Should abortion be illegal? AKA Roe vs Wade

Should abortion be made illegal?

  • Yes

    Votes: 13 7.1%
  • No

    Votes: 169 92.9%

  • Total voters
    182
A good chance are many of these "activists" have never had to go through the trauma of being raped by someone which is common choice for an abortion

Everyone has an agenda so take everything with a spoonful of salt but there are stats showing this case is a tiny fraction of abortions performed in the US - like a fraction of a percent. 99% are simply an alternative to contraceptive use.

Other stats will obviously apply in other countries.
 
Yes . It is alive according to the definitions that scholars present and sometimes change a little.

A fertilised egg is alive but the question is whether it is human or not. It is definitely a human cell.

If an fertilised egg is alive, it could be classed as a growing human life form?

It is unlikely to change direction and suddenly grow into a chicken. The egg and sperm hold the DNA code needed to create human life.

We agree that a fertilised egg is alive.
Does that fertilised egg hold the same value as a new born baby?

We are both cynical enough to know that not all human lives are equal, and there is a sliding scale. The States just need to decide where on the scale to stick the pin for a developing human life form. There could be several pins need as the life form develops.
 
Danny Kruger MP has decided to say the unsayable. Article in the Speccy:


It’s symptomatic of the unhinged nature of the abortion debate that an MP can be heckled in parliament – and lynched online – for stating an obvious if embarrassing reality. Such is the lot of Danny Kruger, who had the further accolade of a kicking from JK Rowling.

On the Roe v. Wade question, which frankly is no business of Westminster – Kruger observed that his colleagues – including Conservatives, mark you: 'think that women have an absolute right to bodily autonomy in this matter, whereas I think in the case of abortion that right is qualified by the fact that another body is involved'.

'I would offer to members who are trying to talk me down that this is a proper topic for political debate. And my point to the frontbench is I don't understand why we are lecturing the United States on a judgment to return the power of decision over this political question to the states, to democratic decision-makers, rather than leaving it in the hands of the courts.'



I don't particularly agree with Kruger, but kudos for the man having the brass ones to say openly what he feels is right.
His mother is Prue Leith, who supports assisted dying.
 
If an fertilised egg is alive, it could be classed as a growing human life form?

The fertilised egg stage lasts 4 days or so but certainly the 32 cell stage could be classed as a growing human life form. I would wait until implantation though on this because the Zygote might not implant in the Uterine wall.

It is unlikely to change direction and suddenly grow into a chicken.
It won't become a chicken but it does look like a chicken for a while.

Does that fertilised egg hold the same value as a new born baby?

I would say that it does not hold the same value because we approach the issue of viability and sensitivity. The fertilised egg is not viable in the Zygote form and for many many divisions thereafter. It is also not sensitive or in any way aware. It doesn't feel pain.

We are both cynical enough to know that not all human lives are equal, and there is a sliding scale. The States just need to decide where on the scale to stick the pin for a developing human life form. There could be several pins need as the life form develops.

If cynicism was a Sea, I could swim in it unfortunately. I agree here. There needs to be a logical scale set based on ethical and scientific principles.

What we see at the moment is the imposition of the state on individuals at the reproductive level but without the rigour needed to make the musings of the state valid and the objections of the other side untrue. Not the issue of RvW but the action of states after its repeal.
 
According to one of the chapters in Freakonomics, the unexplained drop in crime in the US was attributable to the legalisation of abortion 15 years earlier. If we see a massive rise in crime in 15 years time at least we know the correlation was closer to causation.
 
According to one of the chapters in Freakonomics, the unexplained drop in crime in the US was attributable to the legalisation of abortion 15 years earlier. If we see a massive rise in crime in 15 years time at least we know the correlation was closer to causation.

1973+15=1988

The year of the US Drug Abuse Act and mandatory sentences for possession of drug etc. Lots of junkies started to get banged up and off the streets.


No idea if this also contributed to the drop in crime rates.... But worth considering.
 
1973+15=1988

The year of the US Drug Abuse Act and mandatory sentences for possession of drug etc. Lots of junkies started to get banged up and off the streets.


No idea if this also contributed to the drop in crime rates.... But worth considering.
I think that was analysed and dismissed, and harsher sentences have never reduced crime rates. There reasoning was simply that these people weren't there to commit the crimes, especially in deprived neighbourhoods. There's quite a bit debunking the theory but nothing that really kicks it out of the kitchen.
 
Everyone has an agenda so take everything with a spoonful of salt but there are stats showing this case is a tiny fraction of abortions performed in the US - like a fraction of a percent. 99% are simply an alternative to contraceptive use.

Other stats will obviously apply in other countries.
The stats currently presented are the abortion is an alternative/backstop to contraceptive use. I think that needs breaking down much further, how many of these are middle class women that can afford a child, and more importantly how many are from a deprived background and can't. People will not stop having sex, and the state is likely to find itself with a hefty welfare bill in the very near future.
 
I think that was analysed and dismissed, and harsher sentences have never reduced crime rates. There reasoning was simply that these people weren't there to commit the crimes, especially in deprived neighbourhoods. There's quite a bit debunking the theory but nothing that really kicks it out of the kitchen.

All depends how you crunch the numbers. Drug addicts commit an insane amount of crime to get money to feed their habit. Shoplifting/burglary/mugging etc. Taking a handful of drug addicts out of circulation can drop the crime rate, until more drug addicts come into play.

I will have a root about the 1988 crime stats for the US at state level. The 80's did have the crack epidemic.....
 
I think that was analysed and dismissed, and harsher sentences have never reduced crime rates.
If you put someone in prison for 10 years instead of 5, then that individual wont be committing any crimes for the next 5 years.
 
You mean you don’t like the prevailing view that life begins at conception?

On the bright side Red States will become dark red and Blue States will become become dark blue.
If you believe that life begins at conception then I assume that you believe that the father is liable for child support from that moment onwards too?
 
All depends how you crunch the numbers. Drug addicts commit an insane amount of crime to get money to feed their habit. Shoplifting/burglary/mugging etc. Taking a handful of drug addicts out of circulation can drop the crime rate, until more drug addicts come into play.

I will have a root about the 1988 crime stats for the US at state level. The 80's did have the crack epidemic.....
 
What about the individual that was released yesterday after a 10 year sentence, or 10 years and 2 days ago etc?
What about him? What do you not understand about him being unable to commit crimes for an additional 5 years?
 
Makes no odds, the window is moving, one comes out as another goes in, crime is still committed, you just have a bunch of people incarcerated.
If a bloke commits 100 crimes in 5 years, the number will be nil if he's banged up for 5 years.
 
If only crime was committed by one person you'd be on the money.
What difference does that make? If you lock up 10000 people for 5 year extra years, they won't be committing any more crimes.
 

Latest Threads

Top