Abortion

[HenrySwanson]

I need some clarification on "effectiveness" of counselling.

As in counselling a woman fully about her options and the ramifications

I won't, I'm afraid. YouTube and our government blocking the far right has pretty much naff all to do with a local council preventing protests outside abortion clinics unless they all got together behind closed doors and planned some kind of vast liberal conspiracy together. Please try and get a grip.

I wouldn't call it a conspiracy, and why have you and Scaff automatically labelled them as "far-right"?

What difference does it make what the reason is? The embryo/fetus in these examples is either entitled to a womb or not.

As it stands, it makes a difference if you go to a clinic in the UK as there are only a few reasons 2 doctors can sign you off for an abortion:

Up to 24 weeks:

• the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy was terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman or any existing children of her family.

The woman’s actual or reasonably foreseeable future environment may be taken into account.

With no time limits:

• the termination is necessary to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman
• there is a risk to the life of the pregnant woman, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated
• there is substantial risk that if the child were born it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped.

So again, I'd have a personal problem with it but I don't see how, nor would I want it to be legislated against.

What protesters?

You were talking about you-tube demonetizing people (which its done across the board) and non-UK residents from far right groups being denied entry into the country.

Lets keep your goalposts in the same place.

The Ealing Marie Stopes protesters

Which has what to do with youtube demonetizing across the board and the far right not being allowed into the country?

Why do you say it's only the far-right that's demonetized or refused in?

Don't just say 'it does', explain why.

You see hard-hitting decisions with far reaching consequences being made without due process. There are claims of harassment outside an abortion clinic yet no arrest has ever been made and the largest group, the GCN, admit to only handing out leaflets and their freedom to assemble and protest is quashed. People are denied the right to refuse trade and made to write slogans that go against their principles because of "equality". A shadow cabinet that penalizes someone for speaking out about rape yet ignores someone who expresses that victims should "shut up for the good of diversity". These things and more show how while we may be a conservative nation at heart something powerful is bubbling up and dissent from this specific view is not as tolerated as should be lawful and necessary for a "progressive" nation.

Holy hell, there's something I didn't know I wanted until I heard you say it.

Sometimes I love Planet Earth.

Apparently JK Rowling spoke about it in response to critics saying she never implied the race of Hermione in the books

 

[TexRex]

As in counselling a woman fully about her options and the ramifications

Ah, but you didn't use the word "available" in the text I cited; you said "effective." I have the nagging suspicion that you meant "effective" too, which is to say that effective abortion counselling results in the procedure not being performed. But I digress...

Regarding the availability of the sort of counselling referred to most recently:

You mean like that which Planned Parenthood provides. Abortion isn't a foregone conclusion when one seeks the services provided by PP either, in fact it's still stressed as a medical procedure that shouldn't be approached lightly.

They offer counselling on a number of topics, such as the aforementioned abortion, but also adoption options for women intending to carry a child to birth and discussing financial aid options for women intending to keep a child.

Options? Check.
Ramifications? Check.

 

[UKMikey]

I wouldn't call it a conspiracy, and why have you and Scaff automatically labelled them as "far-right"?

I only know about Lauren Southern, Brittany Pettibone and Martin Sellner being denied access to the UK recently. You've refused to provide any other (or indeed, any) examples so far.

Either way it's a stretch to say the least to draw a connection between the people turning them away at the door and those who run Ealing Council.

 

[Scaff]

The Ealing Marie Stopes protesters

Which has what to do with your claim that conservative youtubers were being de-monetized and denied access to the country?

I was asking you specifically about those innacurate claims

Why do you say it's only the far-right that's demonetized or refused in?

I didn't.

I said that de-monitzation has occurred across the board on you tube and that your quaint use of the term conservative was inaccurate and the people denied access to the UK recently have been from the far-right, and those who want Europe to be a white only ethno-state are exactly that - far right.

If the far right come across to you as 'conservative voices' I think you may need a reality check.

You see hard-hitting decisions with far reaching consequences being made without due process. There are claims of harassment outside an abortion clinic yet no arrest has ever been made and the largest group, the GCN, admit to only handing out leaflets and their freedom to assemble and protest is quashed. People are denied the right to refuse trade and made to write slogans that go against their principles because of "equality". A shadow cabinet that penalizes someone for speaking out about rape yet ignores someone who expresses that victims should "shut up for the good of diversity".

They were asked to move away from the clinic. I honestly thought that it was progressives that were supposed to be the snowflakes, honestly between this and the sulking about BFV from the 'conservative' voices, that's patently not the case.

These things and more show how while we may be a conservative nation at heart something powerful is bubbling up and dissent from this specific view is not as tolerated as should be lawful and necessary for a "progressive" nation.

A conservative nation at heart?

