Abortion/ *Note* Thread Closing Shortly! ! !

robindch

Folks, I know it's Monday morning here on boards, but please don't let that get in the way of being polite.

kthxbye.

PopePalpatine

Have any non-subscribed users noticed "pro-life pledge" ads when browsing this subforum?

robindch

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Have any non-subscribed users noticed "pro-life pledge" ads when browsing this subforum?

Not when using AdBlock, no

lazygal

robindch wrote: »

Not when using AdBlock, no

What is this AdBlock of which you speak? Sounds heathenish.

The Mad Hatter

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Have any non-subscribed users noticed "pro-life pledge" ads when browsing this subforum?

I got one advertising an Ayn Rand/Objectivism website when browsing "that" thread.

Bannasidhe

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

I got one advertising an Ayn Rand/Objectivism website when browsing "that" thread.

:eek:

PopePalpatine

robindch wrote: »

Not when using AdBlock, no

Sometimes I use the phone site.

robindch

lazygal wrote: »

What is this AdBlock of which you speak? Sounds heathenish.

https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/adblock/gighmmpiobklfepjocnamgkkbiglidom?hl=en (Chrome)
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/adblock-plus/ (Firefox)

I'm sure there's an IE version too.

Galvasean

I prefer not to block ads. Right now I'm looking at an ad for adverts.ie -ads advertising ads. Now that's po-mo'!

Nodin

OldNotWIse wrote: »

What is it if its not yet alive and not dead?

Schrodingers Babby?

OldNotWIse

lazygal wrote: »

I'm not going to engage with this. I don't think I'm being ridiculous. I never suggested unwanted foetuses be implanted in others. I don't know why you're reading things that into my posts that aren't there.

Sorry, what you actually said was, "Would you be willing to protect the beautiful life of a born person by being hooked up to him or her for months to help him or her stay alive?"

I did not say you were ridiculous, I said your questions were ridiculous, the above being no exception. Of what value is rhetoric or hypothetical situations when discussing something so...real.

So long.

Turtwig

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Sorry, what you actually said was, "Would you be willing to protect the beautiful life of a born person by being hooked up to him or her for months to help him or her stay alive?"

I did not say you were ridiculous, I said your questions were ridiculous, the above being no exception. Of what value is rhetoric or hypothetical situations when discussing something so...real.

So long.

The point of the above question was to explore the uniqueness of the pregnancy situation. There's no other situation like it on the this planet and when someone isn't understanding your point, then you try to invoke analogous situations. Nowhere else in our society is nobody forced by law to compromise their bodily integrity and health to keep another person alive. The question above was an appeal to empathy : If someone is willing to force another person through pregnancy are they equally willing to let someone else force them through a pregnancy like situation? If not, then why is their hypocrisy acceptable? There may be a reason why it is, but unless you explore the question then no reason may ever come to light.

The value of hypothetical analogies when discussing real-life situations is that they allow the people involved in a dialectic to explore and better understand the underlying logic and reasoning behind such situations.

One of the better pro-choice arguments I ever read was written almost entirely as an analogy.

OldNotWIse

Jernal wrote: »

The point of the above question was to explore the uniqueness of the pregnancy situation. There's no other situation like it on the this planet and when someone isn't understanding your point, then you try to invoke analogous situations. Nowhere else in our society is nobody forced by law to compromise their bodily integrity and health to keep another person alive. The question above was an appeal to empathy : If someone is willing to force another person through pregnancy are they equally willing to let someone else force them through a pregnancy like situation? If not, then why is their hypocrisy acceptable? There may be a reason why it is, but unless you explore the question then no reason may ever come to light.

The value of hypothetical analogies when discussing real-life situations is that they allow the people involved in a dialectic to explore and better understand the underlying logic and reasoning behind such situations.

One of the better pro-choice arguments I ever read was written almost entirely as an analogy.

Are you suggesting that someone who is not pregnant or cannot become pregnant is somehow less qualified to have a say in the law?

Good luck with that one at the next referendum when you try to convince half the population that they are not allowed their constitutional right to vote because they cannot procreate.

