Abortion/ *Note* Thread Closing Shortly! ! !

antiskeptic

Jernal wrote: »

But she has been raped, she is pregnant and the law is requiring her to see that pregnancy through to its conclusion.

Incorrect. The law prohibiting abortions doesn't require her to see that pregnancy through. Not semantically. Not actually.

swampgas

antiskeptic wrote: »

Incorrect. The law prohibiting abortions doesn't require her to see that pregnancy through. Not semantically. Not actually.

Is that what you tell yourself to avoid taking responsibility for the fact that you are, actually, in practical terms, forcing a continued pregnancy on a woman? It's not very convincing.

Delirium

antiskeptic wrote: »

Incorrect. The law prohibiting abortions doesn't require her to see that pregnancy through. Not semantically. Not actually.

please explain how she can legally terminate a pregnancy if abortions are illegal.

Brown Bomber

smokingman wrote: »

With regard to something that was touched on in the earlier "obfuscation", I am of the opinion that some, if not many of the anti-choice gang actually do, genuinely think that pro-choice people want to make people have abortions.
I suppose it's easier to paint that side as "evil" and all that makey-uppy stuff used to demonize other human beings by absolutists, when they picture a pro-choice group pushing women into abortion clinics and performing the surgery themselves.

I personally think it's the institutionalized lack of personal responsibility that incites this view. If you can get to this heaven gaff by saying a few words in your head to get off the hook, surely this makes it easy for them to project their given absolutist morals to a situation without any real consideration of the actual complications, intricacies and repercussions in the first place.....sure say a prayer and everything resets. Although maybe the lack of personal responsibility makes real personal responsibility abhorrent/incomprehensible?

Funny you should say this. The same abortionist Dr Nathanson revealed these were the ideas that he and his co-abortion-lobbyists tried to generate in the public consciousness through deception and fabrications when they were actively trying to change US law.

THE SECOND KEY TACTIC WAS TO PLAY THE CATHOLIC CARD

We systematically vilified the Catholic Church and its "socially backward ideas" and picked on the Catholic hierarchy as the villain in opposing abortion. This theme was played endlessly. We fed the media such lies as "we all know that opposition to abortion comes from the hierarchy and not from most Catholics" and "Polls prove time and again that most Catholics want abortion law reform".

And the media drum-fired all this into the American people, persuading them that anyone opposing permissive abortion must be under the influence of the Catholic hierarchy and that Catholics in favour of abortion are enlightened and forward-looking. An inference of this tactic was that there were no non- Catholic groups opposing abortion. The fact that other Christian as well as non-Christian religions were {and still are) monolithically opposed to abortion was constantly suppressed, along with pro-life atheists' opinions

.

shruikan2553

Not sure if it has been mentioned but YD on Facebook are claiming 60,000 people turned out today and they are very proud they outnumbered the pro choice group at a pro life rally so obviously means that they are the majority in Ireland. A KKK meeting had more KKK supporters than non supporters. Guess they must be the majority too.

antiskeptic

swampgas wrote: »

Is that what you tell yourself to avoid taking responsibility for the fact that you are, actually, in practical terms, forcing a continued pregnancy on a woman? It's not very convincing.

This discussion stems from the the viewpoint (my viewpoint) that the pro-choice side use legitimate argument. The law doesn't force a woman to continue in her pregnancy. Not even practically - unless the woman is utterly impractical.

marienbad

antiskeptic wrote: »

This discussion stems from the the viewpoint (my viewpoint) that the pro-choice side use legitimate argument. The law doesn't force a woman to continue in her pregnancy. Not even practically - unless the woman is utterly impractical.

so what happens if she has an illegal abortion ?

antiskeptic

shruikan2553 wrote: »

Not sure if it has been mentioned but YD on Facebook are claiming 60,000 people turned out today and they are very proud they outnumbered the pro choice group at a pro life rally so obviously means that they are the majority in Ireland.

I'd suspect little was made of the imbalance since it was a pro-life rally.

I also suspect that a point of importance might be that the protest outnumbered anything the pro-choice movement managed to stir up anywhere along the line. Did the pro-choice movement do anything in fact? I'm not a news hound but I don't recall hearing much of anything in that direction.

Enda the day, 30, 40, 50 or 60 thousand people turning out has a significance. Made more especially so if no one turns up for the opposite. Whether that makes a difference to what has been a sorry excuse of a (government issued) case for abortion is neither here nor there.

Brown Bomber

Corkfeen wrote: »

Eh, you could read the links which I provided that detail the issues. But I'll detail it sure....