Something powerful is not bubbling, intolerant idiots are crying because they can't get into the country and/or are getting put in jail for breaking the law.

 

[Danoff]

As it stands, it makes a difference if you go to a clinic in the UK as there are only a few reasons 2 doctors can sign you off for an abortion:

Up to 24 weeks:

• the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy was terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman or any existing children of her family.

The woman’s actual or reasonably foreseeable future environment may be taken into account.

With no time limits:

• the termination is necessary to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman
• there is a risk to the life of the pregnant woman, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated
• there is substantial risk that if the child were born it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped.

So again, I'd have a personal problem with it but I don't see how, nor would I want it to be legislated against.

Complete and total dodge of the question. I'm just going to ask it again:

What difference does it make what the reason is? The embryo/fetus in these examples is either entitled to a womb or not.

 

[Danoff]

Question for the religious right-to-life folks. When do you believe that the human being gets a soul and why? Conception? Souls don't exist prior to conception right? Why do you think it's conception and not some other date? Also do souls grow? Does a human embryo have an embryo-like soul?

 

[UKMikey]

Why do you think it's conception and not some other date?

I'll take a stab at this.

Psalm 51:5 asserts in some translations that the psalmist "was sinful when my mother conceived me". Apparently, you need a soul to sin and since those zygotes were transgressing against The Good Lord from the moment of their creation then ensoulment occurs at conception at the latest.

 

[Danoff]

I'll take a stab at this.

Psalm 51:5 asserts in some translations that the psalmist "was sinful when my mother conceived me". Apparently, you need a soul to sin and since those zygotes were transgressing against The Good Lord from the moment of their creation therefore ensoulment occurs at conception at the latest.

I guess the question was not well posed then. I can't really assume that the "psalmist" understood what we think of in modern terms to be conception. There's no way that anyone who was alive when the bible was written understood the concept of an embryo. So how do we know how many weeks along someone is before they have "conceived" something that had original sin? Or perhaps there are sinful souls floating around waiting for an embryo to develop to a stage where it can receive "ensoulment" (which is a great term). Or are they capable of receiving ensoulment the moment egg meets sperm?

Generally the staunch pro-lifer thinks that sperm and egg do not have souls but once combined do have souls. I'd like to know what that assumption is based on. Perhaps it's these vague captions from people who didn't know anything about conception.

 

[TexRex]

Generally the staunch pro-lifer thinks that sperm and egg do not have souls but once combined do have souls.

Sounds neat. Are there any power rings involved?

 

[Danoff]

Sounds neat. Are there any power rings involved?

One can only hope.

BTW I kinda revived this thread because Roe v. Wade is about (in a few years) to get overturned and abortion is presumably going to be illegal in at least some states: https://www.npr.org/2018/06/28/624319208/what-justice-kennedy-s-retirement-means-for-abortion-rights

 

[TexRex]

abortion is presumably going to be illegal in at least some states

Well, of course it will be.

 

[UKMikey]

I guess the question was not well posed then. I can't really assume that the "psalmist" understood what we think of in modern terms to be conception. There's no way that anyone who was alive when the bible was written understood the concept of an embryo. So how do we know how many weeks along someone is before they have "conceived" something that had original sin? Or perhaps there are sinful souls floating around waiting for an embryo to develop to a stage where it can receive "ensoulment" (which is a great term). Or are they capable of receiving ensoulment the moment egg meets sperm?

Generally the staunch pro-lifer thinks that sperm and egg do not have souls but once combined do have souls. I'd like to know what that assumption is based on. Perhaps it's these vague captions from people who didn't know anything about conception.

The Pope is God's authority on Earth and I'm sure he knows all about conception. If I read this right he's declared ensoulment to happen at the moment of conception (so it'd seem that contrary to Monty Python every sperm is not sacred).

The Church continually reasserts what the Second Vatican Council declared against abortion and against every violation of unborn life: “from the moment of its conception life must be guarded with the greatest care” (ibid., n. 51).

Cultural trends exist that seek to anaesthetize consciences with spurious arguments. With regard to the embryo in the mother's womb, science itself highlights its autonomy, its capacity for interaction with the mother, the coordination of biological processes, the continuity of development, the growing complexity of the organism.

It is not an accumulation of biological material but rather of a new living being, dynamic and marvelously ordered, a new individual of the human species. This is what Jesus was in Mary’s womb; this is what we all were in our mother’s womb. We may say with Tertullian, an ancient Christian writer: “the one who will be a man is one already” (Apologeticum IX, 8), there is no reason not to consider him a person from conception.

I guess as with our Northern Irish neighbours there's going to be a lot of out of state traffic for women who are unwilling or unable to carry their unborn to full term.

