Thailand legalizes abortion for women who are up to 20-weeks pregnant effective Oct. 26

[mogandave]

2 hours ago, wwest5829 said:

Sorry about your thinking. Personally, I deal with social/medical reality. I would not force a victim of incest or rape to carry to term that which is forced on a woman.

What about the other 99%
 

2 hours ago, wwest5829 said:

 

Nor would I allow any law to require my significant other and I to carry to term, give birth and bear the emotional/financial burden of a genetically damaged being.

So if the baby has a finger missing you would cull it?

[Nickelbeer]

Good news on the abortion front. Now, if they would legalize casinos, Thailand could benefit from the tax revenue. It would be interesting to see the statistics on how decriminalization of marijuana is affecting tax revenue.

[fusion58]

4 hours ago, mogandave said:

For example? 

 

Surly you can provide a list…I

 

I thought not.

LOL.

 

Abortion is now banned in these states. See where laws have changed.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/06/24/abortion-state-laws-criminalization-roe/

[hotchilli]

15 hours ago, webfact said:

Thailand today announced that pregnant women who are between 12-20 weeks into their pregnancy could seek an abortion legally after having consulted with their doctors.

I see the post has to use a foreign protest march photo..

Nuff said.

[MrMuddle]

11 hours ago, josephbloggs said:

Why?  It was a partly tongue in cheek post, but is a pointless law that serves no purpose other than to inconvenience people.  I have a proper job, I am not hanging out for a 7-Eleven beer at 2pm, it's just a silly inconvenient rule that should be abolished.

90 day reporting too.  Is that better?

Alcohol causes more misery than almost anything else that is legally available. it is responsible for thousands of deaths on the road, both here and abroad, every year. A minor restriction is a small inconvenience. People can't buy alcohol for a period when the schools are finishing, which is also the time of the most traffic on roads here, as people pick up their children.. It is noticeable how the drinkers on this forum think they have the right to tell others how to live, (eg the criticisms of Marijuana being legalised), but hate it when others criticise them, especially when the drinkers are wrong! One only has to see the posts decrying banning alcohol sales on special Buddhist days, to see that.

Did my 90 day report yesterday, it was nice to see the Immigration Officers again, and have a chat, and a joke (my next report date is Xmas day!).  Perhaps you need to have a look at yourself, and how you live your life, maybe the problems you have are self inflicted.

Edited September 27, 2022 by MrMuddle
more info added

[MrMuddle]

6 hours ago, Nickelbeer said:

Good news on the abortion front. Now, if they would legalize casinos, Thailand could benefit from the tax revenue. It would be interesting to see the statistics on how decriminalization of marijuana is affecting tax revenue.

The last thing Thailand needs is for gambling to be legalised. There are quite enough poor people that owe vast amounts of money to illegal bookies already.
Nice try, with the dig at marijuana and it's users, especially as it way too early to tell.
 

Edited September 27, 2022 by MrMuddle
punctuation

[MrMuddle]

2 hours ago, fusion58 said:

LOL.

 

Abortion is now banned in these states. See where laws have changed.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/06/24/abortion-state-laws-criminalization-roe/

We're in Thailand, not the good ol' US of A. Why would anyone care?

[wwest5829]

7 hours ago, mogandave said:

What about the other 99%
 

So if the baby has a finger missing you would cull it?

What would I do in a hypothetical future event? None of us know. In your scenario, no other medical evidence of genetic damage than just one missing finger? Probably not, but then for others ... that is them to decide ... certainly not to be based on my personal religiously based choices.

[KannikaP]

14 hours ago, AsianAtHeart said:

Technically speaking, the age at which a person is first counted in the Bible is 30 days--so I see a little bit of room for a "viability period" here.  During its first days of life, a newborn quickly learns to express selfishness.  Newborns do not like to cry without a reason--but they soon learn that doing so gets them some attention, and the cry later morphs into a tantrum if they aren't getting what they want.  Beyond these observations, I am thankful not to be the Judge who decides.  I'm just theorizing.  However, we know that the sins of the parents get passed on to their children by their example, and who has perfect parents?

 

And what if you do not believe in The Bible?