• He shows late term stillbirths etc but implies that it is equivalant of a 12 week abortion
• Low resolution cameras are used so a narrative of pain and anguish is easier to create, obstreticians struggled to reach same conclusions as narrator
• A twelve or fourteen week foetus is not capable of feeling pain
• Fetal movements are portrayed as pain when it's more of a reflex.
• It's an emotive piece that doesn't rely on any actual facts. There is no silent scream or anything of the sort....

I don't doubt that there are elements of propaganda but I've just watched the film and I don't believe any mention of foetal pain is made.

It does raise an interesting point though. Are you against abortion when the foetus can feel pain, which I believe is apx 20 weeks?

antiskeptic

marienbad wrote: »

so what happens if she has an illegal abortion ?

Is an abortion in England illegal? If so, then I imagine, legally speaking, not a thing.

smokingman

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Funny you should say this. The same abortionist Dr Nathanson revealed these were the ideas that he and his co-abortion-lobbyists tried to generate in the public consciousness through deception and fabrications when they were actively trying to change US law.

.

I'm not picking on the catholics here, this "I just say a few words and my god loves and forgives me" rubbish is common across multiple religions.

swampgas

antiskeptic wrote: »

This discussion stems from the the viewpoint (my viewpoint) that the pro-choice side use legitimate argument. The law doesn't force a woman to continue in her pregnancy. Not even practically - unless the woman is utterly impractical.

So effectively the law forces a woman to leave the state, and seek treatment elsewhere. That assumes a woman is able to travel. She may not be able to. Why should she have to anyway?
The state is failing to provide a treatment which is obviously acceptable to you provided it happens to be done a few miles up the road, so to speak.

Brown Bomber

smokingman wrote: »

I'm not picking on the catholics here, this "I just say a few words and my god loves and forgives me" rubbish is common across multiple religions.

Yeah, fair enough. I think I picked you up wrong anyway. I thought, wrongly as it turns out that you were framing the debate as a religious vs non-religious one. Apologies.

marienbad

antiskeptic wrote: »

Is an abortion in England illegal? If so, then I imagine, legally speaking, not a thing.

So you are just having a semantic argument then, she is ''forced'' to go to England is she not ?

Nodin

antiskeptic wrote: »

Which still doesn't force a woman to carry the child. I'm afraid.

...yes, it does, with penalties should she procure an "abortion pill" to end it herself.

antiskeptic

swampgas wrote: »

So effectively the law forces a woman to leave the state, and seek treatment elsewhere.

The woman is going to have to travel for an abortion come what may since there are no plans to deliver the service to her home.

he state is failing to provide a treatment which is obviously acceptable to you provided it happens to be done a few miles up the road, so to speak.

Abortion isn't acceptable to me in certain cases proposed by the current legislation. The discussion has to do with whether the law forces a woman to carry to term

And this is certainly does not. Slipping in the word "effectively" doesn't alter that fact.

antiskeptic

marienbad wrote: »

So you are just having a semantic argument then, she is ''forced'' to go to England is she not ?

Or "forced" to go to the nearest abortion centre in Ireland in the case the current legislation passes.

Seeing as folk are waving the magical semantic wand around.

Mark Hamill

antiskeptic wrote: »

Christian morality might motivate me to post but wasn't involved in the point.

Another from debating elementary skool: argue the position, not the person.

If christian morality motivated the post and it underlined the "logic" (the "logic" being sophistry and semantics used to justify torture) then me pointing it out is arguing the position.

Also its a bit rich for you to call on me to argue the position, not the person, when you use patronising and insulting terms yourself ("skool" :rolleyes:). But then again, hypocrisy is another worn attribute of christian morality.

marienbad

antiskeptic wrote: »

Or "forced" to go to the nearest abortion centre in Ireland in the case the current legislation passes.

Seeing as folk are waving the magical semantic wand around.

you have lost me at this stage, it seems opposition for opposition sake and completely divorced from the real world.

Flier

antiskeptic wrote: »

Or "forced" to go to the nearest abortion centre in Ireland in the case the current legislation passes.

Seeing as folk are waving the magical semantic wand around.

Do you even know what's in the bill or what it covers?
Termination of pregnancy as a result of rape isn't one of the senarios

Mark Hamill

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I can't speak for him but he has spoken for himself.

Thanks for the quote, but that doesn't answer Unforgettable _ Fire's question - it says that he thinks the science supports life beginning at contraception, but it doesn't explain what that science is.

swampgas

antiskeptic wrote: »

The woman is going to have to travel for an abortion come what may since there are no plans to deliver the service to her home.

There's a very big difference between travelling within your own country to avail of a service and being forced to leave the state to access a service that is illegal to access at home. I often travel from Cork to Dublin to see consultants, but it's all within the same medical system, and covered by my health insurance. I don't expect the consultant to drive to my house. And if a consultant was available in Cork, it wouldn't be illegal for me to see them either. What exactly is your point here???

Abortion isn't acceptable to me in certain cases proposed by the current legislation.

That's fine, but you're not exactly making a strong case for why anyone should agree with you.

The discussion has to do with whether the law forces a woman to carry to term. And this is certainly does not. Slipping in the word "effectively" doesn't alter that fact.

Hiding behind semantics and word play doesn't change the fact that effectively a woman will be forced to either (a) continue with the pregnancy (b) risk imprisonment by illegally obtaining pills from abroad (c) leave her home country to find humane treatment abroad.

"Effectively" means what happens in reality. In reality, the current Irish law does in fact force some women to continue with pregnancies that they would much rather they didn't. Nit-picking about semantics doesn't change that one bit.

Brown Bomber

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Thanks for the quote, but that doesn't answer Unforgettable _ Fire's question - it says that he thinks the science supports life beginning at contraception, but it doesn't explain what that science is.

That's correct.

I don't think it matters so much when abortions are carried out in the UK for example when the foetus can feel pain. Are you an advocate of abortions that cause pain to the foetus before it is killed off?

swampgas

Brown Bomber wrote: »

That's correct.

I don't think it matters so much when abortions are carried out in the UK for example when the foetus can feel pain. Are you an advocate of abortions that cause pain to the foetus before it is killed off?

If pain is an issue, then would simply delivering a massive dose of anaesthetic to the foetus during a termination make the issue of pain irrelevant?

Brown Bomber

swampgas wrote: »

If pain is an issue, then would simply delivering a massive dose of anaesthetic to the foetus during a termination make the issue of pain irrelevant?

How can you say "If pain is an issue"???

I'm not a doctor but I'd imagine "simply delivering a massive amount of anasthethic" would put the mother at serious risk.

swampgas

Brown Bomber wrote: »

How can you say "If pain is an issue"???

I'm not a doctor but I'd imagine "simply delivering a massive amount of anasthethic" would put the mother at serious risk.

I meant if foetal pain is an issue in the sense that one might argue that abortions should be denied after the point where a foetus can feel pain.

The point I failed to make was this - if abortion is considered wrong because a foetus is capable of feeling pain, then is an abortion okay if the foetus is safely anesthetised and feels nothing at all?

antiskeptic

Flier wrote: »

Do you even know what's in the bill or what it covers?
Termination of pregnancy as a result of rape isn't one of the senarios

Tell that to the one who introduced pregnancy-by-rape and to whom I was responding.

Brown Bomber

swampgas wrote: »

I meant if foetal pain is an issue in the sense that one might argue that abortions should be denied after the point where a foetus can feel pain.

That would be my position at least.

swampgas wrote: »

The point I failed to make was this - if abortion is considered wrong because a foetus is capable of feeling pain, then is an abortion okay if the foetus is safely anesthetised and feels nothing at all?

Right, it's a good point you make and something that I had considered. I looked into this some time ago when I was trying give myself some kind of informed opinion on abortion as I was anti-abortion and pro-choice at the same time and my understanding was that it is not possible to to provide the required amount to simultaneously ensure that the mother is not in danger and the foetus would feel no pain.

antiskeptic

Mark Hamill wrote: »

If christian morality motivated the post and it underlined the "logic" (the "logic" being sophistry and semantics used to justify torture) then me pointing it out is arguing the position.

There was no Christian morality underlining the point that the law doesn't force a woman to carry to term. That point stands all by itself. Are you able to appreciate the separation?

Also its a bit rich for you to call on me to argue the position, not the person, when you use patronising and insulting terms yourself ("skool" :rolleyes:). But then again, hypocrisy is another worn attribute of christian morality.

I was being patronising since you've been around long enough to know better.

swampgas

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Right, it's a good point you make and something that I had considered. I looked into this some time ago when I was trying give myself some kind of informed opinion on abortion as I was anti-abortion and pro-choice at the same time and my understanding was that it is not possible to to provide the required amount to simultaneously ensure that the mother is not in danger and the foetus would feel no pain.

Even if it can be shown that a foetus experiences some (short-lived) pain, a pregnant woman will expect to experience what is arguably much greater pain and for much longer, if she has to give birth.

Arguing for minimising pain is arguing in favour of abortion, in my opinion.