 

[Danoff]

I guess as with our Northern Irish neighbours there's going to be a lot of out of state traffic for women who are unwilling or unable to carry their unborn to full term.

Yup that does appear to be where we are headed. The only thing I can hope for at this point is that the SC doesn't want to enact a federal ban on abortion. That would be very bad for the country. If it's state-by-state, I wonder if we'll see people prosecuted in-state for out-of-state abortions.

We shall soon find out!

 

[Rich S]

Im sure its been mentioned, but to those who are pro abortion, at what reason is acceptable? If i have an autistic unborn baby, an aspergers unborn, a black child, a gay or ginger child. I mean, is it acceptable to breed using abortion ? What if a gov't pays blacks or the mentally deficient $50k to always abort, or what if everyone decides that unborn psychopaths or young already born babies are fair game for termination based on genetic info. Is this ok? I mean partial birth is similar no?
I suppose the most common reason is money, but what about unpopular traits, is it acceptable to breed transvestite s out of the population ?

 

[Scaff]

Im sure its been mentioned, but to those who are pro abortion, at what reason is acceptable? If i have an autistic unborn baby, an aspergers unborn, a black child, a gay or ginger child. I mean, is it acceptable to breed using abortion ? What if a gov't pays blacks or the mentally deficient $50k to always abort, or what if everyone decides that unborn psychopaths or young already born babies are fair game for termination based on genetic info. Is this ok? I mean partial birth is similar no?
I suppose the most common reason is money, but what about unpopular traits, is it acceptable to breed transvestite s out of the population ?

Did you seriously just write something that stupidly insulting and ill informed?

Attempts to link abortion to some form of selective population control isn't just inaccurate to a point so far beyond being a straw man, but also seemingly quite telling in regard to your own thought processes.

Oh and the term is pro-choice.

 

[Mr Tree]

Im sure its been mentioned, but to those who are pro abortion, at what reason is acceptable? If i have an autistic unborn baby, an aspergers unborn, a black child, a gay or ginger child. I mean, is it acceptable to breed using abortion ? What if a gov't pays blacks or the mentally deficient $50k to always abort, or what if everyone decides that unborn psychopaths or young already born babies are fair game for termination based on genetic info. Is this ok? I mean partial birth is similar no?
I suppose the most common reason is money, but what about unpopular traits, is it acceptable to breed transvestite s out of the population ?

I'm sorry I have to ask these questions:

1) if you have a black child... what's wrong with being black?
2) what's wrong with being gay?
3) what's wrong with being ginger?

4) If the answer to the above is 'nothing' why did you lump it in with having medical conditions? On top of that there are worse medical conditions then the ones you mention.

5) How would you breed out transvestites? How would you know the unborn is a transvestite?
6) And again what's wrong with transvestites?

I'm not saying this is true but the way you've worded it you're acting really condescending towards people with whom is nothing wrong.

 

[Imari]

Im sure its been mentioned, but to those who are pro abortion, at what reason is acceptable?

Pretty much anything. Fundamentally, if a woman doesn't want to have a child, she doesn't have to. They don't need to give you or anyone else a reason. It's her body and her right to risk it or not having a child.

If i have an autistic unborn baby, an aspergers unborn, a black child, a gay or ginger child. I mean, is it acceptable to breed using abortion ?

No one can stop you from using your God given right to be an arsehole. If you want to abort your child because it might be a ginger, more power to you. You're the one who's going to have to raise the little snot. If you want to keep rolling the dice until you get one without some horrific genetic disorder like orange pubes then that's up to you.

What if a gov't pays blacks or the mentally deficient $50k to always abort, or what if everyone decides that unborn psychopaths or young already born babies are fair game for termination based on genetic info. Is this ok? I mean partial birth is similar no?

This is then a different thing from personal choice. You're talking about eugenics. There's a difference between an individual's personal choice, and a state mandated requirement. You know, kind of like having a state mandate that you must have the child of your rapist would be.

If the state somehow decides that it wants to pass a law that pays blacks to abort, I think you'll find a couple of things happen. First, you'll find that some people value children over money. Second, you'll find that it's quite easy to vote a government out when they start going full Holocaust.

 

[Dotini]

...if a woman doesn't want to have a child, she doesn't have to...

Great insight! What you say is true in most western democracies and at a micro level. But at the universal or macro level, either women have children or there are no children. If you assume human life is here to stay, women in general will have to bear children.

Since the pill and fem-lib movement, many women have made the choice to have more jobs, careers, rights and responsibilities. These "gains" have come at the expense of these same women having fewer children and men in the lives. It's a case of culture and memetics derailing biology. The cure for this case is...

 

[TheCracker]

Since the pill and fem-lib movement, many women have made the choice to have more jobs, careers, rights and responsibilities. These "gains" have come at the expense of these same women having fewer children and men in the lives. It's a case of culture and memetics derailing biology. The cure for this case is...

Yet since the post-war babyboom ended in the mid 70's, child birth rates have generally plateaued. Factor in medical advancements meaning less babies are dying very young and we are generally living longer and healthier, populations in the western world are slowly increasing.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Yet since the post-war babyboom ended in the mid 70's, child birth rates have generally plateaued. Factor in medical advancements meaning less babies are dying very young and we are generally living longer and healthier, populations in the western world are slowly increasing.

In the United States at least, the birth rate is below replacement. If it weren't for immigration the country would slowly wither away and die.

 

[baldgye]

In the United States at least, the birth rate is below replacement. If it weren't for immigration the country would slowly wither away and die.

How much does childbirth cost in the USA?

 

[Johnnypenso]

How much does childbirth cost in the USA?

Do I look like Google to you?

 

[TheCracker]

In the United States at least, the birth rate is below replacement. If it weren't for immigration the country would slowly wither away and die.

Well there you go. Immigration is a good thing after all.

 

[baldgye]

Do I look like Google to you?

No you look like the member of a discussional forum.

 

[Johnnypenso]

No you look like the member of a discussional forum.

Discussing isn't asking people for data you can look up yourself. Ludicrous.

Well there you go. Immigration is a good thing after all.

Of course and most Americans agree according to Gallup and the numbers have been trending towards pro-immigration for more than a half century right up until their last poll on the subject last month, in spite of the MSM proclaiming the sky is falling.

 

[Mr Tree]

Well there you go. Immigration is a good thing after all.

Yes but it's a genocide of the white european heritage in america

I'm not serious and don't want to imply it's anyones opinion on this forum.

 

[Joey D]

How much does childbirth cost in the USA?

The actual act of birthing a child? It depends on your insurance. Right now my wife and I are looking at about $700 when it's all said an done, but it's also cheaper for me since I work for the healthcare system. I think the average person would probably pay between $1,500 to $2,000 without a C-Section.

Raising a child? I've seen figured all the way from $250,000 to $500,000 from birth to 18. That's upwards of $2,300 a month.

I think that's probably the biggest reason for the decline in the birthrate. It's expensive and when you couple in student loan payments, static job wages, and inflated cost of buying a home it adds up quick. My wife and I both make really good money, but neither one of us thinks we can comfortably afford more than one kid, especially since it would mean getting a bigger townhome - which in Salt Lake City runs about $2,500 a month (that's nearly one of my paychecks).

 

[baldgye]

The actual act of birthing a child? It depends on your insurance. Right now my wife and I are looking at about $700 when it's all said an done, but it's also cheaper for me since I work for the healthcare system. I think the average person would probably pay between $1,500 to $2,000 without a C-Section.

Raising a child? I've seen figured all the way from $250,000 to $500,000 from birth to 18. That's upwards of $2,300 a month.

I think that's probably the biggest reason for the decline in the birthrate. It's expensive and when you couple in student loan payments, static job wages, and inflated cost of buying a home it adds up quick. My wife and I both make really good money, but neither one of us thinks we can comfortably afford more than one kid, especially since it would mean getting a bigger townhome - which in Salt Lake City runs about $2,500 a month (that's nearly one of my paychecks).

Agreed, the more developed a nation becomes the more educated and aware people become to the inherent costs of raising a child and what that would mean. They are also offered more opportunities in life that having a child would prevent or limit.

 

[Johnnypenso]

The actual act of birthing a child? It depends on your insurance. Right now my wife and I are looking at about $700 when it's all said an done, but it's also cheaper for me since I work for the healthcare system. I think the average person would probably pay between $1,500 to $2,000 without a C-Section.

Raising a child? I've seen figured all the way from $250,000 to $500,000 from birth to 18. That's upwards of $2,300 a month.

I think that's probably the biggest reason for the decline in the birthrate. It's expensive and when you couple in student loan payments, static job wages, and inflated cost of buying a home it adds up quick. My wife and I both make really good money, but neither one of us thinks we can comfortably afford more than one kid, especially since it would mean getting a bigger townhome - which in Salt Lake City runs about $2,500 a month (that's nearly one of my paychecks).

IMO it has a lot to do with western culture becoming more "me" centric and people just aren't as willing to make sacrifices in their lifestyles today as they used to be in order to accomodate a larger family. In my group of close friends when I was growing up, every single family had more kids than bedrooms available and at least 2 of them were doubled up in every family. I doubled up with my younger brother until I was 14. I'm not sure I now of a single family today in my circle of friends that has more kids than bedrooms available.

 

[Danoff]

If the US were to start having a population problem (we don't), preventing people from having reproductive rights, resulting in poorly raised children, is not the solution.