Your right to an Abortion

Logical Fallacy

bronte wrote: »

I don't know guys, I'd take the 100% guarantee all the same if indeed that is what it proves to be.
Virility comes at a cost.

I have to say, even if the injection was available and i got it, i still wouldn't trust the concept of 100% effectiveness.

I would still wear a condom even if in a relationship.

mystique150

Malari wrote: »

I thought this way too until I read some of the arguments about exporting other types of crime. If it's legal in another country is it ok? If you can travel and get information then why not allow it here? It really is a lot to think over. It gets more grey every time I engage in a debate on it. And I'm glad, because I like to have my beliefs challenged. I like thought experiments that really make you wonder if you are being hypocritical.

I'm sure there are many things legal in one country and illegal in another. The death penalty being a prime example which I'm sure anti abortionists will say that my argument is now just as hypocritical as abortion to them is also murder. My argument is that it is not what is right or what is wrong according to the masses, but because abortion is right for some people at certain stages in their life, it should be their right to make that choice for themselves, not anyone else.

Malari wrote: »

For me, I'm in a relatively privileged position that I know I can go to the UK at quite short notice if I need to. But it would be so much better and safer for many women if it was possible here.

Too right, it is those that are less well off and that find themselves in the most vulnerable of circumstances that are not left with a choice to abortion.

Malari wrote: »

I do worry about privacy too. And I don't mean from a shameful point of view. If I have to go for any other medical procedure no-one needs to know. I can take time off work if necessary and no one questions it too much. If I suddenly have to go to London at short notice, you either have to tell some people the truth, or be faced with a happy inquisition into how your romantic/shopping trip went.

Exactly - it should be up to you to tell people (if you decide to tell). You can have more privacy about an ingrown toenail! Its ridiculous!

mystique150

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

I have to say, even if the injection was available and i got it, i still wouldn't trust the concept of 100% effectiveness.

I would still wear a condom even if in a relationship.

Most contraceptives aren't 100% effective anyway. Most people only ever depend on one method which is ever only 99% effective including condoms and female hormonal methods. Hence, another reason why some people may need the choice of an abortion.

Monty Burnz

mystique150 wrote: »

Most contraceptives aren't 100% effective anyway. Most people only ever depend on one method which is ever only 99% effective including condoms and female hormonal methods. Hence, another reason why some people may need the choice of an abortion.

Well, we got onto this train of thought when I postulated the future existence of a 100% effective contraceptive for women without adverse side-effects, but a good point has been made that - assuming it's a non-barrier method - STIs will still be an issue for both partners, so condoms will still be necessary for people who are not in steady relationships.

teaandtoast

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

This issue is like national question threads over in politics, trenches are dug, people get angry, gets personalized, bit of half hearted moderation to try and stem the tide, followed by a lull in which only a handful remain, followed by a lock.

As is often the case in threads like this people can be intimidated and not post their views, they sit back and read, or simply ignore the thread, or maybe PM the people arguing against the tide to say they support them and agree, but wont say so themselves.

I used to take threads on boards much more seriously, but its pointless doing that.

I agree with you. Anyways there is not one person here who is prolife, understands where i am coming from and who also is traumatised by having an abortion at the same instance

teaandtoast

I believe abortion is wrong but people were given their own free will they can do what they want with it. Most of these profile organisation take a spiritual and Christian view of everything that is why they don't give sex education because they believe sex is part of love. They believe sex should be a free and natural thing not to be controlled because one of the functions of sex is reproduction. With the influence of the mass media many people let themselves be influenced by their hormones and use their initmate parts for fun and games. We are actually more than just a meat suit, we have got a heart and soul.
I don't expect anyone here to understand what i am talking about. Few do in general.

If you are replying to this have can you keep some respect for Christian Spiritual value system and for my opinion. If you can't don't reply. Thank you

mystique150

teaandtoast wrote: »

I agree with you. Anyways there is not one person here who is prolife, understands where i am coming from and who also is traumatised by having an abortion at the same instance

I'm sorry that you were traumatized by having an abortion. I can't relate because I never had to have one and hope I never find myself in the position where I feel I have to. However, if abortions were legalised in this country people could receive the correct counselling and make an informed decision about having an abortion without being ushered to the UK and feeling pressured into going ahead with it because you feel you won't have an opportunity to change your mind later. I don't mean to pry but was counselling ever offered to you, either before or after?

WesternNight

teaandtoast wrote: »

Most of these profile organisation take a spiritual and Christian view of everything that is why they don't give sex education because they believe sex is part of love. They believe sex should be a free and natural thing not to be controlled because one of the functions of sex is reproduction.

