Corbyn to be PM within 6 months?

[Vorpal]

But protecting other people's rights is a different thing to interfering in their concerns.

Getting married is a right. Medical care is a right.

It is not reasonable to deprive people of those rights, because of a religious belief. I can't do much about whether a person in Nigeria has those rights, but I potentially have a role in protecting those rights for fellow citizens.

Something like abortion should be between a woman and her qualified medical practitioner. Marriage should be between the people who want to get married with each other. I can fully understand if a person or an institution wants to make a statement about the immorality of such things. Or refuse to marry gay couples.

Personally, I think that abortion should generally be reserved for extreme cases, but I don't think that the law has any right to decide what those are. The woman involved does. I cannot imagine that any women would take such decisions lightly, even in the case of genetic syndromes such as Downs.

The legal limits in law are based on the probable viability of the fetus. Whether a abortion can be performed one day and not the next is a bit arbitrary, but the limits set is also a fairly cautious one. That is, a child born at at 25 weeks is still unlikely to be viable, but the chances that it can survive increase dramatically between 24 and 27 weeks gestational time.

[meic]

It is not reasonable to deprive people of those rights, because of a religious belief.

Yet you find it acceptable to deprive the unborn of their rights because of non-religious beliefs.

[Vorpal]

It is not reasonable to deprive people of those rights, because of a religious belief.

Yet you find it acceptable to deprive the unborn of their rights because of non-religious beliefs.

What rights should a non-viable fetus have? How far back in time does that go? Should we also protect sperm & eggs?

[youtube]fUspLVStPbk[/youtube]

[meic]

There is an obvious point, a fertilised egg.

How about the eighth amendment?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighth_Am ... of_Ireland

[Vorpal]

There is an obvious point, a fertilised egg.

How about the eighth amendment?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighth_Am ... of_Ireland

I'm not Irish, but I don't feel that it is appropriate to take rights away from a mother to grant them to a fetus.

What if, hypothetically, your blood could save someone else's life? Could the state require you to give it? What if your kidney could save someone's life? You have two, maybe it's okay to forcibly remove one?

Is it ethical to force a mother to carry a child to term? Most women experience some effects that are a result of pregnancy long after they have delivered; effects such as prolapse and incontinence are the most common, but pregnancy and child birth also cause many other problems, including an increased probability of death.

Is it ethical to require a mother to risk these problems without even knowing if the fertilised egg can become a viable human being?

[Psamathe]

There is an obvious point, a fertilised egg.
...

To my mind, I don't consider a single fertilised cell a "child" (no nervous system, no cell differentiation, etc). There is a continuum between what I'd say is not a child (single cell) to what clearly is a child 9 months later. So there is some reasonable point along that development where it becomes a child, some point where abortion becomes unacceptable.

I think those considering a single cell a child are probably doing so on religious grounds (maybe "it has a soul"? - I don't know why).

I think setting the reasonable time point should be down to development/medical specialists. For people like myself and religious groups and politicians, etc. to start claiming that some point is "unacceptable" or "acceptable" is a bit daft as such people (myself included) would be completely unable to explain why their time limit was "right".

And I find it particularly daft where within a single country such different laws applying to regions. It just makes it expensive for those in NI to have to travel to England (or Scotland or Norfolk) to go through what I guess is an already traumatic time, made worse, harder and more stressful.

Ian

[meic]

Is it ethical to require a mother to risk these problems without even knowing if the fertilised egg can become a viable human being?

The still birth rate is about .04%, so even though we dont know it is a viable human being it is a good assumption to work on. If on the other hand the fetus dies in the womb, there is no life to be killed and the abortion laws are no longer relevant.

The analogy of giving blood isnt a valid one because that involves compelling you to provide support that you were not previously giving. A more appropriate analogy would be compelling somebody to keep a stowaway on board rather than throwing them overboard for the sharks.

[meic]

And I find it particularly daft where within a single country such different laws applying to regions

I dont suppose that you will be petitioning the English NHS to get into line with the NI rules though. Or even that they should respect the NI rules and not offer a back door route to circumvent them.

I notice when rUK political funds use the backdoor of NI to circumvent the stricter political funding rules of rUK, it is considered "dodgy". Some people seem to think devolution should only be skin deep and certainly not on an equal footing.

Of course you could mean that the country in question was Ireland and then there is much less difference between the two regions.

[Vorpal]

Is it ethical to require a mother to risk these problems without even knowing if the fertilised egg can become a viable human being?

The still birth rate is about .04%, so even though we dont know it is a viable human being it is a good assumption to work on. If on the other hand the fetus dies in the womb, there is no life to be killed and the abortion laws are no longer relevant.

The analogy of giving blood isnt a valid one because that involves compelling you to provide support that you were not previously giving. A more appropriate analogy would be compelling somebody to keep a stowaway on board rather than throwing them overboard for the sharks.

Is the blood giving analogy inappropriate? A mother must share her blood, nutrition, and body with a fetus for the whole of the gestation period. I'd say that forcing me to to carry a child to term amounts to the same thing.

As for the still birth rate, it has little to do with whether a fertilised egg is viable. Many more pregnancies are miscarried than stillborn. And many babies born significantly prematurely do not survive.

[meic]

So not only are you not allowed to throw the stowaway to the sharks, you are also obliged to feed them, provide water and even not leave them to freeze to death on the deck.
Even though that will cost you personally.

[meic]

As for the still birth rate, it has little to do with whether a fertilised egg is viable. Many more pregnancies are miscarried than stillborn. And many babies born significantly prematurely do not survive.

My daughter could get knocked down by a bus tomorrow, that doesnt mean that I can give up and bump her off today.
Or even if they have leukemia and have been given just a couple of months to live.

These are rather extreme examples and not something that mainstream policy should be based on.
Of the 700,000 abortions this year, how many would be covered by this extreme example and how does it compare ratio wise to babies lost to couples who wanted them.

[jgurney]

There is an obvious point, a fertilised egg. ...

To my mind, I don't consider a single fertilised cell a "child" (no nervous system, no cell differentiation, etc). ....

I think those considering a single cell a child are probably doing so on religious grounds ...

Or because that is the point at which a man has been involved.

[Vorpal]

So not only are you not allowed to throw the stowaway to the sharks, you are also obliged to feed them, provide water and even not leave them to freeze to death on the deck.
Even though that will cost you personally.

I don't think that stowaway analogy holds. It's not just a matter of some additional resources.

The mother takes significant additional risks for herself by carrying a child to term. It's a risk I was willing to take, but it's not one that I would ever take on behalf of another person.

Once a child is born (or separated from the mother and viable), is another matter entirely. Then, they have individual rights that are equal to those of the mother. She should not violate those rights, anymore than her rights should be violated to get the child born.

[meic]

The original question was

Should we also protect sperm & eggs?

So if looking at it biologically rather than through sexism tinted glasses we can see that men were involved prior to that.

[Psamathe]

And I find it particularly daft where within a single country such different laws applying to regions

I dont suppose that you will be petitioning the English NHS to get into line with the NI rules though. Or even that they should respect the NI rules and not offer a back door route to circumvent them.....

England is not offering a "backdoor route" to circumvent NI laws. England has laws. England has an NHS available to all UK citizens. Changed agreed in Westminster yesterday apply only to funding of procedures for British citizens.

If I'm in Cornwall and require medical care I (as a British citizen) expect to be treated in a Cornish hospital according to the law effective in Cornwall. So it is quite reasonable that somebody from NI (as a British Citizen) should be able to come to England and have the same NHS care as provided to other British Citizens.

I regard it more a case of ending discrimination against British Citizens (who happen to currently live in NI).

Ian