Mikko2,

If you haven’t shifted (or “narrowed”, I should say) the goalposts, then my first set of questions remains fundamentally relevant to your claims.

--

Farnortherner,

You’re only asking what my qualifications are to commit an ad hominem in the event that they’re not relevant. Unfortunately for you, one of my qualifications is a bachelor of laws.

Mikkelsen only made a passing mention of late-term abortions and I haven’t mentioned them. Now that you have, however, it should be noted that late-term abortions are exceptionally rare and are only done for medical reasons. No one decides that they’re going to abort two weeks out from the due date because they’ve decided they’d rather go on a holiday.

As for forcing women to carry out their unwanted pregnancies to full term, this can have life-long physical, emotional and psychological effects on a person, which is just one of the many factors lawmakers take into consideration when legislating on this issue.

--

Bezz,

I don’t expect people to engage with me. I don’t know where you got that idea from.

I do know where your perception that I “leap onto everyone” comes from, though. Psychologists refer to it as cognitive dissonance. God knows it didn’t come from the way I engage with the few here that I do bother to engage with.

John Daysh sounds suspiciously like Paul1405. Same git, cousins ?

No, John Daysh - I want to know who you think you are to lay down your opinions and believe that everyone else should take your word as gospel.
If I thought you had some standing of any sort in the MEDICAL FIELD, I may understand.
That is the only very uninteresting reason why I would like to know more about your opinions. You give the opinion of being contrarian about most things.
I do not think Law has much to do with medical terminations as the approvals have to be signed by two medical officers plus the concerned patient with no lawyers involved at all.

Farnortherner,

Where do you get the idea that I think everyone should take my word as gospel? It sounds like you’re being a bit precious there. If I’m wrong about something, then just tell me so and explain why.

//If I thought you had some standing of any sort in the MEDICAL FIELD, I may understand.//

If you believed what I said based on the fact that I was in the medical field, or rejected it only because I wasn’t, then that’s a fallacy known as the ‘argument from authority’. My claims stand or fall on their own merit.

John Mikkelsen spent about a quarter of his article discussing a motion in the Senate, and you don’t see the relevance of the law here?

forcing women to carry out their unwanted pregnancies to full term
John Daysh,
Forcing ? You have a rather strange perception of the term forcing. There's nothing more natural than a healthy human female to become pregnant after sex with a male, particularly voluntary sex. Most agree that a pregnancy from involuntary sex qualifies for abortion. Cranks everywhere do object to that.
Don't want children, take the pill or stay home !

Indyvidual,

Yes, forcing. When a person is legally compelled to carry a pregnancy to term against their will, that is a form of coercion. Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy. Pregnancy is not a simple or risk-free condition, either.

You have assumed that contraception is 100% effective and that people should just abstain
from sex if they want to avoid pregnancy. No form of contraception is fully effective, however, and forbidding abortion based on the act being voluntary elides the complex reality of human relationships, contraception failures, and the right to bodily autonomy.

It's not just about not avoiding pregnancy; It's about having the right to determine what happens with one's own body. Personal autonomy is a basic in any free society.