Shooting at Colorado clinic

[Hope]

Without suggesting that I support abortion on demand, I was saddened by this BBC news item.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-34950261

Demonstrate for/against things one supports/disagrees with, by all means (I'll be down Cardiff Bay later demonstrating in support of far stronger Climate Change reduction mechanisms), but don't use violence.  OK, Planned Parenthood have suggested that the clinic where this occurred may not actually have been the target, with other factors being taken into consideration - such as the possible involvement of PP in the illegal trade of aborted foetus' body parts for research.  It was interesting too, that the eye-witness that was interviewed on BBC Breakfast didn't seem to have anything to do with the clinic, other than that he was in the vicinity when he was shot at.  That may change as things become clearer.

However, I was pleased to hear that the attacker was arrested, not killed , by the police.  Perhapsthey will now be able to gather useful information about any group that might have been behind the event

[floo]

Another terrible event in the USof A! Every woman should have the total RIGHT to an abortion in the early stages of pregnancy without let or hindrance from nutters!

[Shaker]

More killing in the name of life, no doubt

[Hope]

Another terrible event in the USof A! Every woman should have the total RIGHT to an abortion in the early stages of pregnancy without let or hindrance from nutters!

So, death in the name of life, eh - to use Shakes' comment?   

[Shaker]

So, death in the name of life, eh - to use Shakes' comment?   

That of a potential and non-sentient life over an actual and sentient one, yes.

[Hope]

That of a potential and non-sentient life over an actual and sentient one, yes.

No, that embryo isn't merely potential.  It is, by all definitions of 'life', alive.  Remember, one doesn't have to be independent to be alive.

[Shaker]

No, that embryo isn't merely potential.  It is, by all definitions of 'life', alive.

By the same definition, so are the animals you label as 'vermin.'

[Hope]

By the same definition, so are the animals you label as 'vermin.'

I haven't said thet they aren't.  However, how many people who suffer from rodent problems do so from their own actions?  Don't get me wrong; I can fully understand why a woman who has been made pregnant as a result of having been raped might want to get rid of the child; there is, however, a question whether someone who willingly has sex with someone else knowing full well that it could result in pregnancy should be treated in the same way.  I realise that we seem to be a society that is increasingly trying the shed the concept of responsibility.

[Gordon]

I haven't said thet they aren't.  However, how many people who suffer from rodent problems do so from their own actions?  Don't get me wrong; I can fully understand why a woman who has been made pregnant as a result of having been raped might want to get rid of the child; there is, however, a question whether someone who willingly has sex with someone else knowing full well that it could result in pregnancy should be treated in the same way.  I realise that we seem to be a society that is increasingly trying the shed the concept of responsibility.

For some, depending on the circumstances, which need not involve criminality, legal abortion may be the responsible or preferred choice.

[Hope]

For some, depending on the circumstances, which need not involve criminality, legal abortion may be the responsible or preferred choice.

I think the telling point is your use of the phrase 'depending on the circumstances'.  Currently, they seem to play a smaller part in the process than perhaps they should. 

[Shaker]

Why should differing circumstances in how a woman becomes pregnant make a difference?

[Hope]

Why should differing circumstances in how a woman becomes pregnant make a difference?

Unlike every other health-related issue, there are two people intimately involved in a pregnancy - without even thinking about the father of the baby.  That, in itself, requires that the reasons for the pregnancy are considered in any possible abortion.  Remember that some women will choose not to have a baby of rape aborted. 

I often find the inconsistent attitude to this and to the death of the innocent death of King david and Bathsheba hypocritical.  Why should it be acceptable for an innocent child to die today, but not x years ago when they have both been created under conditions of full consent on the part of both parents?

[Shaker]

Unlike every other health-related issue, there are two people intimately involved in a pregnancy - without even thinking about the father of the baby.

There's only one person: the woman. The father doesn't have to carry a baby - pregnancy being, amongst other things, an uncomfortable condition giving rise to a host of disagreeble health issues and even now can still be dangerous, as in life threatening dangerous. The only person potentially at risk here is the one who should have the say in whether that risk is acceptable for them to take - or not.   

That, in itself, requires that the reasons for the pregnancy are considered in any possible abortion.  Remember that some women will choose not to have a baby of rape aborted.

That's up to them. The fact that they're able to choose is the whole point.

[Hope]

There's only one person: the woman.

Are you saying that the woman, whilst pregnant isn't really carrying a separate entity; and that the child only appears at the last moment - a la stork?

The father doesn't have to carry a baby - pregnancy being, amongst other things, an uncomfortable condition giving rise to a host of disagreeble health issues and even now can still be dangerous, as in life threatening dangerous.

Not sure that that has anything to do with the father not having to carry a baby, Shakes. 

The only person potentially at risk here is the one who should have the say in whether that risk is acceptable for them to take - or not.   That's up to them. The fact that they're able to choose is the whole point.

Sorry, Shakes, that child is the creation of two human beings.  In most cases, that is through consensual intercourse.  The time to think about whether one of them wants to take the risk of carrying the possible result (a risk that is widely known by pretty well all women) is then, not after conception.

That is why I suggested that we are slowly becoming a society that wants to divorce ourselves from taking responsibility for things we do - something that isn't restricted to childbirth.

