Rival political parties in Sweden are split over the prospect of establishing a registry of women who have had abortions, party officials said.
Christian Democrats favor reporting the identities of women who have had abortions but the Moderate, Centre and Liberal parties oppose the move on integrity grounds, the Swedish News Agency reported.
Integrity from theocrats?
Anders Milton, who was commissioned by the government to investigate the issue, suggested inclusion of personal identification numbers of women who had an abortion because he said it would help in follow-up of complications and improve prevention.
“The register always awakes feelings of unease, but I definitely think the idea is worth a try,” Chatrine Palsson Ahlgren, Christian Democrat Member of Parliament said to the Svenska Dagbladet newspaper.
Gee. They could even make it mandatory for these women to sew little patches on their coats. It worked before.
#66–King==Scott will respond in good time==although he may have quit for the evening. He’s spotty like that.
But I just want to congratulate you for assuming all the relevant out of your purview WHILE claiming not to have brought religion into it. HAW, HAW!!!!
Note how I don’t bring religion into this statement: If you aren’t baptized, you can’t go to heaven. See–religion is never mentioned.
I’ll stop because I have lost interest. Just ignore anyone who disagrees and you have an ironclad position. Bravo.
#66 – KingTester,
The unborn is a human fetus. I see no reason that the government should stop anyone from killing him/her. S/he has no legal status. S/he has no rights in this or any other civilized society.
Certainly, said fetuses rights, if any, do not trump the rights of the born. When you accidentally knock over a pregnant woman who is not even showing yet and she miscarries, will you be OK with being sentenced for manslaughter as you would if the woman died?
Humans aren’t special. We weren’t specially created by any deity. We are part of a vast continuum of life on this planet.
Scientifically, a fetus in the womb is not a baby. As bobbo has rightly pointed out, use words correctly, as they are defined in the dictionary and you will not be harassed for being a total asshole twisting words into false meanings to make invalid points.
Regarding the bullet points you attempt to make under your false claim that a fetus is a baby:
– has unique DNA, even as small as a few cells
This is also true of mosquitos.
– is alive and growing
This is also true of mosquitos.
– is human by nature (see embryology)
So what? So are convicted criminals. So are the terminally ill.
– While not fully developed has all of the parts to fully mature. (Don’t confuse construction with design)
Incorrect and irrelevant. Said fetus has all of the instructions to build all of the parts in order to mature. This is also true of my hair and fingernails and I regularly cut them.
– Life is not measured by size
Then you must be horrified at those who kill flies or take antibiotics.
– is a result of specific external events thus not an accident.
No birth control is 100% effective. Therefore this is not only irrelevant, but false as well.
**All of these reasons equally apply to a 3 year old and you wouldn’t kill an unwanted 3 year old.
There must be a point at which we do outlaw killing. And yet, there are exceptions to it as well. We regularly execute criminals, and all too frequently the innocent as well. I think drawing the line at birth is a long time-honored tradition. I would be fine with outlawing infanticide and allowing abortion.
Some may say the only reason an abortion may be justifiable is if the baby goes full term and will definitely kill the mother with close to 100% certainty. In this instance a life is being saved (the mother). Personally I must admit that I’m not entirely satisfied with that scenario but that I all that I can come up with right now.
Then you are a total nutjob. Congratulations for being such an extremist that you would sacrifice a full grown woman for the life of a fetus. I can now say with complete and utter certainty that you are truly devoid of all reasonable morals.
Picture this, you are standing a sink doing some dishes and your son or daughter walks up behind you and says, “Can I kill this?” You would not answer in the affirmative or negative unless you turned around and saw exactly the object of that question. If it were a mosquito you may say go ahead, if it were the neighbors cat then you are more apt to say no. You first had to ascertain the nature of the thing being killed.
And yet, if it was a pig or a cow, you would likely be fine with it despite their greater brain power than any fetus. I think you make arguments that seem logical to you, though not to me. Based on such arguments you determine that women are not free to decide either their own fates or the fates of the horrifically deformed or the fetuses of their rapists or even the fetuses created while on drugs.
You do not even seem satisfied with allowing a woman to have an abortion when her own health may be at risk. You want to wait ’til she dies, then you might or might not say that it would have been OK if she had had an abortion to save her life, but we couldn’t know until she was dead. Oh well.
You sir are among the most sick and twisted induhviduals I have ever had the misfortune of debating.
You, like Alfie, are among the many reasons I blog anonymously.
#69 – bobbo,
#66–King==Scott will respond in good time==although he may have quit for the evening. He’s spotty like that.
I’ve been a lot busier at work lately.
Bobbo, there are lots of countries in Europe wth parties labeled Christian or Christian Democrat, and they have widely varying views.
I will make it express: other people disagree with every point pro-lifers make. What should society do? Ignore one position or the other is the position the two extremes take. The Supreme Court provided one of only a few compromises possible.