[Bday Prang]

9 hours ago, Bday Prang said:

There's the morning after pill , which can be taken up to about 5 days after sex, there's also an actual abortion pill which can be taken up to 11 months so there are many options available . There are many other valid  reasons for terminating a pregnancy other than threats to the life of the mother

The fact that somebody chooses to do so does not imply that they don't value family  or children 

 

 

 

9 hours ago, AsianAtHeart said:

Say what?

sorry i meant 11 weeks

[Bday Prang]

9 hours ago, josephbloggs said:

So you take it after sex and it kills your baby when it is two months old??

my mistake  the abortion pill can be taken up to 11 weeks after conception

[Bday Prang]

8 hours ago, Nickelbeer said:

Good news on the abortion front. Now, if they would legalize casinos, Thailand could benefit from the tax revenue. It would be interesting to see the statistics on how decriminalization of marijuana is affecting tax revenue.

it is currently untaxed effectively and therefore does not affect tax revenue

[2009]

2 hours ago, MrMuddle said:

The last thing Thailand needs is for gambling to be legalised. There are quite enough poor people that owe vast amounts of money to illegal bookies already.
Nice try, with the dig at marijuana and it's users, especially as it way too early to tell.
 

Agree.

 

They are not mature enough for gambling.

[KanchanaburiGuy]

 

I think..........

 

* There is a point where the child inside the womb can rightly be called "alive."

 

At 7-8-9 months, the question is really one of where the child is living, not of whether it is "alive."  So, for me, at 7-8-9 months, the child must be delivered, not aborted  (unless there is a clear, compelling, medical, survival-level reason.)

 

* Based on current technology, a fetus is not capable of surviving outside the womb any sooner than  19 or 20 weeks----not under any circumstances!  This child is not one I would call "alive." Not yet. (Yes, it is "living tissue"...... but it is not yet "alive.")

 

(Although the measures are extreme and extremely expensive, we have already proven we can deliver a baby at 20 weeks.......... and have it survive.)

 

------------------

------------------

 

There is definitely a point during a baby's gestation where not being "alive" stops.......... and being "alive" starts. At 7-8-9 months, that's an easy one. At 4-5-6 months, it's not nearly so easy.

 

In America, we call those who believe abortion should be legal, "Pro-choice." Those who think it shouldn't be are usually called "Pro-life." 

 

I am "Pro-choice."

 

But!

 

I think there should be LIMITS on those choices!

 

For example........... I am AGAINST the new law here in Thailand. I think "Choice" should end at the end of the first trimester, which means 13 weeks.

 

I think...........

 

If you have not had an abortion by the end of the first trimester.......... then you HAVE chosen!

 

By not having an abortion during the timeframe when we could honestly say "that child is not yet alive"........... (because it could not survive outside the womb under any circumstances!).......... you HAVE chosen!

 

You've chosen to continue carrying the child----and to let the fates decide!

 

I believe.................

 

After the first trimester, abortion should only be legal if there is a compelling medical reason!

 

-----------------

-----------------

 

(The Thai law says "consult with a doctor" and a "doctor's approval." But it doesn't say there actually has to be a medical reason! "Consult with" and "approve" could mean nothing more than........... "yes, we've talked. She understands the consequences.")

 

.

 

That's my take, anyway.

 

I'm morally okay with abortion in certain circumstances and timeframes............ and object to abortion on moral grounds, in others.

 

[josephbloggs]

5 hours ago, MrMuddle said:

Alcohol causes more misery than almost anything else that is legally available. it is responsible for thousands of deaths on the road, both here and abroad, every year. A minor restriction is a small inconvenience. People can't buy alcohol for a period when the schools are finishing, which is also the time of the most traffic on roads here, as people pick up their children.. It is noticeable how the drinkers on this forum think they have the right to tell others how to live, (eg the criticisms of Marijuana being legalised), but hate it when others criticise them, especially when the drinkers are wrong! One only has to see the posts decrying banning alcohol sales on special Buddhist days, to see that.

Did my 90 day report yesterday, it was nice to see the Immigration Officers again, and have a chat, and a joke (my next report date is Xmas day!).  Perhaps you need to have a look at yourself, and how you live your life, maybe the problems you have are self inflicted.

Wow, how is it up there on your high horse?  What a hilarious, self righteous load of nonsense.

