Abortion Discussion

Lingua Franca

Obliq wrote: »

Good one! I didn't want to trust to these new-fangled hormones not going to send me doolally, and I know loads of women who are only thrilled with the loss of periods. I couldn't go there I don't think. I need to know where I am in a month sometimes and that's my marker/reality check Isn't it great there's a IUS/IUD (whatever) for both of us?!

Absolutely!

lazygal

God must be pro-choice or he'd be working harder to stop de preshus baaaaaybbbeeees being murdered!!1!!111!!!! Or preventing conception of dangerous pregnancies in the first place.

Morag

Oh and ARC have a checklist for candidates too

Cabaal

eviltwin wrote: »

I think they are praying that God will keep Ireland abortion free, he wasn't listening last time though I suppose it gives them something to do while they are waiting for mass.

If they park in Dublin anything like they do outside of churchs during mass the place will be insane with cars thrown everywhere, :pac:

alaimacerc

Cabaal wrote: »

curious what they think the rosery beads, crosses and praying will get them?

Embarrassed side-glances from the "I'm pro-life for reasons entirely unrelated to Catholicism, that I decline to go into in any detail" crowd.

alaimacerc

Cabaal wrote: »

Misleading Pro-life leaflets doing the rounds in Limerick it seems, interesting to note no mention of FF though?

Yeah, doesn't say "Vote FF". Just gives an exhaustive list of every other party and supposed reasons not to vote for them.

To say that SF support "abortion on demand" is laughable. They don't even support the UK law being regularised in NI -- in fact, they've loudly opposed this. (I suppose they'd say the UK law is "abortion on demand", but they'd be telling porkies.)

swampgas

lazygal wrote: »

Or who just don't want to be pregnant. I'll never understood why there needs to be a hierarchy of reasons as to why one woman "deserves" to access abortion but someone else doesn't.

Many people seem to have reservations about simply allowing women to decide for themselves, which is IMO rather patronising and demeaning.

It's not a trivial decision for any woman to make, and it affects her more than anybody else, so if a woman decides that she doesn't want to be pregnant, surely that should be enough?

If we were to go around telling women who aren't pregnant, and don't want to be pregnant, that they should want to be pregnant, wouldn't that be considered to be terribly interfering? After all, it's not our business to tell women whether they should want to be pregnant or not.

But if a woman who doesn't want to be pregnant gets pregnant, for whatever reason, and wants to correct the situation, suddenly people feel they have the right to tell her what she should want to do.

lazygal

Sometimes the decisions to abort are trivial though. Like some prolifers would have us believe women have abortions because they have a holiday booked. My attitude is so what? What reason is better than another for continuing or terminating a pregnancy? I don't care if it's an earth shattering dilemma or, like Caitlin Moran said, easier than picking worktops. No one who wants to terminate a pregnancy needs to give a "good" reason for their decision.

alaimacerc

lazygal wrote: »

No one who wants to terminate a pregnancy needs to give a "good" reason for their decision.

In the UK, "liberal abortion regime" posterboy, they certainly have to give a "good enough" reason. Yes, there's the more typical continental regime like France, where it's more a function of "be sufficiently quick about it".

I hate to sound like a shameless slippery slope gradualist, but I'd rather see progress towards a more reasonable, and more transparent legal arrangement sooner, rather than holding out for who-know-how-long for some absolutist situation. Especially one that's vindicated nowhere that I'm aware of. Sure, first time and first place for everything, but anyone takes any bets that it'll be Ireland?

Richard Bingham

alaimacerc wrote: »

I'll start with the bit you're clearly very keen to avoid, eh, I mean, "seem to have inadvertently omitted", hence the need for all the subsequent bluster:

Or do you "literally not have time for" the simplest and most relevant matter to hand?

I am pro-life. No problem saying that in fact I'm surprised you had to ask.

alaimacerc wrote: »

Hardly. I'm trying to progress a discussion that you seem to think you can conduct by throwing out random emotionalist canards, and then dictating to people as to whether they're allowed to ask you what you're advocating be done about them.

