. Everyone seems to be banging
>> on,maybe even quite rightly, about the womans right to choose. However
>> i have not heard one arguement that deals with the "rights" of the
>> unborn child. If i were to rend a 6 month old baby limb from limb, i
>> would be done for murder. if i do the same to a foetus of 6 months its
>> called legal abortion.
>
> You clearly haven't been listening!

I meant to add the following excellent (and rational) article by Lord
David Alton*, which explains clearly the issues and faulty arguments
used by so many.

https://thecritic.co.uk/reversing-a-tragic-half-century-of-lost-lives/

* Seen here with my fiend "Jimmy Cricket"
https://www.flickr.com/photos/watchman/24441234106

Mike
--
Mike Davis

[Adam Funk]

The modern, civilized treatment for an ectopic pregnancy is a medical
abortion (i.e., pills, not surgery) as soon as it is detected.

Meanwhile in Texas, some hospitals' lawyers are telling doctors they
have to wait until it ruptures. At that point they have about 7
minutes to try to save the patient's life.

Hope you guys are happy about that. I guess it won't be anyone you
know bleeding out on the operating table because of forced-birther
politicians interfering in medical care.


--
A heretic is someone who shares ALMOST all your beliefs.
Kill him. --- Ivan Stang

[Mike Davis]

On 08/07/2022 10:51, Adam Funk wrote:
> The modern, civilized treatment for an ectopic pregnancy is a medical
> abortion (i.e., pills, not surgery) as soon as it is detected.
>
> Meanwhile in Texas, some hospitals' lawyers are telling doctors they
> have to wait until it ruptures. At that point they have about 7
> minutes to try to save the patient's life.
>
> Hope you guys are happy about that. I guess it won't be anyone you
> know bleeding out on the operating table because of forced-birther
> politicians interfering in medical care.

Look, my approach is 'both lives matter' - the Doctor's job is to make
the best decision in a difficult situation. Since there's little that
can be done (AFAIK) about an ectopic pregnancy, we must rely on the
Doctor's balanced judgement.

Mike
--
Mike Davis

[Kendall K. Down]

On 08/07/2022 10:51, Adam Funk wrote:

> The modern, civilized treatment for an ectopic pregnancy is a medical
> abortion (i.e., pills, not surgery) as soon as it is detected.

I'm not sure that you are correct. I was under the impression that
surgery was required.

> Meanwhile in Texas, some hospitals' lawyers are telling doctors they
> have to wait until it ruptures. At that point they have about 7
> minutes to try to save the patient's life.

That's American lawyers for you.

> Hope you guys are happy about that. I guess it won't be anyone you
> know bleeding out on the operating table because of forced-birther
> politicians interfering in medical care.

As a Christian, I decline to take responsibility for the folly of
America and its legal system. Nor do I have much truck with extremists
who would deny an abortion to a medical condition such as an ectopic
pregnanry.

[Adam Funk]

On 2022-07-08, Kendall K. Down wrote:

> On 08/07/2022 10:51, Adam Funk wrote:
>
>> The modern, civilized treatment for an ectopic pregnancy is a medical
>> abortion (i.e., pills, not surgery) as soon as it is detected.
>
> I'm not sure that you are correct. I was under the impression that
> surgery was required.

That used to be the case but in the 1980s they discovered that
methotrexate given orally works if the ectopic pregnancy is diagnosed
early enough. That's safer than surgery. Methotrexate is also used
(with something else, I think) to abort uterine pregnancies so there
are moves in some states to ban it.

>> Meanwhile in Texas, some hospitals' lawyers are telling doctors they
>> have to wait until it ruptures. At that point they have about 7
>> minutes to try to save the patient's life.
>
> That's American lawyers for you.
>
>> Hope you guys are happy about that. I guess it won't be anyone you
>> know bleeding out on the operating table because of forced-birther
>> politicians interfering in medical care.
>
> As a Christian, I decline to take responsibility for the folly of
> America and its legal system. Nor do I have much truck with extremists
> who would deny an abortion to a medical condition such as an ectopic
> pregnanry.

The forced-birthers in Texas & Ohio (at least) made it quite clear in
advance that they were going for this sort of legislation. People who
cheered the recent Supreme Court ruling can cheer the bloodshed it
entails too.

[Adam Funk]

And I think medical treatment should be a matter between those with
medical expertise and the patients, without interference from
unqualified rabble-rousers.

Right-wing politicians in the USA didn't care about abortion until the
1970s when they were forced to give up on segregation and needed
something else to use to stir up trouble and rally the ignorant.

<https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/sep/08/abortion-us-religious-right-racial-segregation>

<https://slate.com/human-interest/2014/05/the-religious-right-formed-around-support-for-segregation-not-against-abortion.html>


--
Morality is doing what's right regardless of what you're
told. Obedience is doing what you're told regardless of what is
right. (attributed to H. L. Mencken)

[Kendall K. Down]

On 12/07/2022 20:04, Adam Funk wrote:

> And I think medical treatment should be a matter between those with
> medical expertise and the patients, without interference from
> unqualified rabble-rousers.

Unfortunately there are idiots and criminals in the medical profession
as well as anywhere else. There are doctors queuing up to denounce
vaccinations, there are doctors scribbling off prescriptions for
fentanyl, there are doctors who will abort anything and anyone on sight.
So no; abortion, like any other medical procedure, requires regulation
by democratic lawmakers. I hope that the debate by the lawmakers will be
informed by expert medical opinion.

> Right-wing politicians in the USA didn't care about abortion until the
> 1970s when they were forced to give up on segregation and needed
> something else to use to stir up trouble and rally the ignorant.

Do I get a whiff of conspiracy theory?

[Kendall K. Down]

On 12/07/2022 20:01, Adam Funk wrote:

> That used to be the case but in the 1980s they discovered that
> methotrexate given orally works if the ectopic pregnancy is diagnosed
> early enough. That's safer than surgery. Methotrexate is also used
> (with something else, I think) to abort uterine pregnancies so there
> are moves in some states to ban it.

Thank you. The key words, of course, are "early enough".

> The forced-birthers in Texas & Ohio (at least) made it quite clear in
> advance that they were going for this sort of legislation. People who
> cheered the recent Supreme Court ruling can cheer the bloodshed it
> entails too.

As I said, I have no sympathy with extremists on either side of the debate.

There was some woman who commented that if pregnancy is God-ordained and
humans should not meddle with it, so is erectile dysfunction, so let's
see the men ban viagra as well as abortion drugs.

The argument is suprficial, but the humour is spot on.

[Adam Funk]

That is well documented, for example in the links that I provided.


--
Thinking about her this morning, lying in bed, and trying to get my
thoughts on the right track, I reached into the drawer of the bedstand,
and found the Gideons' Bible, and I was going for the Psalms, friend, honest
I was, but I found the Song of Solomon instead. --- Garrison Keillor

[Adam Funk]

On 2022-07-13, Kendall K. Down wrote:

It is!

[Kendall K. Down]

On 14/07/2022 11:50, Adam Funk wrote:

> That is well documented, for example in the links that I provided.

I have only looked at one of those links, which says nothing about
"being forced to give up on segregation". Yes, it depicts politicians
jumping on band wagons, it also attempts to link opposition to
desegregation, equal opportunities for men and women, and opposition to
abortion, which sounds too much liking desperately trying to find a tar
brush from those of whom you disapprove.

I can remember the Moral Majority surging in American elections and do
not recall hearing about any of those issues. It was things like prayer
being banned or the Ten Commandments being removed from court rooms that
were the burning issues.