Many of the terms/conditions/assumptions/history/morality of the contesting sides is reviewed by the court in Roe v Wade. If you discuss the issues of abortion/pro-choice outside of the guidance this case gives the reader, you proceed in a very uniformed ignorant fashion. Admirable, only to those of your clique who likewise don’t want to admit they live in a society where people are free to disagree.
Scott–its good to be busy. Wishing you little time to post here===spend it on your own website, although recent discussions there not much better? But we do the Lords work by shining light onto dark abscesses.
#72–MikeN==actually, I know that. The ideas may vary but they circle the same drain. Is that any better?
#60
Funniest and about the truest statement in an otherwise thoroughly boring rambling of posts by authors who would fit well into your idea.
Taking that thought and what a couple of others touched on….and assuming national health care will be enacted….
What’s to keep – or more exactly – Who will stop the government from determining which baby will be kept and which will be aborted?
1st step is already done with government paid, on-demand abortions.
2nd step: Will the government want to take the medical responsibility for care of a baby that is predicted to be physically and/or mentally challenged? No,duh.
So who’s going to argue with that bureaucrat when the faceless no-body decides the population needs more or less of any particular mental or physical attribute….which the government ‘thinks’ they can predict?
How quickly will your congressman or senator respond to your baby or potential grandchild that’s been ‘chosen’.
What’s to keep – or more exactly – Who will stop the government from determining which baby will be kept and which will be aborted? /// “We” the people. Don’t you believe in representative Democracy?
All government programs should be DESIGNED to be as voluntary as possible within conflicting interests ((almost always other people’s money)). But yea==no system has 100% agreement.
You post as if everyone is happy with what the government is doing now!
xxxxxxxxxxx
1st step is already done with government paid, on-demand abortions. /// Federal Gov doesn’t pay for on demand abortions. Don’t think most states do either.
xxxxxxxxx
2nd step: Will the government want to take the medical responsibility for care of a baby that is predicted to be physically and/or mentally challenged? No,duh. /// I certainly hope not. Thats what our stupid government does today. Hopefully, getting a government bureaucrat between patients and their doctors will stop this crap.
xxxxxxxx
Congress doesn’t respond to kiddies, and hardly responds to their parents. What an army of straw men you set forth.
Silly Rabbit.
#57
The problem with that sentiment is that you force the woman to carry the child to term against her will. Further, pregnancy causes substantial physiological changes in a woman. After the rapist has imposed his will on the woman, you are suggesting that the State be allowed to take its turn.
#63
I suppose simply asking the woman would be too difficult? Some call that mutual respect.
#66
Most reasonable people agree that a just fertilized egg is not human and that moments before the child exits the woman’s womb it is human. Where that moment happens precisely is the core of the debate. Related to that argument is the fundamental question of whether the government should be authorized to criminalize people for a decision on which at least 50% of the populate feel it is not criminal.
Not all fetuses (“unborn” in your parlance) are human beings with all the same rights as actually born human beings.
# 57 Cursor
“What we really need is a law that states life and death ends with brain activity.”
You realise that we would have to declare Alfred1, and most other dittohead ‘lifers’, legally dead!
I was hoping that most of these loons would drop dead when a black man became president, but unfortunately they have survived.
For the record, I believe abortions are not a trivial issue, but it’s right of the parents to make the hard choice, not some twit with a placard in one hand and a bible in the other. It is certainly no business of the state, and keeping a public register is just obscene.
Alphie,
How many children brought to term,saved from an abortion, have you adopted? Every State has a registry of children waiting for a foster home. If you are going to talk the talk, then be prepared for what comes after
#46, Scott,
Just to clarify, there are two thoughts here. One is the technically correct term “fetus” while there is the colloquial “baby”. When my wife was seven months along there is just no way I would ask her how the “fetus” was doing. Our couch was pretty lumpy.
🙁
A similar situation is the colloquial use of the word “theory”. We both understand how that one works.
Yes, the colloquial misuse leads to confusion. YET, in the case by most of the religious wing nuts, the use is not the endearing one of an expectant couple. I believe it is a firmly held belief that does effect their thinking.
#66, King,
As for the argument by others between what constitutes a fetus vs. a baby they are one in the same, traveling 8 inches down a birth canal does not change the nature of the fetus/baby it only changes the location in proximity of the mother.
So if I shot someone in the shoulder that is OK. But, another 8″ over and it is a whole new game. The same with the birth.
Once a fetus is cut from the cord and takes its first breath, it becomes a baby. Not until or in lieu of. If the fetus never takes that first breath, for whatever reason, it is stillborn and not a person.
BTW, cancer cells usually have the same DNA as the person.
A fetus changes very slowly. Some may be viable at 28 weeks while another fetus isn’t viable until 32 weeks. All premature fetuses though are NOT fully developed and most will require some care to survive.