I didn't dictate to anyone. Jesus that's a hateful tone.

alaimacerc wrote: »

You literally have time to type out reams and reams of blather, but you don't have time to read what you're supposedly writing about.

I haven't typed reams of blather. Compare my post count to yours and determine who has a lot of time on their hands.

I'm not going to research your posts. If you want to quote me then quote me otherwise I and any unbiased person reading this is going to assume that your putting words in my mouth, like you do below.

alaimacerc wrote: »

That's your cue to say "yes, I believe that procuring an abortion should, broadly speaking, be illegal, and subject to criminal sanctions up to and including imprisonment", or "no, I don't, you've made an incorrect inference from my 'pro-life' fulminations". This "I might think it, but you'll never prove it!" guff is getting no-one anywhere.

I've said it, not that it wasn't obvious. Why would I care about you proving it. Do you think I'm ashamed of being pro-life? Why would I be? I live my life positively and I'm not full of hate like you.

alaimacerc wrote: »

And I never said you said that. No, as I said, you envisaged it being legalised in the UK, where quite clearly you meant "made illegal". Literally didn't have time to read what I said, and literally didn't have time to write something that made any actual sense in the first place, apparently.

Who's blathering now? If your not going to quote me I'm not going to bother addressing this.

alaimacerc wrote: »

Of course, one can envisage something without favouring it as a course of action; though one would wonder why you were wasting your supposedly scarce and notionally valuable time doing so, well, it certainly beats me.

Who's doing what now. If you want to ask a straight question in English I'll answer.

alaimacerc wrote: »

Isn't it terrible when those nasty "pro-abortion" types "get personal", as opposed to your own dispassionate masterpiece of precision, above.

A masterpiece of precision....

You can say all the nasty crap you want and if I get even remotely sharp you object. Double standards surely.

alaimacerc wrote: »

Look, just try making an actual argument, rather than merely waving your arms around, and yelling "You'll never prove I actually said anything! Another masterstroke on my part!"

It's very simple. Criminal sanctions for abortion, or not? If that's "impossible for you to respond to", I don't think your pub-fight fantasies about me are at all related to your difficulty.

Putting something in quotation marks indicates (to those of us who speak English) that it is a direct quotation. Who said the words "impossible for you to respond to"?

I stated it, not that my position wasn't obvious anyway.

Your just trying to make me the bad guy by challenging me to state that there should be criminal sanctions for abortion, which means you have very little faith in your own argument and the only way you think you can look good is by making me look bad. I want it to be against the law to take a life needlessly and needlessly includes abortions for lifestyle reasons but it doesn't include terminating a pregnancy to save the life of the mother (which is a rare thing). You can't have an effective law without sanctions and we're talking about the law, so yes - I want criminal sanctions for anyone who takes a life. Shock horror!

Morag

Canada has no law when it comes to abortion.
It does how ever have laws for impersonating a dr and for malpractice and that is working out well.

I think it should not be shameful to be personally anti abortion.
I do think it is shameful to expect people who are not of the same religion to be held to the rules of your religion and to ignore the very real reasons women need to have abortions due to the risk to health.
Risk to life as the hardline is wrong and ties the hands of drs who work at preserving a persons health.

Loafing Oaf

Cabaal wrote: »

Misleading Pro-life leaflets doing the rounds in Limerick it seems, interesting to note no mention of FF though?
How upfront are FF about their stance on this?

Not very. These leaflets are obviously designed to get FF off the fence and commit to seeking the repeal of the PFLP Act. Now obviously Martin has no intention of doing that but he'd rather leave a certain 'constructive ambiguity' around the issue, so pro-life voters might think FF are their best bet...

Absolam

lazygal wrote: »

Sometimes the decisions to abort are trivial though. Like some prolifers would have us believe women have abortions because they have a holiday booked. My attitude is so what? What reason is better than another for continuing or terminating a pregnancy? I don't care if it's an earth shattering dilemma or, like Caitlin Moran said, easier than picking worktops. No one who wants to terminate a pregnancy needs to give a "good" reason for their decision.

