Abortion

nozzferrahhtoo

Zulu wrote: »

That's nice, feel free to do this at any point.

I have been doing so. Your not seeing it or not understanding it is not synonymous with me not having done it.

Zulu wrote: »

Why would you seek to silence someones opinion? ...other than being simply rude, of course.

Not aware that I was doing any such thing so lets not put words in my mouth. In fact I want to hear MORE of his opinions and the basis for them.

I was however giving him a gentlemanly heads up that if one really cares about position X then soap boxing position X and running away and copping out when asked to substantiate it is likely to do their own position more harm than good. It makes it look weak, unsubstantiated and useless.

I thought it polite to point that out, but by no means do I want to silence anyone. In fact making the position look weak, unsubstantiated and useless if A-OK with me because that is exactly what I feel it is.

Zulu wrote: »

So you either value animal life on a parity with human life (similarly to vegans) or you have an equal lack of respect for human life as you do animals?

If you say so. I did not however, and I am not about to discuss a position I did not espouse.

Zulu wrote: »

Sadly, your attempts to discredit the poster by claiming they are hypocritical with respect to "life" (animal v human) doesn't hold up.

If a person claims they are defending something because "it is a life" then it is worth pointing out that unless they apply that across the board then clearly there is more to their position than they are telling us.

Rather than discrediting him or proving him wrong or whatever other notion you have just taken a disliking to, what I am trying to do is show that whatever his position actually is... it is more than he has thus far articulated.

Malari

Zulu wrote: »

I understand that.

Is there a reason you've deliberately avoided my salient point?

What point?

nozzferrahhtoo

cynder wrote: »

That they would go off and eat a nice burger, lamb? venison? veal? But still you wont find the above in my house.

What has your house got to do with the kids you imagined? You brought the kids into this, not me. You imagine they would not damage spawn because of their subjective love for frogs. I am just pointing out that this is not a useful basis for suggesting anything about abortion. Especially given the lack of internal coherence to the position of those children.... who would happily chow down on baby sheep and deer.

I repeat though, if you want to base your adult moral opinions on abortion in the imagined actions of children then perhaps this explains much.

cynder wrote: »

Down to abortion though, it feels wrong

Many things feel wrong to me too. So I simply do not engage in them. However there is a chasm of difference between something being wrong for me, and me espousing that it should be considered wrong in and of itself. There is a divide there that I think we should be aware of.

If you live your life avoiding abortions because they are wrong to you then that is fine with me. I am not about to argue that you support them or have one. That is up to you.

However in a discussion forum we more often talk about things being wrong for other people. Wrong in and of themselves. Maybe even arguing that they should be illegal. As such I think if you come on to a forum espousing positions against abortion you should not be surprised if people want something a little more than "It feels wrong to me" or "Kids dont like to squish frog spawn" as an argument.

If you want to come on to a forum and simply say "I dont like abortion, its wrong to me" then that is fine. People still are going to respond against you however and there is no reason they should not. We can moan "It is my opinion, leave me alone" but it is a discussion forum and if you put your opinion out there, it is fair game. And if you really care about your positions then perhaps it is at least worth asking if you are representing them well, or letting them down, by soap boxing and then back peddling or moaning when people pull them apart.

Khannie

Malari wrote: »

And some of us value a pregnant woman's life above the life of an unwanted foetus.

That's really nothing to do with anything to be fair. We already have legal precedence that the life of the mother takes priority and either it will be legislated for or a referendum to alter the constitution that a majority agree on will come to pass. It's really got nothing to do with the abortion debate. We don't leave mothers to die while an ectopic pregnancy fires ahead.

Malari

Khannie wrote: »

That's really nothing to do with anything to be fair. We already have legal precedence that the life of the mother takes priority and either it will be legislated for or a referendum to alter the constitution that a majority agree on will come to pass. It's really got nothing to do with the abortion debate. We don't leave mothers to die while an ectopic pregnancy fires ahead.

I mean the woman's rights. The right to choose whether or not to continue the pregnancy.

Zulu

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Your not seeing it or not understanding it is not synonymous with me not having done it.

Similarly, you claiming to have done so is not synonymous to you actually having done so.

Not aware that I was doing any such thing so lets not put words in my mouth.

right, I must have misinterpreted:

nozzferrahhtoo wrote:

perhaps you would be better off saying nothing at all and not posting

My bad.

I was however giving him a gentlemanly heads up... ...makes it look weak, unsubstantiated and useless.

A gentleman would manage a less dismissive retort, as would a civil person seeking a polite conversation.

I thought it polite... ...making the position look weak, unsubstantiated and useless.

It appears that we not only differ on matters of abortion, but also the meaning of politeness.

Malari wrote: »

What point?

...that we value human life above other animal life. Really, you didn't get that?

Zulu

Malari wrote: »

I mean the woman's rights. The right to choose whether or not to continue the pregnancy.

But that wasn't what you said, is it.

Khannie

gozunda wrote: »

You do not know who was raped, drugged, was a victim of incest or someone whose own conraception failed - no one knows but them the real reasons therefore we cannot sit in judgement..