Where did I mention problems?  I merely said they are both pointless rules with no logic to them and they therefore serve no purpose and should be scrapped.  You attempt to justify the 2pm-5pm ban with a load of twaddle about schools and roads but we already have laws against minors buying alcohol.  And the ban is also in force at weekends when there is no school.  Does it affect me?  Mostly no as I work during the week but I find it annoying when I go to the supermarket to buy stuff to cook for dinner but can't buy a bottle of wine to go with the dinner for me and my wife.

And the 90 day reports don't bother me either.  I've been working here for 25+ years, have never had a problem with immigration at all.  But you can't argue it is a pointless rule and I don't think anyone knows why it exists.......it just does.

If you look forward to your 90 day reports because you get to see immigration people then I think that says a lot more about your lifestyle than mine - I recommend you get out more.  Just make sure it isn't between 2pm and 5pm as there are all these cars on the road.  And try talking to people rather than preaching to them, you may end up having more people to talk to than just immigration officers every three months.

 

Quote

It is noticeable how the drinkers on this forum think they have the right to tell others how to live, (eg the criticisms of Marijuana being legalised), but hate it when others criticise them, especially when the drinkers are wrong! 

I bet you have absolutely no idea how hypocritical you are being here.  

[Purdey]

20 hours ago, BritManToo said:

They should choose to wait and not to break the law!

At 14 how are they to know? Kids will be kids.????

[mogandave]

12 hours ago, fusion58 said:

LOL.

 

Abortion is now banned in these states. See where laws have changed.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/06/24/abortion-state-laws-criminalization-roe/

LOL Did you enemies read it? 

 

I thought not. 

 

 

[mogandave]

8 hours ago, wwest5829 said:

What would I do in a hypothetical future event? None of us know. In your scenario, no other medical evidence of genetic damage than just one missing finger? Probably not, but then for others ... that is them to decide ... certainly not to be based on my personal religiously based choices.

So they wanted a blond and got a red-head.

 

Up to them right? But it’s really up to “them”, it’s up to her.

 

[carlf]

The USA didn't ban abortion.  Get it straight.  As I understand it, the Supreme Court in the USA rescinded the FEDERAL (national) law that gave the right to abortion, and essentially has delegated this decision to the INDIVIDUAL STATES.  Many of the States (perhaps 50%?) still have every intention of maintaining a woman's right to abortion.

[wwest5829]

2 hours ago, mogandave said:

So they wanted a blond and got a red-head.

 

Up to them right? But it’s really up to “them”, it’s up to her.

 

I apologize but I only wish to deal with those who use reason and critical thinking skills. This post has neither. Deal with real factual medical care issues that are faced by individuals every day.

[Nickelbeer]

7 hours ago, KanchanaburiGuy said:

 

I think..........

 

* There is a point where the child inside the womb can rightly be called "alive."

 

At 7-8-9 months, the question is really one of where the child is living, not of whether it is "alive."  So, for me, at 7-8-9 months, the child must be delivered, not aborted  (unless there is a clear, compelling, medical, survival-level reason.)

 

* Based on current technology, a fetus is not capable of surviving outside the womb any sooner than  19 or 20 weeks----not under any circumstances!  This child is not one I would call "alive." Not yet. (Yes, it is "living tissue"...... but it is not yet "alive.")

 

(Although the measures are extreme and extremely expensive, we have already proven we can deliver a baby at 20 weeks.......... and have it survive.)

 

------------------

------------------

 

There is definitely a point during a baby's gestation where not being "alive" stops.......... and being "alive" starts. At 7-8-9 months, that's an easy one. At 4-5-6 months, it's not nearly so easy.

 

In America, we call those who believe abortion should be legal, "Pro-choice." Those who think it shouldn't be are usually called "Pro-life." 

 

I am "Pro-choice."

 

But!

 

I think there should be LIMITS on those choices!

 

For example........... I am AGAINST the new law here in Thailand. I think "Choice" should end at the end of the first trimester, which means 13 weeks.

 

I think...........

 

If you have not had an abortion by the end of the first trimester.......... then you HAVE chosen!

 

By not having an abortion during the timeframe when we could honestly say "that child is not yet alive"........... (because it could not survive outside the womb under any circumstances!).......... you HAVE chosen!

 

You've chosen to continue carrying the child----and to let the fates decide!

 

I believe.................

 

After the first trimester, abortion should only be legal if there is a compelling medical reason!

