Abortion Discussion

alaimacerc

Richard Bingham wrote: »

My style is anything but blase. Only a few posts ago I was accused of being emotive.

The mod can speak for himself (and probably would more sensibly be left to, as some of them seem to be pretty hair-trigger on handing out "infractions" for "dissent" from their interventions), but my reading is that what you're being blasé about is your "I'll be as rude as I like because I hold the moral high ground" attitude to being repeated requested to refrain from insulting descriptions and characterisations of other posters.

alaimacerc

Absolam wrote: »

I don't have an issue with the term; I have an issue with you trying to politicise it.

I'm with you entirely in spirit on this (for once!), but I fear that for all practical purposes, that ship has sailed. There is a medical definition, of sorts, but it's not entirely consistent from medic to medic, and it's not precisely what lay people mean when they say "abortion". Then we get into legal definitions (which are about as inherently political as it's possible to imagine), the RCC's definition, and the likes of Prof John Bonnar (technically covered in "medical definitions vary", but there's an element of Irish ob/gyn practice that seem to be such outliers as to merit special mention).

RB's "not an abortion if it's morally justified" distinction is reminiscent of Bonnar's (if I'm understanding both, which are each large "ifs"), but as against the church's (similar caveats) it's more like their distinction between "direct" and "indirect" abortion.

I think there's more precision and general agreement as to what "termination of pregnancy" means. But of course, that doesn't mean it's necessarily "neutral" to use it, since people will simply accuse one of being on an endless euphemism treadmill in using "clinical" terminology.

Lingua Franca

Another abortion thread: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=89649446

Since we're quoting dictionary definitions now:

1abort verb \ə-ˈbȯrt\
: to end a pregnancy deliberately by causing the death of the fetus

: to stop something before it is completed because of problems or danger

Full Definition of ABORT

intransitive verb
1
: to bring forth stillborn, nonviable, or premature offspring
2
: to become checked in development so as to degenerate or remain rudimentary
3
: to terminate a procedure prematurely <the pilot decided to abort due to mechanical difficulties>
transitive verb
1
a : to induce the abortion of or give birth to prematurely
b : to terminate the pregnancy of before term
2
a : to terminate prematurely : cancel <abort a project> <abort a spaceflight>
b : to stop in the early stages <abort a disease>

I'm also fed up with this "not an abortion if" argument but since dictionary definitions are being played as trump cards then this hand was lost and settled long ago.

alaimacerc

Richard Bingham wrote: »

I'm sure that made sense to you when you were typing it.

He extended your own metaphorical analogue in a fairly natural and straightforward manner. If that doesn't make sense to you, perhaps you should avoid the ol' metaphors entirely, and just stick to the facts of the matter actually at hand.

Lingua Franca

It made perfect sense to me too. I'd like to know if anyone else struggled to make sense of Keane's analogy. Please do speak up if you did, reader.

obplayer

Lingua Franca wrote: »

It made perfect sense to me too. I'd like to know if anyone else struggled to make sense of Keane's analogy. Please do speak up if you did, reader.

No struggle, easy to understand.

alaimacerc

Lingua Franca wrote: »

The cases shown prove that doctors will not always treat the mother.

I'm not sure whether anyone even bothers to argue the toss on this. If the objective were simply to treat the mother in line with best medical practice according to her consent, there wouldn't be the need for legislation determining otherwise. Clearly it's not, and the quibbling is simply a matter of haggling about the amount and nature of the discrepancy, and whether anyone much cares.

obplayer

alaimacerc wrote: »

I'm not sure whether anyone even bothers to argue the toss on this. If the objective were simply to treat the mother in line with best medical practice according to her consent, there wouldn't be the need for legislation determining otherwise. Clearly it's not, and the quibbling is simply a matter of haggling about the amount and nature of the discrepancy, and whether anyone much cares.

I think you might find that the woman cares.

alaimacerc

Lingua Franca wrote: »

It made perfect sense to me too. I'd like to know if anyone else struggled to make sense of Keane's analogy. Please do speak up if you did, reader.

