Archive for nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Nglreturns is a forum to discuss religion, philosophy, ethics etc...

NGLReturns Daily Quiz - Play here!
 



       nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> All faiths and none
Lexilogio

Jeremy Hunt and abortion

The new Health Secretary, Jeremy Hunt, wants the time limit for abortion to be reduced to 12 weeks.

Whilst this would address the bulk of unwanted pregnancies, it would not address the issue of abortion for medical reasons, which often cannot be picked up until a detailed scan. In essence, this suggests that he thinks that medical reasons are not a valid reason for abortion.
gone

I think serious medical reasons should be grounds for abortion if the mother feels unable to cope with a child who is likely to be dependent for life. We adopted our son, who has Down's Syndrome, because we felt we could offer him a good home, but I quite understand the feeling of those who don't feel they can make that commitment. I have mentioned this before; when our youngest daughter was expecting her last child, the 16 week test showed she had a very significant chance of giving birth to a baby with DS. In spite of the fact she loves her brother to pieces, she and her husband felt they just couldn't bring up a child with this condition, and would have aborted the pregnancy with a very heavy heart. However the amnio showed the baby was perfectly normal, thank goodness. The little girl started school this term and is as bright as a button.
Shaker

Jeremy Hunt can do one - as though it's got a damned thing to do with him in the first place. It's been only a matter of a few years since the last time this came up and Parliament voted, quite rightly, that there was no need - no new medical development - sufficient to reduce the limit from 24 to 20 weeks. That's still the case.

Quote:
He claims that evidence suggests 12 weeks in the appropriate time restriction but insisted his beliefs were not based on his religious values.


Of course not
Lexilogio

Theresa May has also come out in favour of a reduction to 12 weeks.

There have been some interesting discussions on TV. One very interesting comment was from a woman who pointed out that the right to life - from the human rights legislation - did not include the right to live at the expense of another persons physical health.
Jim

That settles it, then.
If Theresa May agrees with it, it must be wrong.
Shaker

Jim wrote:
That settles it, then.
If Theresa May agrees with it, it must be wrong.

A rule which has always worked for me ...
cyberman

Lexilogio wrote:
the right to life - from the human rights legislation - did not include the right to live at the expense of another persons physical health.


Doesn't it? So if the very fact of my existence impacts negatively upon the health of another (not fatally), then my right to life is forfeit? That cannot be right, can it?
Shaker

cyberman wrote:
Lexilogio wrote:
the right to life - from the human rights legislation - did not include the right to live at the expense of another persons physical health.


Doesn't it? So if the very fact of my existence impacts negatively upon the health of another (not fatally), then my right to life is forfeit? That cannot be right, can it?


Are you talking about you as you are now - i.e. as a fully-grown, conscious, sentient adult human being with desires, wishes, preferences for one state of affairs over another; proving how the fact of your existence negatively impacts upon the health of another would be somewhat difficult, I'd imagine - or a foetus which is, or has, none of those things? Foetuses even now still can and do impact upon the health of another fatally in any case.
Lexilogio

cyberman wrote:
Lexilogio wrote:
the right to life - from the human rights legislation - did not include the right to live at the expense of another persons physical health.


Doesn't it? So if the very fact of my existence impacts negatively upon the health of another (not fatally), then my right to life is forfeit? That cannot be right, can it?


The principle of that is:
if your kidney fails, and you need a transplant, you can only have one if someone agrees to donate. You cannot force someone to donate a kidney in order to save your life.
cyberman

Shaker wrote:
fully-grown, conscious, sentient adult human being with desires, wishes, preferences for one state of affairs over another.


A Strangely chosen list. Do you think that all of these things are necessary conditions for the granting of Human Rights?

Shaker wrote:
Foetuses even now still can and do impact upon the health of another fatally in any case.


Really and how are eggs sucked, exactly? Yes, Shaker, I do know this. The reason I used non-fatal in my model was that the legal principle describes by Lexi seemed not to require fatal risk.
Shaker

cyberman wrote:
Shaker wrote:
fully-grown, conscious, sentient adult human being with desires, wishes, preferences for one state of affairs over another.


A Strangely chosen list.

Not really. We're discussing the rights and alleged wrongs of abortion, and abortion concerns foetuses, and none of those things listed apply to a foetus.

Quote:
Do you think that all of these things are necessary conditions for the granting of Human Rights?

Pretty much. Not only human rights but rights generally, since (like Peter Singer) I hold that the three salient categories (conscious; sentient; capable of having desires and preferences) they apply also to many species of non-human animal.

Quote:
Really and how are eggs sucked, exactly? Yes, Shaker, I do know this. The reason I used non-fatal in my model was that the legal principle describes by Lexi seemed not to require fatal risk.

In other words, it was an entirely arbitrary restriction that you used for your own purposes.
cyberman

Shaker wrote:

Quote:
Really and how are eggs sucked, exactly? Yes, Shaker, I do know this. The reason I used non-fatal in my model was that the legal principle describes by Lexi seemed not to require fatal risk.

In other words, it was an entirely arbitrary restriction that you used for your own purposes.


No. It was a response to what was presented by Lexi. She spoke of right to life being forfeit in the event of threat to health, not in the event of threat to life.
Shaker

cyberman wrote:
Shaker wrote:

Quote:
Really and how are eggs sucked, exactly? Yes, Shaker, I do know this. The reason I used non-fatal in my model was that the legal principle describes by Lexi seemed not to require fatal risk.

In other words, it was an entirely arbitrary restriction that you used for your own purposes.


No. It was a response to what was presented by Lexi. She spoke of right to life being forfeit in the event of threat to health, not in the event of threat to life.

Either reason is as good as the other.
cyberman

Shaker wrote:
cyberman wrote:
Shaker wrote:

Quote:
Really and how are eggs sucked, exactly? Yes, Shaker, I do know this. The reason I used non-fatal in my model was that the legal principle describes by Lexi seemed not to require fatal risk.

In other words, it was an entirely arbitrary restriction that you used for your own purposes.


No. It was a response to what was presented by Lexi. She spoke of right to life being forfeit in the event of threat to health, not in the event of threat to life.

Either reason is as good as the other.


Then why are you focussing on which reason I chose?

       nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> All faiths and none
Page 1 of 1
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum