Abortion/ *Note* Thread Closing Shortly! ! !

Delirium

antiskeptic wrote: »

That's called anarchy

Afraid not. Allowing people to make their own decisions regarding abortion is not anarchy. It makes for a nice soundbite but it's devoid of merit.

The mother aborting is deciding for another. The abortee.

Well considering that there are no agreed beginnings of personhood that doesn't hold up. You're painting a picture that every pregnant woman agrees with your POV on when a person begins to exist.

It is of course imposing a worldview. But the pro choice is doing the same

No, it's not. Repeating it won't make it any truer I'm afraid. Allowing for people to choose will not require anti-abortion people to abort their child. Only in that situation would your statement about imposing a worldview be true.

pauldla

antiskeptic wrote: »

That's called anarchy

You may call it anarchy. Others, myself included, might prefer to call it ‘people living out their own lives to their own lights, free from the tyranny of a mish-mash of Iron Age belief systems’.

aloyisious

It seem's to me that the anti-choice side are trying to have our state's law ruler that no women can have an abortion here in the republic, where-as the pro-choice side are trying to have our state's law rule that women can have the choice of an abortion if they meet certain standards (time-limitations, health) and are in need of one.

antiskeptic has used the term "worldview" to describe both mine and his/her viewpoints in this debate. That attitude seem's to be turned on it's head by this response to Koth (top of this page).... Originally Posted by koth
Is it not better to allow people to live by their own worldview?
antiskeptic replied: That's called anarchy

antiskeptic

koth wrote: »

Afraid not. Allowing people to make their own decisions regarding abortion is not anarchy. It makes for a nice soundbite but it's devoid of merit.

Sorry, I thought you meant allowing people to live by their own worldview on all matters.

Since the State very frequently doesn't allow people to live according to their own worldview on a whole host of matters, then each instance need be examined on it's own merit.

In this instance, I don't see an issue with the State not permitting each to their own.

Well considering that there are no agreed beginnings of personhood that doesn't hold up. You're painting a picture that every pregnant woman agrees with your POV on when a person begins to exist.

It doesn't matter that they don't agree since there is no intrinsic need that all agree before a certain worldview is imposed on all.

No, it's not. Repeating it won't make it any truer I'm afraid. Allowing for people to choose will not require anti-abortion people to abort their child. Only in that situation would your statement about imposing a worldview be true.

Their imposing their worldview on the child. And the way around that is to pronounce the child not a child.

antiskeptic

pauldla wrote: »

You may call it anarchy. Others, myself included, might prefer to call it ‘people living out their own lives to their own lights, free from the tyranny of a mish-mash of Iron Age belief systems’.

I was mistaken in calling it anarchy since Koth wasn't suggesting that all be able to live out their own worldviews on all matters.

You don't think the beliefs of this age won't be viewed as prehistoric at some point?

antiskeptic

aloyisious wrote: »

It seem's to me that the anti-choice side are trying to have our state's law ruler that no women can have an abortion here in the republic, where-as the pro-choice side are trying to have our state's law rule that women can have the choice of an abortion if they meet certain standards (time-limitations, health) and are in need of one.

Where the term 'in need of one' is a realtive term.

antiskeptic has used the term "worldview" to describe both mine and his/her viewpoints in this debate.

For that is what they are.

That attitude seem's to be turned on it's head by this response to Koth (top of this page)....Originally Posted by koth
Is it not better to allow people to live by their own worldview?
antiskeptic replied: That's called anarchy

See my comment on this to Koth.

There isn't any particular issue with certain worldviews on certain subjects being constrained from expression by the State. So if deciding it better that a worldview be free to express, you'd want an argument - not a general appeal to libertarianism

Stupify

In the case where both a man and a woman consent to have sex and a child conceived, by accident or not, then they have a responsibility to that child and must accept the risks associated with pregnancy. They accepted by consenting.

Where a woman is raped and a child conceived then responsibility has been forced on her. Since she did not consent she should be allowed remove the child from her body.

An analogy was used earlier in the thread with forced transplants and how if you subscribe to forcing the mother to keep the child in a rape case it is equivalent to forcing someone to give up a kidney for someone in need.

Virgil°

Stupify wrote: »

, then they have a responsibility to that child and must accept the risks associated with pregnancy

Why?

Sarky

Virgil° wrote: »

Why?

Because people who don't get enough sex like to gloat when unpleasant things happen to people who do?

Mark Hamill

antiskeptic wrote: »

It's not that I don't care, it's that I accept my ability to constrain the advance of sin has limits.

