Vive La France!

[space junkie]

thats no socio-economic grounds then is it.

It depends.
Socio-economic definition
"The term socioeconomic refers to the interaction between the social and economic habits of a group of people "
If the doctors considered that the habits of the pregnant woman endangers the viability of the foetus, and therefore the life of the pregnant woman, they might consider than an abortion is justified.

Who knows what hypothetical scenarios will deliver until they become reality.

 

[space junkie]

Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929

An Act to amend the law with regard to the destruction of children at or before birth.

www.legislation.gov.uk

It's also discussed in the report.

A piece of law written in 1929, effetely evolved beyond its intention due to medical science. It was clear from the comments on the second reading that the goal was to prevent the mother from causing the death of the child during or just before birth. Until 1929, that was not covered by the offences against the person act. But medical science evolved and up until about 1990 there was substantial risk legally, given that viability is now around 23-24 weeks.

The Abortion Act 1967 can override the Infant life Act 1929.

No offence under the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929 shall be committed by a registered medical practitioner who terminates a pregnancy in accordance with the provisions of this Act [the Abortion Act].

Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Infant Life Act does not specify that only RMP are immune to prosecution:

Provided that no person shall be found guilty of an offence under this section unless it is proved that the act which caused the death of the child was not done in good faith for the purpose only of preserving the life of the mother.

Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929

An Act to amend the law with regard to the destruction of children at or before birth.

www.legislation.gov.uk

So your reference to the mother (or anyone else) killing the baby during or just before birth might also be covered by the Infant Life Act.
But we are talking about extreme hypothetical scenarios in your attempt to justify your ideological belief.

 

[blup]

If I may, Vinty's argument could only stand if the fertilised egg, the embryo, became a foetus.
Only then would there be any possibility of it eventually becoming a child.
So Vinty's argument about the fertilised egg does not stand.

Fair enough but there is still the moral argument that life begins at conception. All the other arguments/justifications for termination must flow from that.

 

[motorbiking]

And he's off..

@ the user formally known as Roy Bloom, himmy etc etc. I'm not going to argue with you - it's a waste of time.

 

[Brigadier]

You responded as above to vinty's argument that life began at conception, the moment the sperm fertilised the egg. So how does the fact there is no guarantee the fertilised egg will result in a child capable of being born make vinty's argument redundant, or, if you will, remove viability as a justification for a termination. Just trying to understand the thought process.

Conception = day 0.
Vinty argues that "life begins at conception".


The position that "life begins at conception" is used - by Vinty, as an example - as a justification for their opposition to abortion.
Which makes no sense.
(I have no opposition to Vinty holding his view - he's entitled to do so - I just don't see the "conception" argument as making any sense).



When "life" begins is only a valid argument if you are using it to place a limit on the time within which the abortion can be performed, AND if you think that "life" begins after day 0.


If you agree with the principle of abortion (within time limits), then "when life begins" may be important.

If you fundamentally disagree with the principle of abortion, "when life begins" is irrelevant.
Because you fundamentally disagree regardless.


If you think that life begins at day 0, you are opposed to abortion per se.
So trying to justify your position - through timings, anyway - is redundant.

 

[motorbiking]

There is another option.

You accept that abortion is necessary based on the balance of killing the unborn child (at whatever stage you find acceptable) vs. recognising the autonomy of the woman who is pregnant. For me there is a sliding scale and most people here seem to agree.

Few are opposed to termination < 10 weeks.
Most are opposed to termination > 30 weeks.

but for me its always a potential human life.

 

[space junkie]

There is another option.

You accept that abortion is necessary based on the balance of killing the unborn child (at whatever stage you find acceptable) vs. recognising the autonomy of the woman who is pregnant. For me there is a sliding scale and most people here seem to agree.

Few are opposed to termination < 10 weeks.
Most are opposed to termination > 30 weeks.

but for me its always a potential human life.

Few are opposed to termination < 10 weeks?
< 12 weeks in the UK
< 14 weeks in France.

In reality
<24 weeks according to polls presented by JonathanM and Notch7.

Having tried to misrepresent the law to justify your own ideological beliefs, you are now trying to misrepresent reality.

 

[ajohn]

Socio-economic

The most used reasons for allowing an abortion in the UK are effectively socio economic. The wiki give a breakdown of the ones that are used.

The woman's choice. In some instances the "traditional" roles of running the home and any kids will reverse. The woman will be the one that continues to work. This is a socio economic factor. Indirectly this indicates which similar aspects such as even income can be used as a reason for an abortion.

Noticing that you quoted me and no reply from me. I don't think I have ever posted anything concerning what France has done. In many respects I don't see that as relevant. I will now - good one France if it is close to ours.

Ours - maybe consider the duration that is allowed. Again via the wiki to avoid trying to read the actual bill this is left open to current thoughts largely based on premature birth survivability. How ever do take care as premature births are graded - initial survival may not lead to a normal life for the child.

 

[noseall]

Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929

An Act to amend the law with regard to the destruction of children at or before birth.

www.legislation.gov.uk

It's also discussed in the report.

A piece of law written in 1929, effetely evolved beyond its intention due to medical science. It was clear from the comments on the second reading that the goal was to prevent the mother from causing the death of the child during or just before birth. Until 1929, that was not covered by the offences against the person act. But medical science evolved and up until about 1990 there was substantial risk legally, given that viability is now around 23-24 weeks.

Basically all the above has been covered, namely:
The foetus can be aborted up to 24th week lawfully,as long as the terms of the act are followed.
Beyond 24 weeks the woman's life must be in danger etc.
The life of the woman trumps the life of the baby, up untill birth.

 

[Notch7]

Fair enough but there is still the moral argument that life begins at conception. All the other arguments/justifications for termination must flow from that.

Why?

2 teenagers got drunk had a sh@g, girl doesn’t want baby as she is studying at school, she has no money and it was a one night stand.

If they hadn’t got drunk it wouldn’t have happened.

I’m not sure what the big moral argument is

 

[noseall]

there is still the moral argument

No, there isn't.
It's the supposed morality police that are fùkking it up for women in the US. Yet they are happy to watch their children murdered by their beloved guns.

Vile bastards.

 

[space junkie]

Noticing that you quoted me and no reply from me. I don't think I have ever posted anything concerning what France has done. In many respects I don't see that as relevant. I will now - good one France if it is close to ours.

I did respond to one of your comments, ajohn, a couple of days ago.
it was nothing to do with any differences between countries.
It was to do with what could be considered as a nonsense sentence from you:

...

.... Women's age at the point of giving birth has increased. ...

Did you really mean that women get older during childbirth?

Sorry ajohn, I think I must be OCD or something, I think I know what you meant to say, but I need your confirmation.
Do you mean that women get older during childbirth?
If you don't, I suggest you review your comment and adjust as necessary.

If you meant that the average age of women giving birth has increased over time, that is entirely different to what you actually wrote.
But that would be open to discussion, The average age of women having their first child has undoubtedly increased. But that is very different to the average age of women giving birth of all their children.

 

[carmanmemoranda]

Not in all cases.

You cannot legally abort at 25 weeks a healthy unborn child on socio-economic grounds. So the Woman's rights are not unlimited.

Yes, it wouldn't be approved

 

[noseall]

You really should read Noseall's report

Not mine was it. Compiled by some of the most (abortion) knowledgeable folk in the UK.

 

[noseall]

An amputated arm is not living.

Nor is a removed foetus.