From my own observations this is not the case at all, unfortunately.

Fluorescence

teaandtoast wrote: »

I agree with you. Anyways there is not one person here who is prolife, understands where i am coming from and who also is traumatised by having an abortion at the same instance

There are other pro-life people in this thread, and there are other people who have had abortions. Just because they haven't had the experiences you've had doesn't mean their opinions are invalid. There are plenty of people who have trauma-free abortions, and plenty more who have had highly traumatic pregnancies. We can't justify the illegality of abortion solely because some people find it a traumatic event, when many woman are going to be distressed by the whole ordeal no matter what choice they end up making anyway.

Maple

teaandtoast wrote: »

I agree with you. Anyways there is not one person here who is prolife, understands where i am coming from and who also is traumatised by having an abortion at the same instance

You have already been warned about your projecting of your experience and your generalisations.

This is your last warning, you will receive a ban next time around.

Maple.

OkayWhatever

I'm against abortion completely.. It's my opinion. There's so many people out there who are unable to have children and would do anything for a child, I don't think it's right to abort a child who could be loved so much by another family. I think it's kinda selfish to be honest.

Macha

OkayWhatever wrote: »

I'm against abortion completely.. It's my opinion. There's so many people out there who are unable to have children and would do anything for a child, I don't think it's right to abort a child who could be loved so much by another family. I think it's kinda selfish to be honest.

Do you have any evidence that the problem is lack of children? Or is it other complications in the adoption process?

rainbow kirby

OkayWhatever wrote: »

I'm against abortion completely.. It's my opinion. There's so many people out there who are unable to have children and would do anything for a child, I don't think it's right to abort a child who could be loved so much by another family. I think it's kinda selfish to be honest.

One person's desire to have a child does not outweigh another's right to bodily integrity.

fatmammycat

OkayWhatever wrote: »

I'm against abortion completely.. It's my opinion. There's so many people out there who are unable to have children and would do anything for a child, I don't think it's right to abort a child who could be loved so much by another family. I think it's kinda selfish to be honest.

You know what's really 'kinda selfish'? Expecting women to be incubators for the childless. There are plenty of children already wallowing in homes and residential centres out there.

As I've pointed out during the endless abortion debates on this site, abortion is not about the 'babies' it is about a woman NOT wishing to be pregnant. All the 'baby' talk is just an appeal to emotion.

Monty Burnz

fatmammycat wrote: »

As I've pointed out during the endless abortion debates on this site, abortion is not about the 'babies' it is about a woman NOT wishing to be pregnant. All the 'baby' talk is just an appeal to emotion.

I think that is rather unfair, to be honest. What is pregnancy, only the creation of children? You can't separate children from pregnancy any more than you can separate it from women and their welfare.

I have been roundly criticised here for postulating a thought experiment where I stripped out a lot of the complexities around abortion to pose a question. I wonder will you get similar flak for massively simplifying this very complex issue? I doubt it. People seem to be simply identifying which poster is perceived to be on their 'team' and thanking away without a lot of thought.

sambuka41

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I think that is rather unfair, to be honest. What is pregnancy, only the creation of children?

Its the creation of a human being that at one point in its development is a baby,child,also an adult. Personally I agree with fatmammycat, that when discussing abortion its a ploy to pull on the heart strings, its not a baby, its a fetus.

Monty Burnz

sambuka41 wrote: »

Its the creation of a human being that at one point in its development is a baby,child,also an adult. Personally I agree with fatmammycat, that when discussing abortion its a ploy to pull on the heart strings, its not a baby, its a fetus.

Until when?

For me it's not any sort of ploy: I don't understand why someone would say this. If it's not about human life, why the hell would anyone care? Why would anyone get the slightest bit exercised about it?

If you basically regard a human foetus - as you seem to suggest (correct me where I go wrong here) - as a non-human waste product until some line in the sand that you draw (20 weeks, 24 weeks, birth, 1 month old?), then why would you care about abortion any more than you would care about when people go to the toilet, or have a period?

It's very patronising (and rude) to tell someone what they believe - which is what you are doing when you claim that people only pretend to care about the human life aspect of the abortion debate. I wouldn't dream of telling you what you 'really think' - I'm happy to listen to your arguments and your beliefs.

Fluorescence

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I think that is rather unfair, to be honest. What is pregnancy, only the creation of children? You can't separate children from pregnancy any more than you can separate it from women and their welfare.

That's because it's still up for debate where human life begins, and when it can be considered a child rather than a cell.