That's true, but I think it's fair to say that given the number of abortions you see in western countries (versus live births) we're not looking at a majority of abritions where people have been raped, drugged, was a victim of incest or someone whose properly used contraception failed. Not anything like it. One case I'm familar with involved a one night stand with no contraception. Another involved 4 abortions. Nobody's that unlucky tbh (yes it's statistically possible but let's all be realistic here). People definitely use it as a "ah sure it'll be grand and if it isn't sure we can have an abortion" method of contraception. Most contraception is highly effective. Condoms, properly used have around a 2% failure rate (from memory). If it was only 2% of live births, or even twice or 3 times that figure to allow for the horrible edge cases of rape or incest or whatever then I might consider allowing abortion on demand. That is so graphically _not_ the case when you look at the statistics.

Some will argue "sure it's available already" and to those I would say "only at a high degree of hassle....more hassle than putting on a condom". I would also say that just because another country allows it and that people can take advantage of that doesn't mean that we should give it the thumbs up here. We make our own decisions based on our own country, not someone elses.

Khannie

Zulu wrote: »

But that wasn't what you said, is it.

And then she corrected herself. That's the end of that really. We all makes mistakes.

Malari

Zulu wrote: »

...that we value human life above other animal life. Really, you didn't get that?

Em, yeah I got it. But I was making an additional point.

Zulu wrote: »

But that wasn't what you said, is it.

I meant her life is more important - and what she chooses to do with it.

Khannie

Malari wrote: »

I meant her life is more important - and what she chooses to do with it.

Ah, I think what you mean is her comfort, not her life then.

Zulu

Malari wrote: »

I meant her life is more important - and what she chooses to do with it.

Oh right. I get you. And I don't agree for reasons already pointed out: people are equal regardless of their age.

Malari

Khannie wrote: »

Ah, I think what you mean is her comfort, not her life then.

Zulu wrote: »

Well, it's not her "life" at stake. We aren't talking about life & death pregnancy.

No we are talking about her life. Her life is more important than the right to live of the unborn. What she chooses to do in her life! Am I not making myself clear?

cynder

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

What has your house got to do with the kids you imagined? You brought the kids into this, not me. You imagine they would not damage spawn because of their subjective love for frogs. I am just pointing out that this is not a useful basis for suggesting anything about abortion. Especially given the lack of internal coherence to the position of those children.... who would happily chow down on baby sheep and deer.

I repeat though, if you want to base your adult moral opinions on abortion in the imagined actions of children then perhaps this explains much.



Many things feel wrong to me too. So I simply do not engage in them. However there is a chasm of difference between something being wrong for me, and me espousing that it should be considered wrong in and of itself. There is a divide there that I think we should be aware of.

If you live your life avoiding abortions because they are wrong to you then that is fine with me. I am not about to argue that you support them or have one. That is up to you.

However in a discussion forum we more often talk about things being wrong for other people. Wrong in and of themselves. Maybe even arguing that they should be illegal. As such I think if you come on to a forum espousing positions against abortion you should not be surprised if people want something a little more than "It feels wrong to me" or "Kids dont like to squish frog spawn" as an argument.

If you want to come on to a forum and simply say "I dont like abortion, its wrong to me" then that is fine. People still are going to respond against you however and there is no reason they should not. We can moan "It is my opinion, leave me alone" but it is a discussion forum and if you put your opinion out there, it is fair game. And if you really care about your positions then perhaps it is at least worth asking if you are representing them well, or letting them down, by soap boxing and then back peddling or moaning when people pull them apart.

Im not here to change anyone's mind, i stated that i dont agree with abortion, for many different reasons.

Do i have to go through them all over again????

It will bring us back to the whole when is the unborn baby entitled to a life? After conception, Implantation, When it has a heart beat, When its viable 22-24 weeks or When its out of the womb and breathes air. That for each person is different.

Doesn't matter how many facts/figures/analogies/scientific terms are shoved in our faces, or how many times we twist what the other person says, out positions dont change.

Zulu

Malari wrote: »

No we are talking about her life. Her life is more important than the right to live of the unborn. What she chooses to do in her life! Am I not making myself clear?

Yeah, but I take it you don't agree with infanticide?
What I can't reconcile is, why doesn't this apply to "born" children?

Malari

Zulu wrote: »

Yeah, but I take it you don't agree with infanticide?
What I can't reconcile is, why doesn't this apply to "born" children?

Because once they are born the woman is no longer pregnant and her life isn't directly affected.

Khannie

Malari wrote: »

Because once they are born the woman is no longer pregnant and her life isn't directly affected.

You have to draw the line somewhere and give the unborn priority. I assume you wouldn't allow her to abort the child as she entered labour. Where do you draw the line and decide that the infant takes priority and why?

Zulu

Malari wrote: »

Because once they are born the woman is no longer pregnant and her life isn't directly affected.

Don't say that to parents!

Sure it is, the child is completely helpless. It requires constant attention.

nozzferrahhtoo

Zulu wrote: »

Similarly, you claiming to have done so is not synonymous to you actually having done so.

No, but my actually doing so is.

Zulu wrote: »

right, I must have misinterpreted: My bad.

You did, and it is. I hope my clarification helped you somewhat though. I will re-clarify it here however:

1) No I do not want to silence him. In fact I think it useful that he represents his position so weakly as it makes that position look bad which plays to me and my ends.
2) No I do not want to silence him. I am genuinely interested in hearing the arguments against abortion if people have any to present. Alas none appear to be forthcoming, much less from either of you.
3) And no I do not want to silence him. However I think it gentlemanly and honest to at least suggest to him he might be well to at least consider point 1). I am happy for him not to, but I consider it at least polite and honest to give him a heads up all the same.

nozzferrahhtoo

cynder wrote: »

Im not here to change anyone's mind, i stated that i dont agree with abortion, for many different reasons. Do i have to go through them all over again????

You do not _have_ to do anything of the sort and no one is suggesting you do. I am just suggesting that you might want to consider whether you do those positions more harm than good by soap boxing them but copping out of defending them with lines like " i cant produce any facts, its a personal belife, i dont wish to change anyones mind, its my view.". Does it not risk making some readers see that and think your position indefensible, weak and unsubstantiated?

Not trying to silence you as Zulu suggests, in fact I am HAPPY for you to make your position look indefensible, weak and unsubstantiated. I just thought you might appreciate the heads up as food for thought. If not then simply disregard what I said and move on. All the same to me really.

cynder wrote: »

It will bring us back to the whole when is the unborn baby entitled to a life? After conception, Implantation, When it has a heart beat, When its viable 22-24 weeks or When its out of the womb and breathes air. That for each person is different.

Indeed that is the crux of the entire debate in my view. And yet it does appear to be different for each person. That is why if we are going to have an open discourse on the subject it is worth presenting arguments for each position so we can all come to a conclusion together. That is why I was pointing out that coming here and saying "X is my position because it just is and I cant back it up" does not really help here.

cynder wrote: »

Doesn't matter how many facts/figures/analogies/scientific terms are shoved in our faces, or how many times we twist what the other person says, out positions dont change.

Speak for yourself. I change my positions whenever someone makes a good argument for doing so. If YOU want to admit you never change your positions despite the arguments and evidence presented to you then so be it. But do not presume to speak for anyone else when you do so. Many of us are more than willing to change our positions when the arguments and data compel us to do so!

Khannie

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I am genuinely interested in hearing the arguments against abortion if people have any to present. Alas none appear to be forthcoming, much less from either of you.

What a load of nonsense. Go back and read through the thread if you need to.

Malari

Zulu wrote: »

Don't say that to parents!

Sure it is, the child is completely helpless. It requires constant attention.

No, but you know what I'm saying! A woman who doesn't want to be pregnant - her rights, in my and other's opinion - trump the right of the unborn. So if she doesn't want to be pregnant why would she wait till labour to abort? That doesn't make any sense. Her pregnancy is over then.

cynder

LyndaMcL wrote: »

Any links to a medical journal, clarifying this? It completely over-rides what I was taught in college and what my GP told me when I questioned her.

http://humrep.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/11/8/1771

Heres one!


Quote

To assess early embryonic growth and development, 361
pregnancies were studied from 34 to 56 days from last
menstrual period. All pregnancies had a subsequent
successful outcome. Transvaginal ultrasonograpby was performed
using an Acuson 128 X P/10 with a 5-7.5 MHz
probe. Gestational sac diameter, embryonic pole length
and embryonic heart rates were measured. Embryonic
heart rates were determined by M-mode. Gestational sac
diameter, embryonic pole length and embryonic heart rate
increased linearly relative to gestational age and to each
other. Regression equations comparing gestational sac diameter
and embryonic pole length as well as comparing
embryonic heart rate with gestational sac diameter and
embryonic pole length were constructed. To be normal,
gestations that have (i) sac diameter of 20 mm and 30 mm
should contain at least a 2 mm and 5 mm embryo with
embryonic heart rates of at least 75 and 100 beats per min,
respectively; and (ii) embryos measuring 2 mm, 5 mm,
10 mm and 15 mm should display embryonic heart rates
of at least 75,100,120 and 130 beats per minute respectively

nozzferrahhtoo

Khannie wrote: »

What a load of nonsense. Go back and read through the thread if you need to.

Followed it since the start. Re-read not required. I have also taken the time to go off line and approach many people on the issue and been similarly disappointed.

For example the people who set up those stalls near Central Bank in Dublin with all the photos of developing and aborted fetuses. I sat down with a few of them there one day trying to get into their arguments. I exaggerate not at all when I tell you all they said to me was "Look at the pictures... have you seen the pictures.... but the pictures.....".

I was all ready to hear their side of the argument and the single thing they were capable of offering me was to wave photographs of a fetus under my nose.

Zulu

Malari wrote: »

A woman who doesn't want to be pregnant - her rights, in my and other's opinion - trump the right of the unborn.

I can't agree with this. To me it's tantamount to: "I don't want to be lumbered with caring for my parent suffering from dementia, so my right to a convenient life trumps their right to life." I can't agree with that.

So if she doesn't want to be pregnant why would she wait till labour to abort?

Why? Well the "why" is easy: because her childs life depends on it.

That doesn't make any sense.

To me, it make no sense not being able to recognise that.

cynder

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

You do not _have_ to do anything of the sort and no one is suggesting you do. !

Are you a doctor?

Lingua Franca

cynder wrote: »

Doesn't matter how many facts/figures/analogies/scientific terms are shoved in our faces, or how many times we twist what the other person says, out positions dont change.

Actually, mine did. Many years ago, in response to an internet forum thread almost like this one (it was an actual discussion with real arguments, not an anti choice soapbox full of vicious slurs and half baked thoughts).

nozzferrahhtoo

cynder wrote: »

Are you a doctor?

Not sure how my career is relevant to the conversation?

Malari

Zulu wrote: »

I can't agree with this. To me it's tantamount to: "I don't want to be lumbered with caring for my parent suffering from dementia, so my right to a convenient life trumps their right to life." I can't agree with that.

Well I get why you don't agree, but I don't think that's a fair analogy because you don't have any legal requirement to care for a parent with dementia. But I do think if you are unlucky enough to become pregnant despite using contraception appropriate your right to terminate is more important that the right of that foetus to live. I guess we'll never agree on that.

Zulu wrote: »

Why? Well the "why" is easy: because her childs life depends on it.
To me, it make no sense not being able to recognise that.

No, I'm asking if a woman doesn't want to be pregnant and wants to abort it will be done as quickly as possible - why are you asking about 9 month abortions? Why would she wait till that point if she wants an abortion. Your answer is "because her child's life depends on it?"

Zulu

Malari wrote: »

No, I'm asking if a woman doesn't want to be pregnant and wants to abort it will be done as quickly as possible - why are you asking about 9 month abortions?

No, I got that. I wasn't talking about 9 month abortions in that post.

cynder

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Not sure how my career is relevant to the conversation?

Just wondering if your point of view is from medical studies? or medical journals?

Did you do in depth research?

Zulu

Lingua Franca wrote: »

...an anti choice soapbox full of vicious slurs and half baked thoughts).

:rolleyes:
I think your post successfully proves that the slurs come from both sides.

nozzferrahhtoo

cynder wrote: »

Just wondering if your point of view is from medical studies? or medical journals? Did you do in depth research?

I have done and continue to do so. I have a great interest in human ethics, philosophy, morality, medicine, psychology, psychiatry and more. I would not use past tense about my research like you do. My research is continuous and on going and I try to read as many papers on the subject, and consider as many arguments and view points as I possibly can on the subject.

I consider none of my positions or opinions or knowledge "closed" on any subject and will happily change them at any time if new arguments or data I did not previously know / consider come to light.

I hope that answers your question?

Lingua Franca

Zulu wrote: »

:rolleyes:
I think your post successfully proves that the slurs come from both sides.

I never said they didn't.

What's your point?

Khannie

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Followed it since the start. Re-read not required. I have also taken the time to go off line and approach many people on the issue and been similarly disappointed.

For example the people who set up those stalls near Central Bank in Dublin with all the photos of developing and aborted fetuses. I sat down with a few of them there one day trying to get into their arguments. I exaggerate not at all when I tell you all they said to me was "Look at the pictures... have you seen the pictures.... but the pictures.....".

I was all ready to hear their side of the argument and the single thing they were capable of offering me was to wave photographs of a fetus under my nose.

These are weak arguments. I wouldn't be a big fan of any extremism in this debate or in general. I certainly wouldn't resort to waving pictures of foetuses at people. I think you're likely to get very poor or horrifically biased arguments from those at the fringe (i.e. people waving foetus pictures around or shouting from the rooftops about enforced pregnancy).

For me it is relatively simple:

Everyone agrees that there is a point during the pregnancy when the priority shifts to that of the life of the child, so let's look at that.

I think it's fair to say that not even the most extreme of those in favour of abortion on demand would argue that a woman should have the right to terminate up until term (i.e. just before birth) but nobody's crying for the sperm in the condom either (unless you're mental or very attached to your sperm). So we all agree that there's a line somewhere. To me any line that is drawn in other countries where abortion is legal is arbitrary in nature because it's based on time. 24 weeks? Seems very late to me - The child doesn't change that much between 24 and 40 weeks (birth), so why is it OK then but not at 39 weeks? 18 weeks? The child hasn't changed that much versus 24 weeks really. We had a "big" scan at 18 weeks and the level of development is impressive. Individual chambers in the heart, clearly discernible major organs, fully formed spine and so on. It's human to me / not that different when compared to a newborn.

So from this point I go back one day in time and I say "is this the day when an abortion should be ok?" "what is so fundamentally different today that criminal proceedings would occur versus one day later?" and the answer is, on most days "nothing". This is why time based arguments are poor IMO. Some days bring exceptional change - fertilisation, implantation, heart begins beating. I could understand arguments based around these times (while not necessarily agreeing with them), but they're all way, way earlier than anyone who is pro-choice would say is a reasonable cut off point for abortion.

Much like you, nobody has given me a good reason for allowing abortion up to 12 weeks, but not 11 weeks 6 days or 12 weeks and 1 day. I have yet to hear a good argument based on those date based lines in the sand that pro-choice people want to draw.

cynder

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I have done and continue to do so. I have a great interest in human ethics, philosophy, morality, medicine, psychology, psychiatry and more. I would not use past tense about my research like you do. My research is continuous and on going and I try to read as many papers on the subject, and consider as many arguments and view points as I possibly can on the subject.

I consider none of my positions or opinions or knowledge "closed" on any subject and will happily change them at any time if new arguments or data I did not previously know / consider come to light.

I hope that answers your question?

Just on abortion?
Is there more to life than just researching abortion and to what end?

You wouldn't even look at pictures of an aborted fetus, im not one for shoving pics into ones face, there are there to get an emotional response. did you have an emotional response? of course you did! did you look or did you push them away? pictures are research to! they are hard evidence! you must know the procedures so by rights you should want to see the end result to see if it matches up to the description given in the medical journals. morbid curiosity! Most journals are written without emotion, they are factual. It may have arms and legs and look human, yet is not? did your research include anything about the right to life of an unborn child? possible pain? what is the latest at which you would consider abortion ok and why?

robp

Did anyone see this Dublin declaraton?

N INTERNATIONAL symposium on maternal healthcare in Dublin at the weekend has concluded that abortion is never medically necessary to save the life of a mother.

Eamon O’Dwyer, professor emeritus of obstetrics and gynaecology at NUI Galway and a conference organiser, said its outcome would provide “clarity and confirmation” to doctors and legislators dealing with these issues.

The symposium was organised by the Committee for Excellence in Maternal Healthcare, chaired by Prof O’Dwyer. Other members of the committee include Dr John Monaghan, Dr John Greene and palliative care nurse specialist Sinéad Dennehy.

While many of the organisers have been involved in anti-abortion events in the past, a spokesman for the group, Dr Eoghan de Faoite, told The Irish Times the event was not linked in any way to the Pro-Life Campaign or any other organisation.

“All organisers were involved in their professional capacity and were not here to represent any pro-life position,” he said.

About 140 medical professionals were at the event, including experts in obstetrics and gynaecology, mental health and molecular biology. They presented new research on issues surrounding maternal healthcare, with a focus on high-risk pregnancies, cancer in pregnancy, foetal anomalies, mental health and maternal mortality.

Prof O’Dwyer and a panel of speakers also formally agreed a “Dublin declaration” on maternal healthcare. It stated: “As experienced practitioners and researchers in obstetrics and gynaecology, we affirm that direct abortion is not medically necessary to save the life of a woman.

“We uphold that there is a fundamental difference between abortion and necessary medical treatments that are carried out to save the life of the mother, even if such treatment results in the loss of life of her unborn child.

“We confirm that the prohibition of abortion does not affect, in any way, the availability of optimal care to pregnant women.”

In a statement, Prof O’Dwyer also said no treatment should ever be withheld from a woman if she needed it to save her life, even if that treatment resulted in the loss of life of her unborn child.

Its important but it doesn't seem to be getting the publicity it deserves. Especially compared to all the columns and editorials about why abortion is needed, written by typically jack of all trades journalists. Its sad when the people who actually know stuff get insufficient media attention.

nozzferrahhtoo

Khannie wrote: »

These are weak arguments. I wouldn't be a big fan of any extremism in this debate or in general. I certainly wouldn't resort to waving pictures of foetuses at people. I think you're likely to get very poor or horrifically biased arguments from those at the fringe (i.e. people waving foetus pictures around or shouting from the rooftops about enforced pregnancy).

I was afraid of that too but I thought I would at least give them the benefit of the doubt. I had hoped when I approached them that the pictures were there to draw people in and THEN they would hit them with the arguments and data and evidence and reasoning. So I approached them myself to find out.

But no, the pictures really is their whole point. No more, no less. I could literally get nothing out of any of them more than the pictures and their emotional response to the pictures.

Heart Bypass surgery is not pretty either. I wonder if I showed them pictures of how unpretty it is would they then rally against the procedure and its morality too? Caricature maybe I admit, but one I can be forgiven for drawing given how they operate those stalls.

Khannie wrote: »

nobody's crying for the sperm in the condom either

I always try when I write on forums to avoid the words "Nobody" and "everybody" because it is invariably wrong. In fact I have encountered quite a number of Catholics who very much do have an issue with sperm lost in condoms.

Khannie wrote: »

So from this point I go back one day in time and I say "is this the day when an abortion should be ok?" "what is so fundamentally different today that criminal proceedings would occur versus one day later?"

Indeed, I also wonder how useful this approach is given that day to day changes are so slight. It would be like trying to pick the point red becomes purple on a rainbow.

The issue is that legally we do need to draw a line in the sand. This "no True scotsman" approach can be used no matter what time frame you pick. 2 weeks, 20, 40, you can always ask "What about the day before/after that"??

So I would not reject time based conclusions entirely just because of that. None of them will be perfect and the only other option is an all or nothing approach of reject abortion entirely at any stage.... or allow it at any stage.

All we can do is pick the BEST time we can. For me I think that is around 16 weeks. Not only because I think there are strong arguments for this... but ALSO because it fits what the abortion seeking public actually _want_.

The reason I say that is due to these figures here which show that 88% of abortions occur before 12 weeks and well over 90 by 16 weeks. 58% of the remaining 12% say they wish they had it earlier too.

So while my arguments for 16 weeks are actually applicable to 20 I think it is overkill to fight for 20. 12-16 somewhere would be a sensible figure for me I think as it matches what the actual demand is and is also subjectively easier to defend against people who get antsy the higher the cut off limit goes.

nozzferrahhtoo

cynder wrote: »

Just on abortion?
Is there more to life than just researching abortion and to what end?