The only "value" a hypothetical situation will bring to a factual discussion is to leave the "other side" without an argument because who can realistically agree to house 100,000 foetuses in their body? If you cant you lose and that makes abortion ok

Stark

To put it another way, a family member is desperately in need of an organ donation which you can provide. The risk to your life and health is relatively low but you don't want to go through with it because the thought of surgery or scars or potential future complications terrifies you. Now a lot of people would consider it morally wrong to refuse the donation, however allowing the State the power to forcibly confiscate the organ from you is a power most people would refuse to grant the State knowing that it's a situation they themselves could potentially find themselves in and knowing the potential for tragic cases when the State inevitably gets it wrong. With pregnancy though, it only affects women of child bearing age so it's easier for people outside of that group to take a hard line stance.

Turtwig

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Are you suggesting that someone who is not pregnant or cannot become pregnant is somehow less qualified to have a say in the law?

No. I'm saying that pregnancy is such a unique situation that when it comes to discussing the ethics of it analogies are actually quite helpful.

OldNotWIse

Stark wrote: »

To put it another way, a family member is desperately in need of an organ donation which you can provide. The risk to your life and health is relatively low but you don't want to go through with it because the thought of surgery or scars or potential future complications terrifies you. Now a lot of people would consider it morally wrong to refuse the donation, however allowing the State the power to forcibly confiscate the organ from you is a power most people would refuse to grant the State knowing that it's a situation they themselves could potentially find themselves in and knowing the potential for tragic cases when the State inevitably gets it wrong. With pregnancy though, it only affects women of child bearing age so it's easier for people outside of that group to take a hard line stance.

I still dont get why you need to "put it another way" though. Is the argument for abortion not enough on its own? Why the need to constantly substantiate it with hypothetical situations all the time? We've moved from housing dead foetuses to live foetuses, to being linked to someone else to save their life, to adopting disabled children and now this - being forced to donate an organ to a loved one. Surely if abortion is so ok then it should (excuse me) speak for itself?

marienbad

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Are you suggesting that someone who is not pregnant or cannot become pregnant is somehow less qualified to have a say in the law?

Good luck with that one at the next referendum when you try to convince half the population that they are not allowed their constitutional right to vote because they cannot procreate.

The only "value" a hypothetical situation will bring to a factual discussion is to leave the "other side" without an argument because who can realistically agree to house 100,000 foetuses in their body? If you cant you lose and that makes abortion ok

I don't think Jernal is suggesting that ( and I suspect neither do you) , but in areas such as this does it not make you slightly uncomfortable that the most numerous and vociferous opponents of any abortion measure are , in the main , middle age men ? And a lot of them celibate to boot !

As that is the case is it not unreasonable to take into account the experience of those that are directly affected by this issue before casting a vote .

We do so in most other areas of life .

OldNotWIse

marienbad wrote: »

I don't think Jernal is suggesting that ( and I suspect neither do you) , but in areas such as this does it not make you slightly uncomfortable that the most numerous and vociferous opponents of any abortion measure are , in the main , middle age men ? And a lot of them celibate to boot !

As that is the case is it not unreasonable to take into account the experience of those that are directly affected by this issue before casting a vote .

We do so in most other areas of life .

I'll forgive the cheap jibe in bold.

With regards to taking into account those involved, of course that matters...which is why we also have pro life people because they see that there is an unborn child involved too.

I am not advocating ignoring the needs of those directly affected, I simply have issue with the fact that every time you utter a pro life word on boards, the same old line about directly affecting child bearing women is trotted out and it is an attempt to detract from whatever argument you might be making. I am not a middle aged man and I am pro life. I am a woman of childbearing years. Then again the fact that I am gay woman of childbearing years would probably be enough for the pro choicers to tell me I will never have an unwanted pregnancy because of my sexual orientation. (Though my having to take the MAP twice reminds me that life is not this black and white.)

Stark

OldNotWIse wrote: »

I still dont get why you need to "put it another way" though. Is the argument for abortion not enough on its own? Why the need to constantly substantiate it with hypothetical situations all the time? We've moved from housing dead foetuses to live foetuses, to being linked to someone else to save their life, to adopting disabled children and now this - being forced to donate an organ to a loved one. Surely if abortion is so ok then it should (excuse me) speak for itself?

Because the pro-life argument often consists of "suck it up, love".

OldNotWIse

Stark wrote: »

Because the pro-life argument often consists of "suck it up, love".

This post makes no sense to me. Its neither an answer to my question or a sensical standalone statement.

marienbad

OldNotWIse wrote: »

I'll forgive the cheap jibe in bold.