 

-----------------

-----------------

 

(The Thai law says "consult with a doctor" and a "doctor's approval." But it doesn't say there actually has to be a medical reason! "Consult with" and "approve" could mean nothing more than........... "yes, we've talked. She understands the consequences.")

 

.

 

That's my take, anyway.

 

I'm morally okay with abortion in certain circumstances and timeframes............ and object to abortion on moral grounds, in others.

 

It’s probably murder, but legalised murder is pretty much a part of society. I.E. drafting youngsters to fight in unwinnable wars, death penalty etc.  It’s only an issue if you are an American conservative. Most of the rest of the world is not so concerned if they are not deeply Christian.

[metisdead]

An off topic distraction post and a reply has been removed.

 

An inflammatory post has been removed.

[Boomer6969]

On 9/27/2022 at 3:04 PM, George Aylesham said:

And change the 90 day report to 180 days - it'll halve the paperwork.

Well, they have changed it to one year for the people they want (Under the Board of Investment Long Term Resident visa).

[KanchanaburiGuy]

12 minutes ago, Nickelbeer said:

It’s probably murder, but legalised murder is pretty much a part of society. I.E. drafting youngsters to fight in unwinnable wars, death penalty etc.  It’s only an issue if you are an American conservative. Most of the rest of the world is not so concerned if they are not deeply Christian.

I find these conversations much less confusing and contentious when everyone  remembers that "murder" is a legal description, not a moral one. If there is no law  saying that a particular form of killing is illegal, then it's not illegal----if it's not illegal, then it's not "murder."

 

Because of this, there's no such thing as "legalized murder." That phrase, while catchy, is ultimately an oxymoron. Simply put: If it is "legalized"......... it can't be "murder."

 

* Where abortion is legal, abortion isn't "murder."

 

* Where abortion is not legal......... it may be.

 

(It depends on how the law was written....... as well as how the individual prosecutor and presiding judge interpret the law.)

 

Is it killing? Yes, in one form or another, it is "killing."

 

Is it "moral?" Some people say absolutely yes. Some people say absolutely no.

 

As I said at the conclusion of my post above............ there are times and circumstances during a pregnancy when, yes, I believe it remains a moral choice......... But there's also a point at which it ceases to be.

 

But that doesn't make it "murder." "Murder" is not a moral description, it's a legal  description.

 

Now, I understand why people want to use the word "murder," even though they almost always use it incorrectly. It is emotive. It is a strong word. It conjures up strong feelings and passions. And it's a way of metaphorically putting down one's foot and saying, "This is where I'm making a stand!"

 

----------

 

A typical screed............

 

"If you're in favor if abortion, you're in favor of murder! (There, take THAT!)"

 

---------------

 

But when the word is used incorrectly........... (and it almost always is!)........... then anyone you hope to persuade?.......... Well, they'll simply brush your views aside as being ill-considered and poorly informed!

 

The word "murder" has a meaning. If you're using that in a conversation about abortion..........

 

but there is no law that defines it as such..........

 

then you're not ultimately taking the principled stand you'd like others to think you are. You're just showing-off to everyone that you don't actually know what you're talking about!

 

Sorry. 

 

---------------

 

I suggest.......... stick to moral arguments and logic you feel passionate about, and only bring out legal terminology......... when there are actual laws on the books that support them!

 

Cheers!

.

 

 

 

[jts-khorat]

On 9/27/2022 at 4:07 PM, NorthernRyland said:

That's how I perceive it. Can't  drive 5 minutes without seeing a temple. Find me a Thai persons house that doesn't have pictures of monks and shrines also. It's a deeply Buddhist country we're living in here.

It is indeed. But you misunderstand Theravada buddhism, obviously.

 

The onus is on you, the individual, how you live your life. You have the active choice to collect either good or bad karma, and there is no big man in the sky removing the bad one later or giving you a pass through the door for 'repenting'. As such, Buddhism -- in its ideal form -- promotes self-responsibility.

 

However, at the same time the Buddha recognized that most people are likely to fail to achieve the highest standard, at least within a single life time, so it also promotes equanimity and the acceptance for people behaving differently from the ideal, without accruing the shame of 'guilt'.

 

Make out of that what you wish, but the reality of Thailand is, that it exists between those two opposite poles.