Here's the thing, though: it wasn't Keane's analogy:

Richard Bingham wrote: »

If I say I got a blowout while driving home from work [...]

I can understand (to a point) if someone wishes to get snitty about the fanciful or obtuse nature of someone else's comparison. Especially if they feel its invalid, or of a sort that trivialises the matter at hand. But when someone takes them up on their own, and then they do so, my understanding is... considerably less.

alaimacerc

Richard Bingham wrote: »

Point taken Robindch. I think shortening it to Pro Abort may make it sound more offensive than saying a person is Pro-abortion.

It still beats "proborts", as beloved by some of your presumptive allies over at p.ie, it must be said. But it's still fundamentally flawed in its basic construction: to say a person is "pro-abortion" is imputing to them them some sort of wish that abortions will actually happen, perhaps in some specified quantity. Or that they have some sort of opinion as to which other people ought to be getting abortions, like a certain Ukip candidate sounding off on the topic lately. But strangely, that's not remotely true of the vast majority of the people you're seeking to describe thereby. If you were simply seeking to ensure that everyone presently getting an abortion were facilitated in not getting pregnant in the first place, or were supported in (or even bribed into!) not getting a termination when they were, one would assume that a literally "pro-abortion" person would be highly upset about this; the people you're actually talking about, however, would not.

I will not refer to them as Pro-Choice however as this is a sugar coating, its non specific (about the choice in question) and it ignores that fact that some of the people involved (baby, father) have no choice.

I can't help but note that it[s impossible to discuss your attempts to load the terminology, without you throwing in yet more such. (Embryos are babies, people, etc.) Turtles all the way down.

For someone who is in favour of abortion to say they are pro-choice is sugar coating.

And oddly, some of think this is considerably more true of people who describe "in favour of constraining with criminal sanctions those attempting to vindicate reproductive choice and bodily autonomy" as "pro-life". De gustibus, etc. (More clickbait for you Latin fans, there!)

Turtwig

With Richards rather bizarre reported posts requests and his overall posting style in this thread I'm inclined to think he's not being genuine in his attempts at discussion. As such he's been given a month holiday to reconsider his position.

Have a nice back holiday all,

alaimacerc

obplayer wrote: »

I think you might find that the woman cares.

The "beauty" of it is, though, that she's now dead, in England to obtain a termination, or otherwise has been shamed or bullied into silence. So everyone else is thereby given space to not trouble to care about whether she cares (or cared).

2D Ayyport

gaynorvader wrote: »

It's not "killing teh babies" if they aren't babies yet. Can you seriously not see that this is the whole crux of the issue?

and some of us would have no problem acknowledging the fact that thats what abortion amounts to, 'killing teh babies', while still being very much pro-choice.

Brian Shanahan

2D Ayyport wrote: »

and some of us would have no problem acknowledging the fact that thats what abortion amounts to, 'killing teh babies', while still being very much pro-choice.

A foetus is not the same as a baby. For one thing foetuses are not yet alive, and another up to half of pregnancies are naturally aborted, without any medical intervention.

You do the pro-choice (and in truth the real pro-life) argument a disservice by parroting the anti-abortion, anti-life lies.

2D Ayyport

I dunno man,
I believe life begins at implantation
I believe a miscarrage/ an abortion results in the loss of life
I believe the rights of the mother absolutely over-ride the rights of the embryo/ foetus. (up until which point? i'm not sure. week 16/ 20/ 24...?)
after that abortion should be allowed 'for medical reasons' whatever you want to define that as

edit, I suppose in practice, that means i'm in favour of unlimited abortion, on demand? perhaps

Brian Shanahan

2D Ayyport wrote: »

I dunno man,
I believe life begins at implantation

No it doesn't it is a process where it is very hard to pinpoint where exactly it begins (probably because there is no discrete moment), but the point where the foetus is still a couple of cells is definitely not at a stage comparable to life.

I believe a miscarrage/ an abortion results in the loss of life

More accurate would be that it resulted in the loss of matter which had the potential for a life.

The rest of your post I've no comments to make on. I know it looks like I'm nitpicking here, but it is simply because the anti-abortion, anti-life side in this argument have essentially only these lies to go on. The quicker we make people realise that there is a vast qualitative difference between foetus and person, the quicker we'll have a sensible policy re abortion.

Absolam

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

No it doesn't it is a process where it is very hard to pinpoint where exactly it begins (probably because there is no discrete moment), but the point where the foetus is still a couple of cells is definitely not at a stage comparable to life.

That's a matter of opinion. If the cells are dividing they are assuredly alive; whether you term that 'life' is just opinion, no more or less.

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

More accurate would be that it resulted in the loss of matter which had the potential for a life.

Again, opinion. You're not offering anything that makes your opinion more worthwhile than 2D Ayyports; at least he admits his is an opinion.

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

The quicker we make people realise that there is a vast qualitative difference between foetus and person, the quicker we'll have a sensible policy re abortion.

That really depends on the qualities you ascribe to each though doesn't it? If you ascribe the quality of a soul to both for instance (and obviously most here wouldn't) you have an insurmountable obstacle. It doesn't even matter that it's not real; it only matters how many people want to see things that way.

obplayer

Absolam wrote: »

That's a matter of opinion. If the cells are dividing they are assuredly alive; whether you term that 'life' is just opinion, no more or less.


Again, opinion. You're not offering anything that makes your opinion more worthwhile than 2D Ayyports; at least he admits his is an opinion.


That really depends on the qualities you ascribe to each though doesn't it? If you ascribe the quality of a soul to both for instance (and obviously most here wouldn't) you have an insurmountable obstacle. It doesn't even matter that it's not real; it only matters how many people want to see things that way.

If I cut myself shaving the cells in my blood are still alive. Should I try and save them? Freeze and clone perhaps?
Never masturbate, every sperm is sacred? For women, always aim to be pregnant, can't waste an egg?

"It doesn't even matter that it's not real"
Yes it bl00dy well does! That pretty well sums up what anti-theists are saying, it matters if something is real!

Absolam

obplayer wrote: »

If I cut myself shaving the cells in my blood are still alive. Should I try and save them? Freeze and clone perhaps?
Never masturbate, every sperm is sacred? For women, always aim to be pregnant, can't waste an egg?

Yes, they're still alive. That's all. I didn't say anything at all should be done about it, only that Brian Shanahans assertion "the point where the foetus is still a couple of cells is definitely not at a stage comparable to life" is incorrect; the cells are alive.

obplayer wrote: »

"It doesn't even matter that it's not real"
Yes it bl00dy well does! That pretty well sums up what anti-theists are saying, it matters if something is real!

No it doesn't matter that it's not real, it only matters that people believe it's real. Those people will make their choices (and vote) based on their belief. And that is only the most controversial quality I could think to apply; a far more divisive quality might be human dna, brain activity, cell replication, various qualities which are demonstrable so subject to real discussion.

gaynorvader

2D Ayyport wrote: »

and some of us would have no problem acknowledging the fact that thats what abortion amounts to, 'killing teh babies', while still being very much pro-choice.

Sure, but it's still a very important distinction that needs to be drawn before we can start arguing over whether it's right to abort.

2D Ayyport wrote: »

I dunno man,
I believe life begins at implantation
I believe a miscarrage/ an abortion results in the loss of life
I believe the rights of the mother absolutely over-ride the rights of the embryo/ foetus. (up until which point? i'm not sure. week 16/ 20/ 24...?)
after that abortion should be allowed 'for medical reasons' whatever you want to define that as

edit, I suppose in practice, that means i'm in favour of unlimited abortion, on demand? perhaps

Do you believe a foetus should be afforded all of the rights of a human at implantation?
Why do you think a foetus should be afforded more rights at week 16/20/24? What changes?

I'm not trying to have a go, I'm just interested in your views.