That works fine when you consider that it is only a woman making a decision about her own body and nothing else; which is a perspective that some people have.
It doesn't work at all when you consider that it is a woman making a decision which results in the death of another individual; which is a perspective that other people have.
Between those two hardline points of view is where a society has to find it's acceptable to the majority (of voters) social stance; I suspect the majority of opinion still leans more towards the latter point of view in Ireland. Personally, I don't think it requires any religious perspective at all to lean away from unnecessary killing whenever possible, and that colours my opinion of what or when abortion should be practiced.

eviltwin

Absolam wrote: »

That works fine when you consider that it is only a woman making a decision about her own body and nothing else; which is a perspective that some people have.
It doesn't work at all when you consider that it is a woman making a decision which results in the death of another individual; which is a perspective that other people have.
Between those two hardline points of view is where a society has to find it's acceptable to the majority (of voters) social stance; I suspect the majority of opinion still leans more towards the latter point of view in Ireland. Personally, I don't think it requires any religious perspective at all to lean away from unnecessary killing whenever possible, and that colours my opinion of what or when abortion should be practiced.

Since when is an embryo or foetus an individual?

blunt dart 63

eviltwin wrote: »

Since when is an embryo or foetus an individual?

It is a human life. Not one that has full human rights, but a seperate life/ individual all the same, it would just make it easier if we could all accept that, and I'm very pro choice

Absolam

eviltwin wrote: »

Since when is an embryo or foetus an individual?

Since it was a 'womans own body and nothing else'. By which I mean both statements contain elements that are immediately outrageous to the extreme end of the opposite side, and both have elements open to dispute by more moderate opinions. An embryo or foetus could fairly reasonably be considered an individual given that its' DNA is different from anyone elses DNA, if you choose to look at it that way.
I thought 'killing' would be jumped on before 'individual' though :-)

Pherekydes

blunt dart 63 wrote: »

It is a human life. Not one that has full human rights, but a seperate life/ individual all the same, it would just make it easier if we could all accept that, and I'm very pro choice

By definition, it is most definitely not a separate individual! An embryo is attached to the wall of its mother's uterus. And is 100% dependent on its mother for about five to six months.

Obliq

Richard Bingham wrote: »

I want criminal sanctions for anyone who takes a life. Shock horror!

Just a human life presumably? Can you explain to me why you think a tiny non-sentient human with no central nervous system (but with potential to be a born grown human) should have more rights than a cow or a chicken? Because I don't get it. I genuinely don't understand why people think each individual human embryo's potential is so important.

Absolam wrote: »

Personally, I don't think it requires any religious perspective at all to lean away from unnecessary killing whenever possible, and that colours my opinion of what or when abortion should be practiced.

Can you answer my above as well please? I really don't understand. I mean, I have to kill cockerels, by hand (there isn't any other way unless I give them to someone else to do it), and I don't bloody enjoy it. It's horrible to take a life - any life. But unfortunately it's necessary because I'm selfish enough to keep hens. We would all like to avoid having to kill for selfish reasons, but by proxy, we do it every time there's meat on the plate for dinner. Why is it so much worse to kill a human embryo that is going to have a devastatingly unappealing effect on your life?

Pherekydes wrote: »

By definition, it is most definitely not a separate individual! An embryo is attached to the wall of its mother's uterus. And is 100% dependent on its mother for about five to six months.

Nail. Head. And that is what gives women exclusively the right to take a selfish decision about what happens to her body and the right to kill an embryo (IMO).