With regards to taking into account those involved, of course that matters...which is why we also have pro life people because they see that there is an unborn child involved too.

I am not advocating ignoring the needs of those directly affected, I simply have issue with the fact that every time you utter a pro life word on boards, the same old line about directly affecting child bearing women is trotted out and it is an attempt to detract from whatever argument you might be making. I am not a middle aged man and I am pro life. I am a woman of childbearing years. Then again the fact that I am gay woman of childbearing years would probably be enough for the pro choicers to tell me I will never have an unwanted pregnancy because of my sexual orientation. (Though my having to take the MAP twice reminds me that life is not this black and white.)

Ok, if you want to play it at this level so be it-my comment was not ''a cheap jibe'' as you called it but an honest observation based on my readings of your posts across a number of treads where you come across as a reasonable person . In my opinion you were this time misconstruing Jernals post and deliberately so.

Further - it is somewhat contradictory to say I forgive the supposed offence and still comment about it. But enough of the bitching.

I have followed these treads for quite some time and your notion that the women of child bearing age are over represented is just not the case. In fact the reverse is true - we get very few posts from people who could or have been through this terrible dilemma. And that is a telling enough stat .

As for being prolife - everyone is prolife . It is the easy position to take.
Personally I am against abortion but I believe that is a decision for each and every one of us to make for ourselves , so I am also prochoice.

OldNotWIse

marienbad wrote: »

Ok, if you want to play it at this level so be it-my comment was not ''a cheap jibe'' as you called it but an honest observation based on my readings of your posts across a number of treads where you come across as a reasonable person . In my opinion you were this time misconstruing Jernals post and deliberately so.

Further - it is somewhat contradictory to say I forgive the supposed offence and still comment about it. But enough of the bitching.

I have followed these treads for quite some time and your notion that the women of child bearing age are over represented is just not the case. In fact the reverse is true - we get very few posts from people who could or have been through this terrible dilemma. And that is a telling enough stat .

As for being prolife - everyone is prolife . It is the easy position to take.
Personally I am against abortion but I believe that is a decision for each and every one of us to make for ourselves , so I am also prochoice.

1. I am not "playing"
2. It's a little weird to be tracking people across threads
3. I never stated that women of child bearing age were "over represented"
4. I am not pro life because it is easy
5. I dont find it easy being pro life, being constantly attacked and ridiculed by pro choicers.
6. I had to comment on the comment to demonstrate my forgiveness - otherwise how would you know which one I was forgiving? Perhaps you thought I said "ignore" rather than "forgive" - in which case commenting would be daft, I agree

Brian Shanahan

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

I got one advertising an Ayn Rand/Objectivism website when browsing "that" thread.

I got one for one of those nut-job American "give us all your money and we'll cure your lumbago through the power of Jeebus" churchesscams, when reading the Hazards of Belief thread.

Kind of reinforces its point really.

kylith

OldNotWIse wrote: »

This post makes no sense to me. Its neither an answer to my question or a sensical standalone statement.

The reason the analogies are useful is because the Anti-choice side is so very blind to the nuances of the issue. It's not as simple as 'you got pregnant, have the baby', as some would have you believe. We do have women dealing with carrying dead foetuses. We do have women who know that their baby will die within a short time of birth, and who don't want to, and shouldn't have to, carry it to term knowing it will die.

The analogy to organ donation is a good one, I think. A pregnant woman is effectively donating her organs to the foetus for the eight months or so it takes to develop its own. She takes care of the respiration and the excretion, and provides nourishment. There is no-one that would insist that someone donate their organs to an adult in a similar way if they were unwilling to so. So why should a woman, who doesn't wish to, be expected to donate the use of these organs to a foetus simply because conception happened to occur?

OldNotWIse

kylith wrote: »

The reason the analogies are useful is because the Anti-choice side is so very blind to the nuances of the issue. It's not as simple as 'you got pregnant, have the baby', as some would have you believe. We do have women dealing with carrying dead foetuses. We do have women who know that their baby will die within a short time of birth, and who don't want to, and shouldn't have to, carry it to term knowing it will die.

The analogy to organ donation is a good one, I think. A pregnant woman is effectively donating her organs to the foetus for the eight months or so it takes to develop its own. She takes care of the respiration and the excretion, and provides nourishment. There is no-one that would insist that someone donate their organs to an adult in a similar way if they were unwilling to so. So why should a woman, who doesn't wish to, be expected to donate the use of these organs to a foetus simply because conception happened to occur?