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I have been roundly criticised here for postulating a thought experiment where I stripped out a lot of the complexities around abortion to pose a question. I wonder will you get similar flak for massively simplifying this very complex issue? I doubt it. People seem to be simply identifying which poster is perceived to be on their 'team' and thanking away without a lot of thought.

Your thought experiment was criticised because it was a logical fallacy. Your allegory made no sense. People aren't here playing some thanks whore game . They thank what they agree with and don't thank what they don't. It's ridiculous of you to say otherwise, frankly.

fatmammycat

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I think that is rather unfair, to be honest. What is pregnancy, only the creation of children? You can't separate children from pregnancy any more than you can separate it from women and their welfare.

A wanted pregnancy perhaps, unwanted it's not about the 'creation of children'. Anway, I didn't step into this conversation to blather on, anything I think I've said before. Abortion is not about babies, it's about pregnancy; to carry to term or not. As such I am against enforced pregnancy.

sambuka41

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Until when?

For me it's not any sort of ploy: I don't understand why someone would say this. If it's not about human life, why the hell would anyone care? Why would anyone get the slightest bit exercised about it?

If you basically regard a human foetus - as you seem to suggest (correct me where I go wrong here) - as a non-human waste product until some line in the sand that you draw (20 weeks, 24 weeks, birth, 1 month old?), then why would you care about abortion any more than you would care about when people go to the toilet, or have a period?

It's very patronising (and rude) to tell someone what they believe - which is what you are doing when you claim that people only pretend to care about the human life aspect of the abortion debate. I wouldn't dream of telling you what you 'really think' - I'm happy to listen to your arguments and your beliefs.

You are very wrong to assume that because i refer to a foetus as in fact a foetus that means I have no respect for human life??? Where does that come from?? At no point did I say that, and oh my god, human waste product? WHAT?? Thats an awful thing to say.:eek:

To use the word baby has a more emotive aspect than to discuss it medically as its referred to, a foetus. It doesn't have the same kick or power. I Believe that the people on pro life side of this debate use this as a marketing strategy is NOT me saying they don't care about life, I'm sure they do. They are trying to make effective campaigns by using emotionally charged language.

I would however query where this ultimate respect for human life goes when it comes to respecting the woman and her life choices or her body??????

Monty Burnz

fluorescence wrote: »

Your thought experiment was criticised because it was a logical fallacy. Your allegory made no sense.

Can you explain why it made 'no sense'? Because nobody else has (in spite of what they have claimed).

drkpower

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I have been roundly criticised here for postulating a thought experiment where I stripped out a lot of the complexities around abortion to pose a question.

It is not really criticism, Monty. If your thought experiment had any real validity, people would be engaging with it. But it doesnt.

I've pesonally taken issue with those who come at this view from both sides, if they come with poorly thought out arguments.

Monty Burnz wrote: »

If you basically regard a human foetus - as you seem to suggest (correct me where I go wrong here) - as a non-human waste product until some line in the sand that you draw (20 weeks, 24 weeks, birth, 1 month old?), then why would you care about abortion any more than you would care about when people go to the toilet, or have a period?.

Very few people who have thought about this issue are saying that the foetus is a non-human waste product; they are recognising the foetus as having rights, just rights that are sub-servient to its mother. You, yourself, have accepted that the foetus' rights are subservient to its mother. You just have a slightly different view to (some) others as to the extent to which these rights are sub-servient.

Monty Burnz

sambuka41 wrote: »

You are very wrong to assume that because i refer to a foetus as in fact a foetus that means I have no respect for human life???

I did not say or imply that at all. I'm sorry, but that's a bizarre interpretation of my post. I never said that you have no respect for human life - in fact I never mentioned your attitude to human life at all.

sambuka41 wrote: »

Where does that come from?? At no point did I say that, and oh my god, human waste product? WHAT?? Thats an awful thing to say.:eek:

It came from your imagination. You can't have it both ways - is it a foetus or a human life that you are talking about aborting? I took you at your word when you said that you regarded it as a foetus, not a baby. If I misinterpreted this somehow, I'm sorry, but I based it on what you said here:

its not a baby, its a fetus.

sambuka41 wrote: »

To use the word baby has a more emotive aspect than to discuss it medically as its referred to, a foetus. It doesn't have the same kick or power. I Believe that the people on pro life side of this debate use this as a marketing strategy is NOT me saying they don't care about life, I'm sure they do. They are trying to make effective campaigns by using emotionally charged language.

Ok, this is a bit different to what you said earlier and I understand your point better now. Yeah, I agree with you on this - they try to reframe the discussion towards the 'lovely baby' thing rather than the medical foetus thing.

sambuka41 wrote: »

I would however query where this ultimate respect for human life goes when it comes to respecting the woman and her life choices or her body??????