Absolam

Obliq wrote: »

Just a human life presumably? Can you explain to me why you think a tiny non-sentient human with no central nervous system (but with potential to be a born grown human) should have more rights than a cow or a chicken? Because I don't get it. I genuinely don't understand why people think each individual human embryo's potential is so important. Can you answer my above as well please? I really don't understand. I mean, I have to kill cockerels, by hand (there isn't any other way unless I give them to someone else to do it), and I don't bloody enjoy it. It's horrible to take a life - any life. But unfortunately it's necessary because I'm selfish enough to keep hens. We would all like to avoid having to kill for selfish reasons, but by proxy, we do it every time there's meat on the plate for dinner. Why is it so much worse to kill a human embryo that is going to have a devastatingly unappealing effect on your life?

I'm not certain about how much rights a tiny non-sentient human with no central nervous system should have, but I would place a higher value on it than a cow or a chicken for precisely the reason you have given; it has the potential to be a grown human. Value obviously being dependent on circumstances; I might well value a cow or chicken more if I were starving to death for instance.
The taking of a life, any life, deserves consideration. I don't have an issue with taking the life of a cow or a chicken so that I can eat, though I would rather minimise their suffering if I can in the course of things. I don't value their lives sufficiently to choose to only eat vegetables, so I suppose I don't value animal lives on a personal life or death basis, but on a lifestyle basis. I would, as I said, be inclined to place a greater value on human life, simply because it is human. In this case, I move my value scale more towards life and death and away from lifestyle; I'd have less of a problem with taking the life of a human so that I can live, and more of a problem with killing a human so that I can maintain a certain lifestyle. Vicarious killing via sweatshops and coalmines etc slipping a little further down the value scale probably.

I don't think the idea of placing a greater value on human lives than other animals is all that strange; maybe that's because it's built into us, but I'd suggest that even objectively, on average a human is more likely to add something to the world as we appreciate it than another animal, and so we are going to assign it a greater value as a result.

Obliq wrote: »

Nail. Head. And that is what gives women exclusively the right to take a selfish decision about what happens to her body and the right to kill an embryo (IMO).

In my opinion, that's a misleading argument. "My body, my choice" is pithy, but doesn't really stand up to scrutiny. First of all, just because something (or someone) is in your body, it is not part of your body; it may not be a separate entity, but it is a distinct one. I don't think there's a very good reason to say just because something is in your body you necessarily have any rights over it. Possession may be nine tenths of the law, but when my neighbour parks in my driveway I probably won't get away with selling his Alfa Romeo. Which I am tempted to place a greater value on than a tiny non-sentient human with no central nervous system, but really feel I shouldn't.
But my real point is, society already regulates what we can do with our bodies, and society is composed of all genders. I don't have the choice of smacking the guy next to me with my fist, even though its my fist. It's my body, but it's not my choice (or it is, but I have to pay the penalty dictated by society). The choice belongs to the society I choose to live in, which sets boundaries on what I can do with my body.
Nor is restricting the choice based on gender an honest argument; aside from being sexist (which we all agree is bad) it's a nonsense that because only women can be pregnant, only women should decide how society regulates pregnancy. It's a society, everyone is part of it, everyone has a voice. Or should.
It's ridiculous to imagine we might derogate the regulation of rape (in the common sense) to men, as only men can commit rape (again, in the common sense of the word; I don't mean to start an argument on what is rape). The idea of restricting societal decision making to vested interest groups is at best undemocratic, and at worst practically anarchic.
It's a slippery slope, where would it stop, won't somebody please think of the children etc ad nauseum.

Cabaal

http://www.broadsheet.ie/2014/05/02/praveen-leaves/

[Savita Halappanavar's husband Praveen leaves Galway Courthouse at the inquest into his wife's death in April of last year. It found she died of medical misadventure]

You may recall how Praveen Halappanavar did an interview with Miriam O’Callaghan last year after it emerged he intended to sue the HSE for medical negligence following the death of his pregnant 31-year-old wife Savita.

During the interview, he said he had been receiving ‘abusive letters’. He told Ms O’Callaghan:

‘One particular campaigner that keeps writing again and again. So, basically, I was told to leave the country and was told to clean the mess that, you know, I have…our country has, rather than cleaning the mess here, you know, to leave with the stuff for them to clean and mind my own business.’

Further to this, the Irish Independent is reporting that Praveen has left Ireland to live and work in California.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/tragic-savitas-husband-quits-ireland-for-the-us-30237521.html

Pro-life brigade are a lovely piece of work, racist and abusive

Mr. CooL ICE

That really makes me sad. I hope his moving to California was a genuine career-related move

iwantmydinner

Absolam wrote: »

I'm not certain about how much rights a tiny non-sentient human with no central nervous system should have, but I would place a higher value on it than a cow or a chicken for precisely the reason you have given; it has the potential to be a grown human. Value obviously being dependent on circumstances; I might well value a cow or chicken more if I were starving to death for instance.
The taking of a life, any life, deserves consideration. I don't have an issue with taking the life of a cow or a chicken so that I can eat, though I would rather minimise their suffering if I can in the course of things. I don't value their lives sufficiently to choose to only eat vegetables, so I suppose I don't value animal lives on a personal life or death basis, but on a lifestyle basis. I would, as I said, be inclined to place a greater value on human life, simply because it is human. In this case, I move my value scale more towards life and death and away from lifestyle; I'd have less of a problem with taking the life of a human so that I can live, and more of a problem with killing a human so that I can maintain a certain lifestyle. Vicarious killing via sweatshops and coalmines etc slipping a little further down the value scale probably.

I don't think the idea of placing a greater value on human lives than other animals is all that strange; maybe that's because it's built into us, but I'd suggest that even objectively, on average a human is more likely to add something to the world as we appreciate it than another animal, and so we are going to assign it a greater value as a result.

Take a moment to see how many times you used the personal pronoun "I" in the quoted piece to outline, clearly, your personal feelings on the matter.

Can you then explain why you think your personal feelings should dictate what my reproductive rights are?

Cabaal

eviltwin wrote: »

Since when is an embryo or foetus an individual?

Its not,
Even a catholic hospital has argued this as part of their legal defense, even when the fetuses were 7 months old

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/01/24/fetuses-not-people-catholic-hospital-says-in-court-case/1863013/

NASHVILLE, Tenn. -- A Catholic hospital in Colorado has argued in court documents that it is not liable for the deaths of two 7-month-old fetuses because those fetuses are not people.

So far, courts have side with the hospital.

Obliq

Absolam wrote: »

I'd have less of a problem with taking the life of a human so that I can live, and more of a problem with killing a human so that I can maintain a certain lifestyle.

Thanks for your long reply. In relation to this part, what is it that distinguishes taking a life who's value is weighed against the need to live as you want to (lifestyle choice) as less noble than taking a life who's value is weighed against your own life continuing? I personally think that there is a considerable difference in the value of an embryo with no human experience, no thoughts, no feelings (but yes, with the potential to have those things) and nobody directly related to caring for them as yet except the two humans who made it, and in the value of a born human who has actual experience of thoughts, feelings and family.

Of course, we're hardwired to value our own lives more than someone trying to kill us, and so it stands to reason we would kill to save our own lives. Outright killing someone (a born human) for no such reason? It happens, but most of us can understand that the loss of that person is too tremendous to contemplate carrying out the act.

But if you are looking at relative values, the sheer lack of any of those experiences in an embryo, including pain or any feelings at all, means that we are emotionally attached to it's potential value (to itself and others) and are basing our reasoning for or against abortion on that. I would argue that as we are only talking about potential value, relatively speaking a woman's value of her own potential lifestyle is more than equally important. In the words of Savita and Praveen - "We could have more".

I don't think the idea of placing a greater value on human lives than other animals is all that strange; maybe that's because it's built into us, but I'd suggest that even objectively, on average a human is more likely to add something to the world as we appreciate it than another animal, and so we are going to assign it a greater value as a result.

At all stages of it's life? Not to me, before it is nothing I would value. Maybe that's strange - but only as strange as the 4,000 Irish women per year who's values seem similar to mine.....