Except your limits can easily extend to not allowing people to get abortions abroad, in a similar way to the uk not allowing people get assisted suicide abroad (by threatening to punish those who travel with them, upon their return). I gather you think low enough of other people to think they will fall for your word play, but do you really think so little of your own god?

Also, why do you think its your job to constrain others from sinning?

Stupify

Virgil° wrote: »

Why?

They accepted when consenting to the sexual act that there was a possibility however unlikely that pregnancy could occur.

Thats why it should be the case that they are forced to accept that responsibility.

Stupify

Sarky wrote: »

Because people who don't get enough sex like to gloat when unpleasant things happen to people who do?

That could indeed be the case for alot of people who oppose abortion.

MagicMarker

Stupify wrote: »

In the case where both a man and a woman consent to have sex and a child conceived, by accident or not, then they have a responsibility to that child and must accept the risks associated with pregnancy. They accepted by consenting.

Where a woman is raped and a child conceived then responsibility has been forced on her. Since she did not consent she should be allowed remove the child from her body.

If I crash my car should medical treatment be withheld because I accepted the risks associated with driving in the first place?

Apt username tbh.

Bannasidhe

Stupify wrote: »

They accepted when consenting to the sexual act that there was a possibility however unlikely that pregnancy could occur.

Thats why it should be the case that they are forced to accept that responsibility.

I disagree. A woman has a 'responsibility' ONLY when she consents to being pregnant.

Stupify

MagicMarker wrote: »

If I crash my car should medical treatment be withheld because I accepted the risks associated with driving in the first place?

Apt username tbh.

That analogy doesn't overlap well.

Medical treatment is not being withheld in the case of the pregnant woman, abortion will be performed if the life of the mother is at risk.

Stupify

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I disagree. A woman has a 'responsibility' ONLY when she consents to being pregnant.

Thats fine. I can see where you would come to that view, a woman and a man who engaged in sex but took all reasonable percautions.

I'am arguing from a standpoint that antiskeptic might agree with.

Stark

Stupify wrote: »

That analogy doesn't overlap well.

Medical treatment is not being withheld in the case of the pregnant woman, abortion will be performed if the life of the mother is at risk.

That is not at all clear and there's a vocal minority of scum who will stop at nothing to make sure it remains unclear citing fallacies such as "slippery slope to abortion on demand" despite such things being impossible due to our constitution.

MagicMarker

Stupify wrote: »

That analogy doesn't overlap well.

Medical treatment is not being withheld in the case of the pregnant woman, abortion will be performed if the life of the mother is at risk.

If a woman wants an abortion and she's told no, then she's being denied medical treatment.

Stupify

Stark wrote: »

That is not at all clear and there's a vocal minority of scum who will stop at nothing to make sure it remains unclear citing fallacies such as "slippery slope to abortion on demand" despite such things being impossible due to our constitution.

Absolutely, people are dragging their heels on the issue.

Mark Hamill

antiskeptic wrote: »

There is a difference between telling someone they can't have an abortion and telling them you're not going to provide one.

Not when its a government telling the person that abortions wont be provided, and that they risk prison for having one.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Semantics isn't always a dirty word

Is that what you are going to tell your god when you die?

antiskeptic wrote: »

Of course not. Some women might commit suicide

And some women won't

You are saying that as if its an acceptable outcome! Women will either accept the counselling, or they kill themselves, job done for you? Is that how it goes?

antiskeptic wrote: »

...


...

"..." isn't even weaselling out of an argument, is the text based version of going slack jawed and cross eyed. Are you going to answer the questions or not?I'll list again, to safe you looking for them:
1)How much of a chance do you think women have of being counselled into accepting their pregnancy after rape?
2)Would you accept being forced to give half your liver to a person in need, because there is a chance you will overcome it?
3)You advocate the sin abortion in circumstances where you can call it something else, how stupid do you think your god is?


What do you think your god would do to you if you answered him with semantics, weaselling and "..."?

Stupify

MagicMarker wrote: »

If a woman wants an abortion and she's told no, then she's being denied medical treatment.

Medical treatment for what illness? Pregnancy can kill but in that case an abortion would be done.

I'm trying to argue from the view that its a child with rights here.

DB21

antiskeptic wrote: »

You're running out of road.




My tomato plant is alive. Biological fact.