Bobbo, I don’t think you have much of an idea what Roe v Wade is, if you think it is the centerpiece of understanding abortion, instead of just abortion law. Even with regards to the law, you have to understand it along with the companion case of Doe v Bolton. Even then, you have only started to understand US law, not the more restrictive laws in Europe.
#82–Mickey==I googled Bolton. It is less than one page long and offers NOTHING regarding abortion except confirmation of Roe v Wade which from memory is about 100 pages long going into the history, science, and morality of the abortion issue.
You get caught quite often making false arguments. I never said it was the centerpiece of abortion law (although it certainly is) and was comfortable making a lesser statement that you have to read it in order to intelligently discuss the issues. “Baby vs fetus” and “When does life Begin” and in fact what the actual issue of taking the fetus’s life is all about. It cannot be appreciated without reading Roe.
So==you huff and puff, but are just a gas bag. Hopefully, your desire to contest an issue will provide you with the motivation to actually become competent at doing so?
King==read Roe v Wade. 8 inches isn’t a lot, but it demonstrates the “CONTINUUM” that life exhibits from conception to death. Along that continuum is the time from being mother dependent to independent as stated by Fusion. Words, actually their definitions, contain the culmination of human thinking on a subject. Constantly changing but words don’t mean whatever you mean by uttering them.
Fetus and Baby have meaning that arose centuries ago before abortion became the issue it is today. Words get group tested not for their meaning, but for their impact. Manipulators of the public square choose their words to influence public opinion–not to conform to facts.
So, as life gains autonomy along the continuum, that life gains rights and duties as well. All subject to history, knowledge, custom, argument. Don’t foul the nest by corrupting the ideas represented by words.
Word.
Bobbo, Doe v Bolton expands substantially the status of legal abortion. The 3 trimester rule that frequently is associated with Roe does not stand up under Doe.
#79 Hugh I do understand that it would mean a woman carrying to term what was put there immorally.
I also understand that in many cases that woman may actually be no more than a teen.
I also further understand that the child may actually grow into a person that can destroy or assist society.
I will go one farther, and that if the day-after pill is administered (and it can be now in most places) this will stop the whole process BEFORE it has to come to a living being with brain activity.
I am not one who thinks a splat of cells with no sentience is a human. No brain waves = no life in my book. If the shoe fits for death, it should fit for life.
So there are ways of dealing with it. My thought is that after there are brain waves, unless it means the death of the mother, there is no need for abortion. Carry it to term, let others adopt it and move on.
As for Alfred1; he has brain activity… its just sociopathic. And as we all know:
Neurotics build castles in the sky.
Psychotics live in them.
Sociopaths are the guards because they like to push people around and wear uniforms.
Cursor_
I’d like to see some helpful legislation passed requiring training, licensure and registration for all people wishing to purchase a bible.
It would be good if we could extend that to Qu’rans and other “holy” literature, too, but that might be seen as racist.
He who has not sinned can cast the first stone.
#86–Mickey==I won’t even go back an check THE ONE PAGE AFFIRMATION that is Bolton. YOU have NO CREDIBILITY warranting the effort to do so.
The three trimester rule from Wade is the law of the land.
MY POINT, offered 5 times now, is that if you want to intelligently engage the abortion debate, you have to read Wade. That is very consistent with you wanting to discuss Bolton.
Heh, heh.
#89–killer==you do know that that admonishment is NOT A METAPHOR. In the correct context, that is one of the funniest things I have read in a long time. Thanks.
#87, Cursor,
Carry it to term, let others adopt it and move on.
Two points.
First you confirm my comment to Misanthrope Scott that those against abortion, the anti-choice crowd, don’t believe the fetus is human. If they did they would call “it” a “fetus”, “the baby”, or “he / she”. Calling the fetus an “it” is acknowledgment the fetus is not a person, the same as a cancerous tumor is not a person.
Second, you suggest carrying the fetus to term and giving the baby up for adoption? Do you have any idea how many kids are waiting to be adopted now? Few things burn my butt as much as hearing some bible thumping goody nut bar go to China or elsewhere to adopt a baby when there are so many waiting to be adopted here.
Carrying a baby to term only to lose the baby is one of the most gut wrenching emotional trials any person can go through.You don’t understand what you are expecting women to go through to satisfy men who want to control their bodies.
Over 100K kiddies waiting for adoption in USA:
http://photolisting.adoption.com/
I wonder how many of the mothers wanted but could not get an abortion?
How many kiddies are living with parents who don’t want them?
If kiddieship is such a joy, shouldn’t it be restricted to those who DESERVE the little treasures?–ie, want them?
Speaking of that pesky continuum, like a fetus to a baby, baby to a full adult, I also think there is a continuum link from sperm or egg to zygote.
“Every sperm is precious.”