[Gordon]

I think the telling point is your use of the phrase 'depending on the circumstances'.  Currently, they seem to play a smaller part in the process than perhaps they should.

Do they?

To claim that would require you to know all the circumstances, and since one critical aspect here are the feelings and preferences of those directly involved I can't see that external observers can fully comprehend the circumstances: and since abortion involves deeply personal issues it isn't really a spectator sport.

There are some circumstances that may constitute 'facts' in some cases, such as genetic concerns, but since the personal feelings and preferences aspects are exactly that: personal. Yes there are legal aspects involving the age of the foetus, but within these legal limits I can't see that any of us can meaningfully take a view since the thoughts and feelings of those involved are none of our damn business. 

[Shaker]

Not sure that that has anything to do with the father not having to carry a baby, Shakes. 

It has a very great deal indeed to do with it given that the father has none of the discomforts and dangers of pregnancy but still wants a say in inflicting both on another person.

Sorry, Shakes, that child is the creation of two human beings.  In most cases, that is through consensual intercourse.  The time to think about whether one of them wants to take the risk of carrying the possible result (a risk that is widely known by pretty well all women) is then, not after conception.

Except that pregnancy can result even where both parties (or more, if your luck's in) are doing everything feasible to avoid pregnancy (i.e. using contraception), since contraceptives have small but still non-zero failure rates.

[Gordon]

Sorry, Shakes, that child is the creation of two human beings.  In most cases, that is through consensual intercourse.  The time to think about whether one of them wants to take the risk of carrying the possible result (a risk that is widely known by pretty well all women) is then, not after conception.

That is why I suggested that we are slowly becoming a society that wants to divorce ourselves from taking responsibility for things we do - something that isn't restricted to childbirth.

You seem to be equating abortion with irresponsibility, again, and assuming there is an association. 

Outwith your own family, what business is it of yours what others do within the constraints of legislation?

[Rhiannon]

I haven't said thet they aren't.  However, how many people who suffer from rodent problems do so from their own actions?  Don't get me wrong; I can fully understand why a woman who has been made pregnant as a result of having been raped might want to get rid of the child; there is, however, a question whether someone who willingly has sex with someone else knowing full well that it could result in pregnancy should be treated in the same way.  I realise that we seem to be a society that is increasingly trying the shed the concept of responsibility.

The responsible thing is not to proceed with an unwanted pregnancy if the mother wants to have a termination. That's the end of it.

[Hope]

The responsible thing is not to proceed with an unwanted pregnancy if the mother wants to have a termination. That's the end of it.

I'd suggest that avoidance/prevention is the responsible thing.

[Shaker]

I'd suggest that avoidance/prevention is the responsible thing.

That's called contraception. If you can invent any method of contraception with an absolutely guaranteed 100% success rate with everyone everywhere all the time, that would be great. Until then we have to make do with methods which are very effective but not perfect in the way I've just described. That being the reality we need a back up for those occasions where contraception doesn't work as desired/intended, don't we?

[jeremyp]

That's called contraception.

No, he means abstinence.

If you can invent any method of contraception with an absolutely guaranteed 100% success rate with everyone everywhere all the time

Again, abstinence. If you abstain from sex, you are guaranteed not to have children. The only slight flaw in the argument is that people have time and again proved incapable of abstaining from sex.

[Shaker]

No, he means abstinence.

Is that what he meant? He didn't say.

Again, abstinence. If you abstain from sex, you are guaranteed not to have children.

True, but we've invented some novel ways to divorce sex and procreation so that you can have the former without the latter.

The only slight flaw in the argument is that people have time and again proved incapable of abstaining from sex.

I can spot another one. While a small minority of the population are happily and contentedly asexual, most people are not, and it is neither reasonable nor desirable to expect much less demand that anybody should lead a sexless life. Catholicism has been trying that one on for two thousand years, with what I shall generously call markedly poor results.

As you say, it just doesn't work, nor should it work. Abstinence in any case is almost always founded upon some truly unhealthy, laughably unrealistic and in many cases downright warped ideas about human sexuality such as you find in theistic religions especially and monotheistic religions even more especially. These ideas have been poison to the human race for thousands of years and we are a long time putting them behind us.

[Humph Warden Bennett]

We are getting off topic.

NO I do not think abortion is a good thing, and NO I do not support "A woman's right to choose".

Having written the above, abortion clinics are places of death, and to increase the numbers of deaths at such places with the use of a gun makes the pro life lobby no better than the abortionists.

[Rhiannon]

I'd suggest that avoidance/prevention is the responsible thing.

As Shaker says, avoidance isn't healthy and contraception not reliable, however carefully used. Why is it responsible to use contraception but then suddenly also responsible to proceed with an accidental pregnancy?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Is that what he meant? He didn't say.
True, but we've invented some novel ways to divorce sex and procreation so that you can have the former without the latter.I can spot another one. While a small minority of the population are happily and contentedly asexual, most people are not, and it is neither reasonable nor desirable to expect much less demand that anybody should lead a sexless life. Catholicism has been trying that one on for two thousand years, with what I shall generously call markedly poor results.

As you say, it just doesn't work, nor should it work.

Ah, The Shagger's defence. You think with your balls.