No. I am interested in those areas of study as a whole, not just applied to abortion.

cynder wrote: »

You wouldn't even look at pictures of an aborted fetus

Huh? When did I ever say that? You are making stuff up now. I have looked at many such pictures and still do on many an occasion.

cynder wrote: »

did you have an emotional response? of course you did!

Not really. I had my standard response to the sight of blood which many people have. Other than that I can think of no emotional response other than awe at the processes of nature and disappointment at the poor level of arguments being offered by anti abortion activists.

cynder wrote: »

possible pain? what is the latest at which you would consider abortion ok and why?

At the very latest I am technically ok with the 24 week cut off but at that point it starts to become somewhat unclear as to what, if any, subjective experience the fetus is capable of.

I tend to target 20 weeks as my upper cut off when I write about it. If I had to nail my colors to the mast and fight for something I would likely target 16 weeks as a happy medium.

As for pain, no at these stages I do not see any reason to think the fetus feels any. There are autonomic responses of course which anti abortion activists fall over themselves in their keenness to miscontrue as the fetus feeling pain, but other than that I am not aware of any reason to think they feel any before 20 weeks, let alone 16 or 12.

cynder

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

No. I am interested in those areas of study as a whole, not just applied to abortion.



Huh? When did I ever say that? You are making stuff up now. I have looked at many such pictures and still do on many an occasion.



Not really. I had my standard response to the sight of blood which many people have. Other than that I can think of no emotional response other than awe at the processes of nature and disappointment at the poor level of arguments being offered by anti abortion activists.



At the very latest I am technically ok with the 24 week cut off but at that point it starts to become somewhat unclear as to what, if any, subjective experience the fetus is capable of.

I tend to target 20 weeks as my upper cut off when I write about it. If I had to nail my colors to the mast and fight for something I would likely target 16 weeks as a happy medium.

As for pain, no at these stages I do not see any reason to think the fetus feels any. There are autonomic responses of course which anti abortion activists fall over themselves in their keenness to miscontrue as the fetus feeling pain, but other than that I am not aware of any reason to think they feel any before 20 weeks, let alone 16 or 12.

Your interested in biology/human body and you cant look at blood?

To get to know the in depth workings of the body you have to see blood, its not just written work its visual too, videos, photos, hands on, watching people get cut up and organs removed, watching operations, its fascinating. You cant research something thoroughly and not use visual aids.




Havent read the link, won't comment further till i do!

nozzferrahhtoo

cynder wrote: »

Your interested in biology/human body and you cant look at blood?

Again where did I say this? I seem to be picking your words out of my mouth in every post at this point. Are you just hearing what you want to hear?

I can look at it but I do have a response to it. As do many other people. Nothing unusual about that.

Even if I could not look at it though, as you just totally invented out of thin air, I am not sure what your point is? Many people have strong interests in things that totally disgust them.

Rape, murder and so on are disgusting to many people, but they are interested in the facts, psychology and other things behind it. One can study the phenomenon of violence without ever becoming desensitized to it and in fact I would hope we never do.

cynder

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Again where did I say this? I seem to be picking your words out of my mouth in every post at this point. Are you just hearing what you want to hear?

I can look at it but I do have a response to it. As do many other people. Nothing unusual about that.

Even if I could not look at it though, as you just totally invented out of thin air, I am not sure what your point is? Many people have strong interests in things that totally disgust them.

Rape, murder and so on are disgusting to many people, but they are interested in the facts, psychology and other things behind it. One can study the phenomenon of violence without ever becoming desensitized to it and in fact I would hope we never do.

In the first few sentances in your other thread you go on about the cells, you must have some interest in biology.

also braindead, the test they perform to see if one is brain dead is as follows : They will be looking to see if the person has any: response to pain; response to light by the pupil of each eye; blinking response when each eye is touched; eye movement or response to ice cold water when it is put into the ear canal,; cough or gag (swallowing) reaction when the back of the throat is touched; breathing when the person is disconnected from the ventilator .

Much of that cant be done to a baby in the womb, yet a baby at 16 weeks is sucking its thumb, a baby at 8 weeks can move its little stubs of arms and legs, a 12 week fetus can hiccup, a brain dead person cant move its limbs and suck its thumb.

Higher state of consciousness? newborns?

i will continue reading.

nozzferrahhtoo

cynder wrote: »

a baby at 16 weeks is sucking its thumb, a baby at 8 weeks can move its little stubs of arms and legs, a 12 week fetus can hiccup, a brain dead person cant move its limbs and suck its thumb.

And an amoeba will move towards or away from light depending on what type it is. The sperm that helped create the zygote/fetus in question will swim towards the egg as fast as it's little flagella will carry them. No consciousness required for any of this.

The things you are talking about are autonomic responses. They do not require a conscious mind or subjective experience in order to do or cause any of them.

These are the kinds of "arguments from emotion" that I refer to when I talk about pictures. Same approach but slightly different content. You are taking things that happen in the absence of any consciousness or subjective experience whatsoever... and hoping the "mark" will have an emotional response to this and thus want to protect them.