Turtwig

Gay,

Airport was an alter ego on a previously banned troll. It's doubtful the views expressed were even genuine. Until the next incarnation comes around you won't get an answer. Even then you'll have no way of confirming it's him. In short, your questions will forever remain a mystery.

gaynorvader

Turtwig wrote: »

Gay,

Airport was an alter ego on a previously banned troll. It's doubtful the views expressed were even genuine. Until the next incarnation comes around you won't get an answer. Even then you'll have no way of confirming it's him. In short, your questions will forever remain a mystery.

Thanks for the heads up. A pity, they were an interesting set of views.

ryan101

robindch wrote: »

Abortion dicussion - this way.

Oh look, an instant reaction.

Ok, lets not mention the 2500 Irish kids killed each year, every year in the UK, or dare ask where they are buried.

When are you going to moderate the incitement to hatred posts that were reported to you ?

lynski

ryan101 wrote: »

2500 Irish kids are every year in the UK, I wonder where they are buried ?
No outrage or calls for investigations about that.

2500 Irish children do not die In the uk every year, 2500 pregnancies are terminated, 2500 foetus die.
2500 Irish women are denied safe medical treatment in their own country, over 200 of those are pregnancies that will never be viable.
All denied their autonomy in this country.
Not 2500 live born children, children who should have been running around and playing, not children who were starved to death ( death my malnutrition) not children who were as old as nine.
Not the children of girls whose parents may have thought they were being cared for, the children whose mother thought they were going to be adopted (when they knew).
Pro-life seems to mean all foetus brought to term at whatever cost and no concern for mother and for baby after birth.

ryan101

lynski wrote: »

2500 Irish children do not die In the uk every year, 2500 pregnancies are terminated, 2500 foetus die.
2500 Irish women are denied safe medical treatment in their own country, over 200 of those are pregnancies that will never be viable.
All denied their autonomy in this country.
Not 2500 live born children, children who should have been running around and playing, not children who were starved to death ( death my malnutrition) not children who were as old as nine.
Not the children of girls whose parents may have thought they were being cared for, the children whose mother thought they were going to be adopted (when they knew).
Pro-life seems to mean all foetus brought to term at whatever cost and concern for mother and for baby after birth.

I thought the mod wanted any mention of this shut down, so how some you are able to post this ?
The vast majority of abortions in the UK are not for medical reasons.
Where are these kids buried ?

Nodin

ryan101 wrote: »

I thought the mod wanted any mention of this shut down.
The vast majority of abortions in the UK are not for medical reasons.
Where are these kids buried ?

The reasons for abortion are irrelevant.


What "kids" are you referring to?

Cabaal

ryan101 wrote: »

I thought the mod wanted any mention of this shut down.
The vast majority of abortions in the UK are not for medical reasons.
Where are these kids buried ?

The abortions are still legal and the women have full input on them taking place, so nothing illegal or wrong there.

As for your question, what kids exactly?

lynski

ryan101 wrote: »

The vast majority of abortions in the UK are not for medical reasons.
Where are these kids buried ?

They are not children.
Those who can bring home their children do and bury them, read their heartbreaking stories, more catholic prolife ****e.
2500 suits the prolife argument today other days this is disputed by the prolifers.
In relation to this topic, there is a difference between the body if a fully carried, full term, infant who was born alive in a terrible prison and left to die or not given the care required to save their life and a pregnancy termination.
If the mothers involved choose to have a termination what business's is it of your what happens afterwards?
There is an attempt at deflection going on, where is the churches denial where are their records to show this is incorrect? Who is stepping up to say this is a mistake? The historiani heard today has spent six years investigation cillini all over Ireland and trying to. Draw attention to it. Now there are names and dates in tuam to prove whispers. Apologisers and deflectors will not succeed.

ryan101

Nodin wrote: »

The reasons for abortion are irrelevant.


What "kids" are you referring to?

Hardly relevant if someone is claiming they are only for medical reasons

I suppose you can always try to pretend they don't exist.

2500 every year from Ireland, where are they buried ?

ryan101

lynski wrote: »

They are not children.

They are human lives, 2500 every year from Ireland, and where are they buried ?