In my opinion, that's a misleading argument. "My body, my choice" is pithy, but doesn't really stand up to scrutiny. First of all, just because something (or someone) is in your body, it is not part of your body; it may not be a separate entity, but it is a distinct one. I don't think there's a very good reason to say just because something is in your body you necessarily have any rights over it. Possession may be nine tenths of the law, but when my neighbour parks in my driveway I probably won't get away with selling his Alfa Romeo. Which I am tempted to place a greater value on than a tiny non-sentient human with no central nervous system, but really feel I shouldn't.

This is interesting. I don't find that so wrong - if you definitely want the car, but definitely don't want the growing embryo. I'm sure I know many folk who would kill any number of cockerels with their bare hands in order to own an Audi, even if they thought they couldn't kill before they had the choice. I think given the choice, the ones who "feel they shouldn't" would suddenly only be my vegetarian friends. Which is somewhat similar to suddenly being given the choice between killing a tiny embryo, and having your life change dramatically for the worse with your unwanted pregnancy. Forever. (I am leaving out adoption here deliberately)

To be fair, when you say "my body, my choice" is misleading - well, that's what I'm trying to tease out here - it is the crux of the issue. Is it fair to say my choice (lifestyle) is more important than the than a tiny non-sentient human with no central nervous system? I think so, and your argument below is not a good enough reason for me to change my mind when society has never and will never manage to get women to agree that their choices are relatively less important to the relatively unimportant life inside them.

But my real point is, society already regulates what we can do with our bodies, and society is composed of all genders.

Obliq

Sorry now, but I need to ask you one more question. Why do you place less value on vicariously killing people (as we do, by buying into the causative factors for these deaths, or by not actively altering our lifestyles to allow for mass hunger to be alleviated for example). Is it because we are at such a remove from those people? As humans, we're only able to take on active concern for those of our own culture, for the most part, although people do work on the problems and have sleepless nights in concern for these people....

Absolam wrote: »

Vicarious killing via sweatshops and coalmines etc slipping a little further down the value scale probably.

I would argue that it's a bit hypocritical to have more concern for unborn embryos that you are ALSO at such a remove from. If it was YOUR embryo, I'd understand your position, but if it's not, why the bigger deal about potentially born humans than born ones?

Ps. Ta for your honesty in self-examining. I'm asking for your opinion, so I don't mind all the "I's" in reply, but I get also how we're trying to examine why your opinion is considered more valuable than mine.

Absolam

iwantmydinner wrote: »

Take a moment to see how many times you used the personal pronoun "I" in the quoted piece to outline, clearly, your personal feelings on the matter.
Can you then explain why you think your personal feelings should dictate what my reproductive rights are?

No problem; I have a right to participate in the decision on your reproductive rights because your rights are granted to you by the society you and I live in. I'm not saying I can or should (or would) dictate your rights, but that we all, as members of our society, participate in determining our rights.

Cabaal wrote: »

Its not,
Even a catholic hospital has argued this as part of their legal defense, even when the fetuses were 7 months old

Well, Eviltwin said 'individual', and your quote said 'people'. So your quote doesn't back your assertion 'Its not'. Not that a catholic hospital in Colorado would necessarily be a definitive authority on what is or isn't an individual anyway, but I'm guessing most people would reserve 'person' for an human individual which has grown to the point of displaying personality traits?

Obliq wrote: »

Thanks for your long reply. In relation to this part, what is it that distinguishes taking a life who's value is weighed against the need to live as you want to (lifestyle choice) as less noble than taking a life who's value is weighed against your own life continuing?

I didn't intend to convey any distinction in nobility; it would be noble (I think?) to value all lives equally regardless of their value to oneself on a selfish level. Rather I would say that the value of the life remains the same regardless of how it affects my lifestyle, but when balanced against my life, I value my own more. My life is worth to me than someone elses, their life is (broadly, with a plethora of exceptions I'm sure) worth more to me than my lifestyle, my lifestyle is worth more to me than their lifestyle.
I'm sure there are plenty of people who can say honestly, my lifestyle is worth more to me than someone elses life, full stop. I think the majority of people would at least aspire not too though.