Also the tests for being Brain Dead are a lot more complex than what you just listed. We can measure brain activity directly now, none of the out dated techniques you just mentioned are really that important any more to my knowledge. And we actually have made GREAT advances in measuring that same activity in the developing fetus too. I would love to know where you got this list of ways to tell if someone is brain dead!

RDM_83 again

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

And an amoeba will move towards or away from light depending on what type it is. The sperm that helped create the zygote/fetus in question will swim towards the egg as fast as it's little flagella will carry them. No consciousness required for any of this.

The things you are talking about are autonomic responses. They do not require a conscious mind or subjective experience in order to do or cause any of them.

These are the kinds of "arguments from emotion" that I refer to when I talk about pictures. Same approach but slightly different content. You are taking things that happen in the absence of any consciousness or subjective experience whatsoever... and hoping the "mark" will have an emotional response to this and thus want to protect them.

Also the tests for being Brain Dead are a lot more complex than what you just listed. We can measure brain activity directly now, none of the out dated techniques you just mentioned are really that important any more to my knowledge. And we actually have made GREAT advances in measuring that same activity in the developing fetus too. I would love to know where you got this list of ways to tell if someone is brain dead!

I actually agree with a lot of what you have posted*, just a question in relation to automatic responses, very young infants also have what could be automatic responses and very limited conciousness and self-awareness (especially in the case of self-awareness) or is your argument based around the involvement of higher brain function in response to 'pain'

"signaling pathways from the periphery to the deeper brain areas are more likely established along with the growth of the spino-thalamic tracts at
20 weeks of age, allowing for subcortical processing of pain
at much earlier ages."(1)

Now in relation to the 16 weeks argument you espoused in a previous post I;ve no problem but in relation to the 24weeks allowed in the UK would you lobby for a reduction of an upper limit that is already in place (and yes I understand that most integration of pain with higher brain function occurs at 26 weeks)

* its nice to have a rational poster, sometimes it seems its all rape/incest babies on one side and pretty little sucking thumbs on the other


(1) http://www.helsinki.fi/science/eeg/www%20no%20templates/Sampsan%20paperit%20PDFs/2000%20fetalpain.pdf

cynder

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

cynder wrote: »

a baby at 16 weeks is sucking its thumb, a baby at 8 weeks can move its little stubs of arms and legs, a 12 week fetus can hiccup, a brain dead person cant move its limbs and suck its thumb.

And an amoeba will move towards or away from light depending on what type it is. The sperm that helped create the zygote/fetus in question will swim towards the egg as fast as it's little flagella will carry them. No consciousness required for any of this.

The things you are talking about are autonomic responses. They do not require a conscious mind or subjective experience in order to do or cause any of them.

These are the kinds of "arguments from emotion" that I refer to when I talk about pictures. Same approach but slightly different content. You are taking things that happen in the absence of any consciousness or subjective experience whatsoever... and hoping the "mark" will have an emotional response to this and thus want to protect them.

Also the tests for being Brain Dead are a lot more complex than what you just listed. We can measure brain activity directly now, none of the out dated techniques you just mentioned are really that important any more to my knowledge. And we actually have made GREAT advances in measuring that same activity in the developing fetus too. I would love to know where you got this list of ways to tell if someone is brain dead!

A friend of mines mother was resuscitated and found to be brain dead, they turned off her machine...

Not sure if it's great, to be locked in would be torture.


Any link?

By the way a brain dead person has no hope of survival, they are gone, a fetus has, it will only get stronger. There is no reason to terminate it, it's illogical, to stop it from reaching its full potential is illogical. The only reason to terminate a pregnancy is an emotional one.

nozzferrahhtoo

RDM_83 again wrote: »

I actually agree with a lot of what you have posted*, just a question in relation to automatic responses, very young infants also have what could be automatic responses and very limited conciousness and self-awareness (especially in the case of self-awareness) or is your argument based around the involvement of higher brain function in response to 'pain'

My argument tends to target the difference between having things like conscious and self awareness in ANY form.... and having absolutely none at all. Therefore the problem that infants have "less" of it is not really a problem I think my position suffers from.

I often use the analogy to radio here. If consciousness is radio waves then looking for it in a fetus < 20 weeks developed is akin to trying to find the radio waves not only before the broadcasting tower has been turned on.... but before the broadcasting tower has even been built.

RDM_83 again wrote: »

would you lobby for a reduction of an upper limit that is already in place

No. My 16 weeks was more said with countries in mind that did not already have abortion on demand. For example in Ireland. If I was campaigning with the pro choice movement in Ireland I would probably nail my colors to the mast at around 16 weeks.

RDM_83 again wrote: »

* its nice to have a rational poster, sometimes it seems its all rape/incest babies on one side and pretty little sucking thumbs on the other

Indeed. I differ from many of my peers in the pro choice movement in that I do not use the rape argument at all. I think it is self contradictory and I am not comfortable with it. To me either the fetus has rights or it does not.

If it does not then rape has nothing to do with it so it is not my problem.

If it DOES however then the fetus has rights and I am very uncomfortable with the notion that its rights can be negated because of a crime committed by a person who is not the fetus.... on another person who is not the fetus.

I am hard pushed to think of another crime where we punish X for a crime perpetrated on Y by Z.