I think you are over simplifying the pro life stance tbh. Yes there are nut jobs (but you get those on both sides of every argument in all walks of life) and tempting as it may be to pretend that these are the only people in opposition to you, it is simply not true. Most reasonable people do not wish to see any woman forced to continue with a pregnancy if her life is endangered or if the foetus is not compatible with life - indeed I have already posted a story about that here illustrating just how much such restrictions can affect and hurt a woman (and her partner).

ShooterSF

OldNotWIse wrote: »

I think you are over simplifying the pro life stance tbh. Yes there are nut jobs (but you get those on both sides of every argument in all walks of life) and tempting as it may be to pretend that these are the only people in opposition to you, it is simply not true. Most reasonable people do not wish to see any woman forced to continue with a pregnancy if her life is endangered or if the foetus is not compatible with life - indeed I have already posted a story about that here illustrating just how much such restrictions can affect and hurt a woman (and her partner).

Well in fairness to lazygal who proposed those analogies, she was talking to someone who held such nutty beliefs.

marienbad

OldNotWIse wrote: »

I think you are over simplifying the pro life stance tbh. Yes there are nut jobs (but you get those on both sides of every argument in all walks of life) and tempting as it may be to pretend that these are the only people in opposition to you, it is simply not true. Most reasonable people do not wish to see any woman forced to continue with a pregnancy if her life is endangered or if the foetus is not compatible with life - indeed I have already posted a story about that here illustrating just how much such restrictions can affect and hurt a woman (and her partner).

If as you say ''most reasonable people '' are as you describe then why do we have the ridiculous situation that now pertains and has done so for years ?

It is those reasonable people that have allowed this whole mess to descend into a false winner take all dichotomy of abortion on demand versus no exceptions whatsoever. And until those ''reasonable people'' distance themselves from the extremes nothing will change.

And to even attempt to make a case that prochoice people are demonised is just laughable and flies in the face of well orchestrated and well funded prolife campaigns of the last 30 years.

It is all well and good to detail hard luck stories but until you actually do something about it, it counts for little.

Brian Shanahan

OldNotWIse wrote: »

I think you are over simplifying the pro life stance tbh. Yes there are nut jobs (but you get those on both sides of every argument in all walks of life) and tempting as it may be to pretend that these are the only people in opposition to you, it is simply not true. Most reasonable people do not wish to see any woman forced to continue with a pregnancy if her life is endangered or if the foetus is not compatible with life - indeed I have already posted a story about that here illustrating just how much such restrictions can affect and hurt a woman (and her partner).

In all honesty you have to admit that the anti-abortion movement (I would never characterise such people as pro-life) is completely made up of nut-jobs.

The sensible people against abortion take the sensible position of not having abortions, yet not forcing others to follow the same path. They realise that the only choice is between legalising abortion and ensuring it is a safe medical procedure carried out by experts or criminalising it and having it performed in back alleys using coat hangers. And this is a view I have heard from quite a few people who would personally be against abortion.

OldNotWIse

marienbad wrote: »

If as you say ''most reasonable people '' are as you describe then why do we have the ridiculous situation that now pertains and has done so for years ?

It is those reasonable people that have allowed this whole mess to descend into a false winner take all dichotomy of abortion on demand versus no exceptions whatsoever. And until those ''reasonable people'' distance themselves from the extremes nothing will change.

And to even attempt to make a case that prochoice people are demonised is just laughable and flies in the face of well orchestrated and well funded prolife campaigns of the last 30 years.

It is all well and good to detail hard luck stories but until you actually do something about it, it counts for little.

What ridiculous situation are you talking about exactly?
The X case is being legislated for (albeit too late but I dont think anyone is challenging that).

OldNotWIse

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

In all honesty you have to admit that the anti-abortion movement (I would never characterise such people as pro-life) is completely made up of nut-jobs.

The sensible people against abortion take the sensible position of not having abortions, yet not forcing others to follow the same path. They realise that the only choice is between legalising abortion and ensuring it is a safe medical procedure carried out by experts or criminalising it and having it performed in back alleys using coat hangers. And this is a view I have heard from quite a few people who would personally be against abortion.

No, I do not have to accept that all pro life people are nut jobs.

Seriously? The back alley coat hanger argument? Thats like the pro choice equivalent of "God says its bold" hahaha