Obliq wrote: »

I personally think that there is a considerable difference in the value of an embryo with no human experience, no thoughts, no feelings (but yes, with the potential to have those things) and nobody directly related to caring for them as yet except the two humans who made it, and in the value of a born human who has actual experience of thoughts, feelings and family.

I agree. Further, it seems readily apparent that people in course of their lives can increase or decrease their value to others; I think it is a fallacy to say all lives are of equal worth.

Obliq wrote: »

Outright killing someone (a born human) for no such reason? It happens, but most of us can understand that the loss of that person is too tremendous to contemplate carrying out the act. But if you are looking at relative values, the sheer lack of any of those experiences in an embryo, including pain or any feelings at all, means that we are emotionally attached to it's potential value (to itself and others) and are basing our reasoning for or against abortion on that. I would argue that as we are only talking about potential value, relatively speaking a woman's value of her own potential lifestyle is more than equally important. In the words of Savita and Praveen - "We could have more".

This is where I must disagree, the value, even in potentia, of a life appears to me to exceed all but the most tremendously substantial, approaching life scale, lifestyle outcomes. We could have more, or, we could be more. Where we each decide we stand in that valuation is what I think really informs the abortion debate; as a subjective decision I don't believe the two sides can be reconciled by debate or fact, only reach an accommodation which will be comfortable for the majority.

Obliq wrote: »

At all stages of it's life? Not to me, before it is nothing I would value. Maybe that's strange - but only as strange as the 4,000 Irish women per year who's values seem similar to mine.....

I would, in general, apportion more value to a human life at all of its' stages than to another animal, yes. And I don't think that those 4,000 women necessarily feel any different; they simply apportion sufficiently little value to a foetus below a certain age, or in their own particular circumstances, that they are comfortable (or insufficiently uncomfortable) with causing its' death. I would be extremely wary of claiming all 4000 have the same feelings or are even are making exactly the same scale of value judgements.

Obliq wrote: »

I'm sure I know many folk who would kill any number of cockerels with their bare hands in order to own an Audi, even if they thought they couldn't kill before they had the choice. I think given the choice, the ones who "feel they shouldn't" would suddenly only be my vegetarian friends. Which is somewhat similar to suddenly being given the choice between killing a tiny embryo, and having your life change dramatically for the worse with your unwanted pregnancy. Forever. (I am leaving out adoption here deliberately)

I don't think I'd consider quantity a value multiplier when it comes to the decision; whether it's one or a hundred cockrels I'll value the car more (if it's thousands the effort becomes a greater value factor), but I can't in honesty say I'd choose the car over even one human embryo; for no better reason than it seems worth more to me.

Obliq wrote: »

To be fair, when you say "my body, my choice" is misleading - well, that's what I'm trying to tease out here - it is the crux of the issue.

For the reasons I gave, I don't think so. I think the issue of what you should be allowed to do to yourself can only be secondary to what you should be allowed to do to someone else. Of course, then we have to talk about what 'someone else' is, which is the real crux of the issue; where do we place sufficient value on a group of cells that they qualify as 'someone else'. You've already alluded to the fact that there is a point where you would consider the loss of a person to be too tremendous an event to contemplate carrying out the act of killing them; your line is obviously later than my line, and the crux of the debate is where we draw that line as a society.

Obliq wrote: »

Is it fair to say my choice (lifestyle) is more important than the than a tiny non-sentient human with no central nervous system? I think so, and your argument below is not a good enough reason for me to change my mind

This to me is sufficient argument; it abandons any pretense of entitlement or moral superiority and simply says 'I value this more than this'. It's not an argument that convinces me, because I value things differently, and my argument equally does not convince you.

