Vive La France!

[Odds]

Perhaps when science has progressed to the point that a woman can hand over the foetus for the Father to carry to full term, and give birth, then the political/ moral/ ethical/ medical discussion can occur.

Is it a boy or a girl@News24

 

[JonathanM]

Could it be the same question as turning off life support for critically ill, (brain dead) patients?
If there is no chance of viable life, and no consciousness, is there really life?

It appeared more philosophical to me, along the lines of

"If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?"

 

[Brigadier]

I'll try again (giving it a think, while doing an hour on the bike).

#2136

"At time of conception. "
"A fertilised egg. "

IMHO, redundant arguments.

Why?

Because, at the time, there is no guarantee that natural and viable life will result. And therefore, no knowledge that "the event" will result in life.

Some people are just opposed to abortion, regardless. That is their prerogative.

If they believe that "life" starts straight away, all abortion is wrong.
But they think that anyway.
Hence, redundant argument.
IMHO.

 

[blup]

I'll try again (giving it a think, while doing an hour on the bike).

#2136

"At time of conception. "
"A fertilised egg. "

IMHO, redundant arguments.

Why?

Because, at the time, there is no guarantee that natural and viable life will result. And therefore, no knowledge that "the event" will result in life.

Some people are just opposed to abortion, regardless. That is their prerogative.

If they believe that "life" starts straight away, all abortion is wrong.
But they think that anyway.
Hence, redundant argument.
IMHO.

How is the possibility that a fertilised egg will not develop into a viable life a rational reason for abortion? Its like saying the fetus might not survive so there's no reason to protect it. Pretty much all countries seek to protect a child if it is capable of being born alive after a certain date.

 

[noseall]

How is the possibility that a fertilised egg will not develop into a viable life a rational reason for abortion? Its like saying the fetus might not survive so there's no reason to protect it. Pretty much all countries seek to protect a child if it is capable of being born alive after a certain date.

Nonsense, conception has feck all to do with it. The rights of the woman trump all. If you are in any doubt, read the text below....



2.1. It has been suggested that, with the exception of a small number of extremists, there is broad agreement that while fetal life deserves respect, its protection cannot take priority over the rights of the pregnant woman.[2] 2 Legal developments since 1967 have made it abundantly clear that, with the glaring exception of the regulation of abortion, this correctly captures the position at English common law and under the Human Rights Act (1998). Namely, the fetus is not a legal person, and its interests cannot trump those of the pregnant woman.

2.2 Recent years have witnessed a widely applauded shift in medical practice. The old attitude of "doctor knows best" paternalism has been increasingly replaced by recognition of patient autonomy. This shift has been recognised in the legal principles regulating medical practice. Thus the importance of autonomy in medical decision-making has been recognised,[3] 3 young people have been accorded greater rights to decide on their own medical treatment[4]4 and the courts have emphasised that it is not sufficient for doctors merely to accord with practices accepted by their peers if they are not to fall foul of the law of negligence. Rather their actions must be objectively justifiable and capable of "withstanding logical analysis".[5]5

2.3 Central to this changing medical and legal culture has been an emphatic endorsement of the principle that adult patients must have control over their own medical treatment. Our most senior judges have noted that:

• [A] medical practitioner must comply with clear instructions given by an adult of sound mind as to the treatment to be given or not given ... whether those instructions are rational or irrational.[6] 6

• [T]he existence of the patient's right to make his own decision, which may be seen as a basic human right, (is) protected by the common law.[7] 7

• f the patient is capable of making a decision on whether to permit treatment ... his choice must be obeyed even if on any objective view it is contrary to his best interests.[8] 8

2.4 Pregnant women have not been treated as an exception to this rule. Rather, in accordance with these general principles, the duty to respect a woman's autonomy in pregnancy and childbirth has been frequently reiterated in English law. Like a competent male patient, a competent female patient cannot be forced to undergo unwanted medical treatment, even where her life—or that of a late term, viable foetus—depends upon it. A competent adult woman's right to refuse a caesarean section, even if that decision would inevitably result in the death of her fetus, is absolute.[9] 9 As the Court of Appeal puts it:

• • [P]regnancy ... does not diminish (a woman's) entitlement to decide whether or not to undergo medical treatment ... Her right is not reduced or diminished merely because her decision to exercise it may appear morally repugnant.[10] 10

2.5 This refusal to treat pregnant women as an exception to the rule that we must respect the autonomy of competent patients relies on legal developments since the 1967 Act came into effect. If this was in any doubt in 1967, it has been clearly established (and frequently reiterated since) that the foetus is not a legal person. It "cannot, in English law ... have any right of its own at least until it is born and has a separate existence from the mother".[11]11 This is likewise the position under the Human Rights Act (1998). While Article 2 of the European Convention states that, "everyone's right to life shall be protected by law", the European Court of Human Rights has repeatedly refused to accept an understanding which would include the fetus as enjoying a "right to life". As the European Commission of Human Rights has noted:

 

[space junkie]

Nonsense, conception has feck all to do with it. The rights of the woman trump all. If you are in any doubt, read the text below....


Namely, the fetus is not a legal person, and its interests cannot trump those of the pregnant woman.


2.5 This refusal to treat pregnant women as an exception to the rule that we must respect the autonomy of competent patients relies on legal developments since the 1967 Act came into effect. If this was in any doubt in 1967, it has been clearly established (and frequently reiterated since) that the foetus is not a legal person. It "cannot, in English law ... have any right of its own at least until it is born and has a separate existence from the mother".

In addition, the Human Tissue Act 2004 (HTA) regards the remains of pregnancy as tissue belonging to the woman.
The Guidelines issued in 2015 did not change that.

"4. The Human Tissue Act 2004 (HT Act) makes no distinction between the disposal of pregnancy remains and the disposal of other tissue from a living person; pregnancy remains are regarded as the tissue of the woman."

https://content.hta.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2021-06/Guidance%20on%20the%20disposal%20of%20pregnacy%20remains.pdf

 

[noseall]

In addition, the Human Tissue Act 2004 (HTA) regards the remains of pregnancy as tissue belonging to the woman.
The Guidelines issued in 2015 did not change that.

"4. The Human Tissue Act 2004 (HT Act) makes no distinction between the disposal of pregnancy remains and the disposal of other tissue from a living person; pregnancy remains are regarded as the tissue of the woman."

https://content.hta.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2021-06/Guidance%20on%20the%20disposal%20of%20pregnacy%20remains.pdf

I'm not sure the remains of the procedure are high on the agenda, for post-abortion women.

 

[space junkie]

I'm not sure the remains of the procedure are high on the agenda, for post-abortion women.

The Guidelines issued in 2015 does place a high priority for the wishes of the woman, (if they have any) in regard to the disposal of the human tissue/foetus/foetal remains.

"4. .... Although under the HT Act, consent is not required for the disposal of pregnancy remains, the particularly sensitive nature of this tissue means that the wishes of the woman, and her understanding of the disposal options open to her, are of paramount importance and should be respected and acted upon."

https://content.hta.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2021-06/Guidance%20on%20the%20disposal%20of%20pregnacy%20remains.pdf

 

[space junkie]

How is the possibility that a fertilised egg will not develop into a viable life a rational reason for abortion? Its like saying the fetus might not survive so there's no reason to protect it. Pretty much all countries seek to protect a child if it is capable of being born alive after a certain date.

I thing you've kind of mixed up the thought processes there.
A fertilised egg that does not develop into a viable life would not need to be aborted. There would be no foetus. It's called a chemical pregnancy.
Therefore it can not posibly be a reason for an abortion.

 

[gant]

Your going too fast on them keys again Roy, your spellings slipping.

 

[noseall]

Your going too fast on them keys again Roy, your spellings slipping.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Another trolling thread-locker joins in.

