But if you don’t define your terms, you create an absence.
But this for me is the problem with defining terms about this. Every single term you define simple states that at some point you value the life of the fetus more than the freedom of the mother.
I recognise that my view is extreme but personally I think absent of any reasonable other marker then until birth the mother has the rights.
I hate the survival markers because they are always going to creep back towards fertalisation and make the mothers rights ever more subservient to the fetus.
I strongly doubt that there will be many late term abortions for anything other than medical reasons, but frankly for me the law should accept that will happen because the alternative is forcing the mother to take a risk with her life and health. I strongly doubt that any clinic would carry out a late term abortion without serious counseling before and after.
For me, the law should accept that the mother has the dominant right to make the choice. Limiting that right should be the exception not the current arse-about-kite rule.
And yet again I insist that my opinion is irrelevant. This law should be made by women.
Not if there is some minimum level you pick as significant.
Nope I strongly disagree. There is no point in brain development that is consistent from individual to individual. Any marker you place will have individuals who achieve that marker early late or never.
the curve of opinion in the range of conception to birth on when abortion should be allowed.
I'm almost certainly on the extreme end. But here's my OWG thinking.
It's the mother's choice.
What I believe is acceptable is largely irrelevant except for the purposes of having a discussion, with that in mind.
There are cultures where children are not named until two years after birth because many of those babies will die - some of them because they were not fed because the family simply couldn't afford to feed another mouth. For most cultures that is a really extreme case - yet given the circumstances understandable.
We now know brain development doesn't stop, ever, and significant changes occur well into the mid twenties. So as a marker brain development is largely useless.
We know children born prematurely almost all suffer more health issues than those carried to full term indicating there is significant development of the fetus right up until birth - so that's pretty useless as a marker.
We've seen medical interventions keep younger and younger fetuses alive to maturity and there is no reason to expect that trend to stop. At some point I expect it will be medically possible to keep a fertilized embryo alive to maturity. So that is a useless marker.
In short all the things you can stick a flag in and say "this defines a human" are largely useless as markers.
So for me, and this is only my OWG opinion, the only useful decision is at what point does the life of the developing human stop putting the life of the mother at risk. Up until that point the decision can only be that of the mother, they are the ones risking their lives and health.
It is simply unreasonable for society to label that decision illegal, by doing that we are forcing someone, by law, to put their life at risk.
But that is only my old male opinion and as I said irrelevant.
There isn’t any good system of rules or morality that punishes people for what they might do. If Russell is not around to moderate then comments should be shut down for everyone, not just intransigent “pro-lifers ”.
Most of the people here can be trusted to either not say anything particularly harmful OR if they do and get called on it apologize and try and make amends.
Trust is earned over time. Quite simply kiwi_guy hadn't been here long enough to have earned that trust and in his brief time here had made comments that strongly indicated that he was likely to make comments that would be harmful.
You can argue one rule for all but that really isn't applicable.
Meanwhile in his absence people have been able to make meaningful contributions based on personal experience - I am not certain that would have been possible with kiwi_guy here, even if his comments were being moderated.
I think we can treat women as autonomous moral adults, and allow them to make that decision for themselves.
It's the problem with prohibition. When you prohibit something people want you eliminate any form of regulation. People still want it and they will try to get it but because of the lack of regulation there is every chance they will get something much more harmful instead of what they want.
It's about doing the least harm and prohibition has never been successful at doing that.
one afternoon I drove over to ESR
And you didn't come and visit? We are right next door!
Blocking is a bad call Russell.
No it isn't. There was a high risk of him saying something genuinely hurtful and with Russell absent no moderation was possible.
And as Russell said too much of this discussion is from OWGs like me ...
I don’t believe in communism
Good for you. It pretty much failed as a political ideology.
Do you however, believe that there is no value in helping those who are struggling?
What I'm describing is that the idea of winning and losing in society is inherently wrong. Things that harm a part of society harm the whole society. If someone is losing we should be helping them not chiding them for not trying hard enough.
Your reply to #5 is just insulting. I am not going to give you my life history (mostly because its one of your business), but I could equally cry “bad small NZ town, broken home, abusive father” etc. That attitude is complete BS in the face of a determined approach to life.
So you are arguing that just having a "bad start" shouldn't stop you succeeding? Which is fine.
I'm not trying to be insulting. Instead I'm trying to say that rather than put the onus on the disadvantaged to just "try harder" so that they succeed one by one (or just fail) we actually could treat this as real life and care about our fellow humans enough to help them.
I don't win when you lose, even if your loss has nothing to do with me.
I lose when we lose, because our society is diminished by your loss.
The only way I win is when we win. That sounds horribly like some 5 am paid promotion but it is a different way of viewing our society. One that sadly got kicked to the curb 30 years ago.