Fair enough. In that case, how comfortable are you eating the fruit of said plant? Because if it's alive, by your point of view, it has feeling. So you're okay with maiming and torturing a plant that has done nothing except bear it's young? You then rip those you fruits from their mother plant, and further mutilate them. Not very pro-life actions. Those poor plants





Of course, this is me being obtuse in return. Not everything that's alive has a nervous system.

MagicMarker

Stupify wrote: »

Medical treatment for what illness? Pregnancy can kill but in that case an abortion would be done.

I'm trying to argue from the view that its a child with rights here.

You don't need to have an illness to have medical treatment.

Also, why does a child have rights in a case of two consenting adults but the child has no rights when the adult is not consenting?

Mark Hamill

antiskeptic wrote: »

You want to impose your worldview as State law.

The fact that my worldview 'imposes' itself on all isn't really an issue since all sorts are imposed by the State irrespective of the worldview of the folk on whom it's imposed.

It is an issue, because your worldview is unequal to our worldview, in this context. Your worldview is that your worldview must be enforced on everyone. Our worldview is that people should be given the choice to live according to their own worldview (up to the point where they effect someone else). Our worldview allows for your worldview (somewhat restricted) while your worldview doesn't allow for any other at all.
To put it mathematically:

Your worldview = Your worldview
Our worldview = Your worldview(0.99) + everyone else's worldview

=> Our worldview > Your worldview

Lingua Franca

MagicMarker wrote: »

If I crash my car should medical treatment be withheld because I accepted the risks associated with driving in the first place?

Apt username tbh.

Someone actually said that in another thread.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=81192813&postcount=32

You knew the risks, you accept responsibility. :rolleyes:

Edit: Don't know why you thanked this, Stupify, it's a ridiculous assertion.

antiskeptic

Mark Hamill wrote: »

It is an issue, because your worldview is unequal to our worldview, in this context. Your worldview is that your worldview must be enforced on everyone. Our worldview is that people should be given the choice to live according to their own worldview (up to the point where they effect someone else)...

In my worldview you are affecting someone else. And so, according to your worldview, I shouldn't grant choice.

Stupify

MagicMarker wrote: »

You don't need to have an illness to have medical treatment.

Also, why does a child have rights in a case of two consenting adults but the child has no rights when the adult is not consenting?

I'm giving the child rights in both cases. In the rape case there was no consent; woman cannot be held accountable for the child. Child doesn't have a right to womans body without consent.

In the case of two consenting adults, pregnancy is a risk and if it happens child has been given consent to use womans body.

She can still recieve medical treatment.

Mark Hamill

Stupify wrote: »

They accepted when consenting to the sexual act that there was a possibility however unlikely that pregnancy could occur.

Thats why it should be the case that they are forced to accept that responsibility.

When people drive their cars, they accept (on some level) that there is a chance they might run someone over. So they drive safely, at responsible speeds, taking heed of road signs and traffic lights and being on the look out for pedestrians. But if an accident occurs on the way to the shops, does that mean they should be treated as if they went out and drove at the first person they saw?

Why is having an abortion, at as early a time as possible, not a responsible thing to do, for someone who doesn't want to be pregnant?

Stupify

Mark Hamill wrote: »

When people drive their cars, they accept (on some level) that there is a chance they might run someone over. So they drive safely, at responsible speeds, taking heed of road signs and traffic lights and being on the look out for pedestrians. But if an accident occurs on the way to the shops, does that mean they should be treated as if they went out and drove at the first person they saw?

Why is having an abortion, at as early a time as possible, not a responsible thing to do, for someone who doesn't want to be pregnant?

But the person in the car crash case can't run over someone if they were following all the rules of the road and so was the pedestrian. An accident always has a cause and the cause of the accident takes responsibility.

In the case where the cause was a broken condom, the two consenting adults knew that was a risk.

antiskeptic

Stupify wrote: »

In the case where both a man and a woman consent to have sex and a child conceived, by accident or not, then they have a responsibility to that child and must accept the risks associated with pregnancy. They accepted by consenting.

Where a woman is raped and a child conceived then responsibility has been forced on her. Since she did not consent she should be allowed remove the child from her body.

Whilst I can see the distinction between the cases, I don't see an argument which trumps the right to life. It's not that there is nothing in what you say: it's just that nothing is offered to trump the right to life once that life has been established.

An analogy was used earlier in the thread with forced transplants and how if you subscribe to forcing the mother to keep the child in a rape case it is equivalent to forcing someone to give up a kidney for someone in need.

There is a difference between the right not to have someone kill you and the right that you be offered life saving treatment.