Again it's not my problem as I do not see the fetus as having rights. But I cringe a little at the pro choice people who use the rape argument and even more at the anti abortion people who allow for rape as an exception.

nozzferrahhtoo

cynder wrote: »

By the way a brain dead person has no hope of survival, they are gone, a fetus has, it will only get stronger. There is no reason to terminate it, it's illogical, to stop it from reaching its full potential is illogical. The only reason to terminate a pregnancy is an emotional one.

My position is that the fetus has no rights. So the reasons people having for terminating it is irrelevant to me. If abortion is to be allowed then it is not really for me to equivocate over the reasons someone might choose to do it.

Take McDonalds food as a weird analogy. It is legal to sell it and for people to eat it. Now if someone wanted to eat a LOT of it with the express intention of getting obese and sick so they can stop working and start claiming disability allowance... clearly that would be to me an immoral reason to eat McDonalds and I could tut tut at it.

But I must remember that eating it is illegal so I can not do much more but tut tut.

Similarly if we allow abortion by choice it is not really our business WHY someone might have it. So if their reasons are emotional then "so what" would be my first question. My second would be "And what is wrong with that anyway?" as I think the emotions of an actual living person with rights far outweighs that of something that has none at all. In other words, emotional reasons are just as good as any really.

cynder

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

RDM_83 again wrote: »

I actually agree with a lot of what you have posted*, just a question in relation to automatic responses, very young infants also have what could be automatic responses and very limited conciousness and self-awareness (especially in the case of self-awareness) or is your argument based around the involvement of higher brain function in response to 'pain'

My argument tends to target the difference between having things like conscious and self awareness in ANY form.... and having absolutely none at all. Therefore the problem that infants have "less" of it is not really a problem I think my position suffers from.

I often use the analogy to radio here. If consciousness is radio waves then looking for it in a fetus < 20 weeks developed is akin to trying to find the radio waves not only before the broadcasting tower has been turned on.... but before the broadcasting tower has even been built.

RDM_83 again wrote: »

would you lobby for a reduction of an upper limit that is already in place

No. My 16 weeks was more said with countries in mind that did not already have abortion on demand. For example in Ireland. If I was campaigning with the pro choice movement in Ireland I would probably nail my colors to the mast at around 16 weeks.

RDM_83 again wrote: »

* its nice to have a rational poster, sometimes it seems its all rape/incest babies on one side and pretty little sucking thumbs on the other

Indeed. I differ from many of my peers in the pro choice movement in that I do not use the rape argument at all. I think it is self contradictory and I am not comfortable with it. To me either the fetus has rights or it does not.

If it does not then rape has nothing to do with it so it is not my problem.

If it DOES however then the fetus has rights and I am very uncomfortable with the notion that its rights can be negated because of a crime committed by a person who is not the fetus.... on another person who is not the fetus.

I am hard pushed to think of another crime where we punish X for a crime perpetrated on Y by Z.

Again it's not my problem as I do not see the fetus as having rights. But I cringe a little at the pro choice people who use the rape argument and even more at the anti abortion people who allow for rape as an exception.

You seem to lack emotion.

Ive said I could understand it, terminating due to rape, because I could understand how difficult it would be to carry around a child of a man who raped you and possibly violently assaulted you maybe even nearly killed you.

I wouldn't do it my self though.




Whats your problem with emotion?



The decision to terminate a pregnancy is an emotional one, a lot of our actions are controlled by emotions.

The only ones who seem to escape a lot of emotion are those with autism.


Why do you agree with abortion? Is the only reason because is not conscious? It it not brought on by an emotional woman? like everything else we live, we die, why is it acceptable to terminate a pregnancy when it's an emotional choice. It's stopping the natural order of things, stopping nature take its course, preventing a life from reaching its full potential unnaturally.

cynder

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

cynder wrote: »

By the way a brain dead person has no hope of survival, they are gone, a fetus has, it will only get stronger. There is no reason to terminate it, it's illogical, to stop it from reaching its full potential is illogical. The only reason to terminate a pregnancy is an emotional one.

My position is that the fetus has no rights. So the reasons people having for terminating it is irrelevant to me. If abortion is to be allowed then it is not really for me to equivocate over the reasons someone might choose to do it.

Take McDonalds food as a weird analogy. It is legal to sell it and for people to eat it. Now if someone wanted to eat a LOT of it with the express intention of getting obese and sick so they can stop working and start claiming disability allowance... clearly that would be to me an immoral reason to eat McDonalds and I could tut tut at it.

But I must remember that eating it is illegal so I can not do much more but tut tut.

Similarly if we allow abortion by choice it is not really our business WHY someone might have it. So if their reasons are emotional then "so what" would be my first question. My second would be "And what is wrong with that anyway?" as I think the emotions of an actual living person with rights far outweighs that of something that has none at all. In other words, emotional reasons are just as good as any really.

You criticise me for having an emotional response for opposing abortion, yet the woman who has an abortion is doing it because she is influenced by her emotions.

eviltwin

cynder wrote: »

You criticise me for having an emotional response for opposing abortion, yet the woman who has an abortion is doing it because she is influenced by her emotions.

I think she's allowed to, its her unplanned pregnancy, not yours.