Obliq wrote: »

when society has never and will never manage to get women to agree that their choices are relatively less important to the relatively unimportant life inside them.

Whereas as that veers into soapboxing; women are part of society and some (many? who knows) do believe that a life they carry, or even a life someone else carries, is more important than choices they might have otherwise made. Society is not a misogynist beast routinely oppressing the entirety of womenkind; that's just trying to paint a picture that villifies someone else for causing a problem.

Obliq

Absolam wrote: »

the most tremendously substantial, approaching life scale, lifestyle outcomes.

Going out, more later, but just quickly - do you not think that this is what child birth/rearing is?

Absolam

Obliq wrote: »

Sorry now, but I need to ask you one more question. Why do you place less value on vicariously killing people (as we do, by buying into the causative factors for these deaths, or by not actively altering our lifestyles to allow for mass hunger to be alleviated for example). Is it because we are at such a remove from those people? As humans, we're only able to take on active concern for those of our own culture, for the most part, although people do work on the problems and have sleepless nights in concern for these people....

Well, I didn't quite say that I place less value on vicariously killing people; but that those vicariously killed as a result of my lifestyle would be further down the scale than those I killed to maintain my lifestyle. So not so much that we are at such a remove from those people, more that their deaths are to a lesser degree at my hand than those I cause directly; I'll still be inclined to try to ameliorate the harm I cause indirectly, but not as motivated as I am to not cause harm directly.

Obliq wrote: »

I would argue that it's a bit hypocritical to have more concern for unborn embryos that you are ALSO at such a remove from. If it was YOUR embryo, I'd understand your position, but if it's not, why the bigger deal about potentially born humans than born ones?

I would argue I am less at a remove from unborn embryos in my own society than I am from born humans in other societies; I can have a say in whether those embryos are born to a greater degree than I can affect working/livcing conditions in other societies. That said, given a direct choice between the death of an unborn embryo or a born human, I would obviously choose to allow the death of the unborn embryo, since the one, to my mind, has more value than the other.

Obliq wrote: »

I'm asking for your opinion, so I don't mind all the "I's" in reply, but I get also how we're trying to examine why your opinion is considered more valuable than mine.

I don't think my opinion is in any way more valuable, valid, relevant, or right than yours. They're both just opinions.
I think the entire discussion boils down to opinions on when a human life is something to be objectively valued, or not, or for what value. I'll freely state that I don't know when that point is, or how much it is, and I'm open to opinions on the subject.

Absolam

Obliq wrote: »

Going out, more later, but just quickly - do you not think that this is what child birth/rearing is?

I don't think it is (generally) what child birth is, but I'll happily stipulate that I will never experience it and can't therefore personally attest to how mentally/emotionally life changing it is. In the crudest of mechanical terms however, it can't really be said that in general giving birth results in an approaching life scale lifestyle outcome, unless you proceed to your second point, in which case;

I do think it is (or should be) what child rearing is.

Obliq

Absolam wrote: »

I don't think my opinion is in any way more valuable, valid, relevant, or right than yours. They're both just opinions.
I think the entire discussion boils down to opinions on when a human life is something to be objectively valued, or not, or for what value. I'll freely state that I don't know when that point is, or how much it is, and I'm open to opinions on the subject.

Same here.

Absolam wrote: »

I don't think it is (generally) what child birth is, but I'll happily stipulate that I will never experience it and can't therefore personally attest to how mentally/emotionally life changing it is. In the crudest of mechanical terms however, it can't really be said that in general giving birth results in an approaching life scale lifestyle outcome, unless you proceed to your second point, in which case;

I do think it is (or should be) what child rearing is.

I think that is exactly what child birth can be if it is an unwanted experience. Even where child birth is wanted, it can be just that. I'm sure I don't need to describe the gory details. Physically, mentally and emotionally challenging and potentially life changing in all those areas depending on how extreme the experience is. And that is a regular occurrence. I wouldn't wish it on someone who didn't want it, put it that way. It's only a risk you should willingly take.