Yeah, that's the meat in the sandwich there. That's where the nub of the question lies.

drkpower

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Can you explain why it made 'no sense'? Because nobody else has (in spite of what they have claimed).

In fairness, I have given you two reasons. You didnt even bother replying to the second one.

Fluorescence

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Can you explain why it made 'no sense'? Because nobody else has (in spite of what they have claimed).

You were comparing a 20-week foetus being dependent on it's mother to a newborn babe being dependent on it's mother, when it's not the same thing at all. The foetus cannot so much as breathe independently, and has not yet fully developed for life outside the womb. It has no chance of survival without the mother (though I personally believe 20 weeks is far too late to be aborting anyway). A fully developed newborn is completely different in that it has the ability to breathe. Any adult human could provide for the child, whereas there's only 1 person in all the world who could provide for a 20 week foetus, and that's the woman it's growing inside.

You throwing the forest bit in added nothing to the argument.

Silverfish

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Can you explain why it made 'no sense'? Because nobody else has (in spite of what they have claimed).

Because we would rather try and discuss the reality of the situation rather than imaginary scenarios involving babies in jungles or whatever.

This debate is regarding the 'right to choice' regarding unwanted pregnancies, not the survivalist abilities of babies in jungles.
If you wish to discuss this, perhaps another forum would be more suitable.

If you wish to try to bend the conversation back to this, or bend the conversation into discussing WHY nobody wanted to discuss this with you, then please read the charter.

Ickle Magoo

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Until when?

For me it's not any sort of ploy: I don't understand why someone would say this. If it's not about human life, why the hell would anyone care? Why would anyone get the slightest bit exercised about it?

If it was really about human life then we wouldn't be having a debate on abortion, we'd be having a debate about why women aren't allowed contraceptives that prevent human life from implanting in the wall of her uterus or legally allowed to take the MAP. It's already been deigned that not all "potential" human life carries equal value, a human life resulting from rape or that has the potential to kill its mother doesn't have an equal value to those that don't. Contraceptives and the MAP which work by ensuring a human life doesn't become any more than a zygote are perfectly legal. Legalising early-term abortion is moving one more step up the road and ensuring an embryo never becomes a foetus, another step up the road is puting the limit on abortions at the minimum age for viability...it's all part of the ongoing debate over what constitutes "human life" Vs "potential human life".

Monty Burnz

drkpower wrote: »

It is not really criticism, Monty. If your thought experiment had any real validity, people would be engaging with it. But it doesnt.

You'll forgive me if I disagree with you here. It seems that people aren't really that interested in the philosophical side of this, it's a more 'team A versus team B' type discussion. That doesn't suit me as I'm on neither team and I'm trying to figure out my own thoughts on the subject.

drkpower wrote: »

I've pesonally taken issue with those who come at this view from both sides, if they come with poorly thought out arguments.

I'd argue that your objection was poorly thought out, but there you go...

drkpower wrote: »

Very few people who have thought about this issue are saying that the foetus is a non-human waste product; they are recognising the foetus as having rights, just rights that are sub-servient to its mother. You, yourself, have accepted that the foetus' rights are subservient to its mother. You just have a slightly different view to (some) others as to the extent to which these rights are sub-servient.

That's a good point. I'm trying to figure out where on that spectrum I am, or whether I should just give the whole issue up as impossible.

drkpower

Monty Burnz wrote: »

You'll forgive me if I disagree with you here. It seems that people aren't really that interested in the philosophical side of this, it's a more 'team A versus team B' type discussion. That doesn't suit me as I'm on neither team and I'm trying to figure out my own thoughts on the subject..

Very few people that I have seen on this thread are entering into a 'team A versus team B' type discussion. For an abortion debate, it has been relatively constructive so far. You are continually attempting to portray it as A vs B, though!

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I'd argue that your objection was poorly thought out, but there you go...

Sure, but you'd be wrong;)

But seriously, at leats 4 or 5 relatively reasonable posters have pointed to the fallacies in your thought experiment. It might be time to consider whether it is, in fact, just a bad analogy, rather then everyone else not appreciating it's brilliance...?

Fluorescence

Monty Burnz wrote: »

You'll forgive me if I disagree with you here. It seems that people aren't really that interested in the philosophical side of this, it's a more 'team A versus team B' type discussion. That doesn't suit me as I'm on neither team and I'm trying to figure out my own thoughts on the subject.

That's simply not true. There are so many shades of grey in this debate, and no 2 people that I can see on this thread have the exact same position on the matter.