 

[gant]

Double standards it's alright when you have a pop at me making a mistake by not including the word paste.
I'll leave you to conduct yourself in this 'adult' thread in your usual adult and dignified manner lol.

 

[noseall]

Double standards it's alright when you have a pop at me making a mistake by not including the word paste.
I'll leave you to conduct yourself in this 'adult' thread in your usual adult and dignified manner lol.

Au revoir

 

[blup]

Nonsense, conception has feck all to do with it. The rights of the woman trump all. If you are in any doubt, read the text below....



2.1. It has been suggested that, with the exception of a small number of extremists, there is broad agreement that while fetal life deserves respect, its protection cannot take priority over the rights of the pregnant woman.[2] 2 Legal developments since 1967 have made it abundantly clear that, with the glaring exception of the regulation of abortion, this correctly captures the position at English common law and under the Human Rights Act (1998). Namely, the fetus is not a legal person, and its interests cannot trump those of the pregnant woman.

2.2 Recent years have witnessed a widely applauded shift in medical practice. The old attitude of "doctor knows best" paternalism has been increasingly replaced by recognition of patient autonomy. This shift has been recognised in the legal principles regulating medical practice. Thus the importance of autonomy in medical decision-making has been recognised,[3] 3 young people have been accorded greater rights to decide on their own medical treatment[4]4 and the courts have emphasised that it is not sufficient for doctors merely to accord with practices accepted by their peers if they are not to fall foul of the law of negligence. Rather their actions must be objectively justifiable and capable of "withstanding logical analysis".[5]5

2.3 Central to this changing medical and legal culture has been an emphatic endorsement of the principle that adult patients must have control over their own medical treatment. Our most senior judges have noted that:

• [A] medical practitioner must comply with clear instructions given by an adult of sound mind as to the treatment to be given or not given ... whether those instructions are rational or irrational.[6] 6

• [T]he existence of the patient's right to make his own decision, which may be seen as a basic human right, (is) protected by the common law.[7] 7

• f the patient is capable of making a decision on whether to permit treatment ... his choice must be obeyed even if on any objective view it is contrary to his best interests.[8] 8

2.4 Pregnant women have not been treated as an exception to this rule. Rather, in accordance with these general principles, the duty to respect a woman's autonomy in pregnancy and childbirth has been frequently reiterated in English law. Like a competent male patient, a competent female patient cannot be forced to undergo unwanted medical treatment, even where her life—or that of a late term, viable foetus—depends upon it. A competent adult woman's right to refuse a caesarean section, even if that decision would inevitably result in the death of her fetus, is absolute.[9] 9 As the Court of Appeal puts it:

• • [P]regnancy ... does not diminish (a woman's) entitlement to decide whether or not to undergo medical treatment ... Her right is not reduced or diminished merely because her decision to exercise it may appear morally repugnant.[10] 10

2.5 This refusal to treat pregnant women as an exception to the rule that we must respect the autonomy of competent patients relies on legal developments since the 1967 Act came into effect. If this was in any doubt in 1967, it has been clearly established (and frequently reiterated since) that the foetus is not a legal person. It "cannot, in English law ... have any right of its own at least until it is born and has a separate existence from the mother".[11]11 This is likewise the position under the Human Rights Act (1998). While Article 2 of the European Convention states that, "everyone's right to life shall be protected by law", the European Court of Human Rights has repeatedly refused to accept an understanding which would include the fetus as enjoying a "right to life". As the European Commission of Human Rights has noted:

I was responding to what i thought was muddled thinking by the brig, he should be off his bike now.

 

[motorbiking]

Legal developments since 1967 have made it abundantly clear that, with the glaring exception of the regulation of abortion, this correctly captures the position at English common law and under the Human Rights Act (1998). Namely, the fetus is not a legal person, and its interests cannot trump those of the pregnant woman.

But they do have legal status and protection. A child capable of being born alive is regarded as a child. Destroying one is a crime: "child destruction". Is your view that they have no rights until they are born?