Abortion Discussion

J C

volchitsa wrote: »

Secondly, about the MAP - from what point of view is it a bad thing if it were to be used as regular contraception - bad for the woman's health, or bad as in immoral?

Bad medically and bad ethically.

volchitsa

J C wrote: »

There are undoubtedly some women who do this ... for 'kicks' ...

That is a disgusting accusation. Can you find a single serious example of that?

For kicks? You're an idiot. And a woman-hating one at that.
I've had enough of you.

Brian Shanahan

professore wrote: »

The Nazis made the same arguments about the Jews.

Seriously, you're just going to Godwin the thread so earlythe first time your worldview comes under scrutiny?

If you are so against abortions, tell me, would you have a foetus implanted in your abdomnen for the duration of a pregnancy, seeing as that is what you insist on forcing onto women will they or nill they?

J C

jill_valentine wrote: »

You don't get to tell her how to feel about what is happening to her own body, I'm afraid.

Who are you talking of ... the pregnant woman or the child she is carrying?

in any event, I wouldn't presume to tell anybody about how they should feel about being pregnant or facing imminent death.

I'm afraid, I'd be lost for words.

jill_valentine

J C wrote: »

In-between these two extremes lie all kinds of situations and permutations. Situations where pregnancy has resulted from rape certainly pushes the ethics of administering the Morning After Pill towards it's administration.
However, for both medical and ethical reasons, it certainly shouldn't become the primary contraception method for women who are (voluntarily) sexually active - and who therefore have the opportunity of using better methods of routine contraception.

For the quintizillionth time, this is a completely redundant rabbit hole to try to lead us all down. There is absolutely no point talking about contraception when the discussion is about abortion - regardless of the reason, that horse has long since bolted. We don't stand about arguing how to prevent little Jimmy ever climbing the big oak tree again when he's lying on the ground with his leg broken crying to go to hospital.

It is beyond me why this is so hard for people to wrap their heads around. Nobody practices recreational abortion for crying out loud - they have to be pregnant first, at which point all the condoms in the world won't make a difference. So rambling on about contraceptive methods is completely off topic.

Brian Shanahan

thomur wrote: »

Abortion is murder full stop. No different from the ISIS nuts killing people in Syria/Iraq

Well then, why is it that in nearly all countries the "killing" of a foetus isn't accorded the same penalty as killing a living child, even when it is a criminal offence? Or why is it that for most of history the rcc, the most vocal of the anti-abortion crowd, actually considered abortion a perfectly valid choice for the woman up until 13 1/2 weeks, and didn't adopt the "no abortions, nowhere, no-how" attitude until the 1860's? Or how is it that up to half of all human pregnancies are spontaneously aborted without any medical intervention, simly a normally functioning bodily process?

Your line of rationalisation, sir or madam, is without merit.

jill_valentine

J C wrote: »

There are undoubtedly some women who do this ... for 'kicks' ...

Speechless.

J C

volchitsa wrote: »

That is a disgusting accusation. Can you find a single serious example of that?

For kicks? You're an idiot. And a woman-hating one at that.
I've had enough of you.

Are you presuming that evil behaviour is the sole preserve of men?

I did present it as at the other possible extreme of the spectrum.

inocybe

J C wrote: »

Situations where pregnancy has resulted from rape certainly pushes the ethics of administering the Morning After Pill towards it's administration.
However, for both medical and ethical reasons, it certainly shouldn't become the primary contraception method for women who are (voluntarily) sexually active - and who therefore have the opportunity of using better methods of routine contraception.

I wonder how much you actually know about what you're moralizing about. Do you realize that the MAP works in the same way as many contraceptive pills. That taking a certain amount of a certain contraceptive IS the MAP, so it doesn't have to be 'administered, and so women can and will use the MAP in any way that they choose. That neither are absolutely effective in the way they work.
That there are compelling medical and ethical reasons why abortion should be available under medical supervision, rather than at home alone. Because you don't get to make reproductive decisions for somebody else.

volchitsa

J C wrote: »

Are you presuming that evil behaviour is the sole preserve of men?

I did present it as at the other possible extreme of the spectrum.

No, you said that there are undoubtedly some women "who do this for kicks" , which really proves how unbelievingly stupid and misogynistic you must be. You didn't even have the wit to say it "could" happen - though really unless the woman was mentally ill, I don't see how that could be true anyway.

Do you think anyone gets a tooth out for kicks? Why in the name of anything would a same person have an abortion for kicks?

J C

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Well then, why is it that in nearly all countries the "killing" of a foetus isn't accorded the same penalty as killing a living child, even when it is a criminal offence? Or why is it that for most of history the rcc, the most vocal of the anti-abortion crowd, actually considered abortion a perfectly valid choice for the woman up until 13 1/2 weeks, and didn't adopt the "no abortions, nowhere, no-how" attitude until the 1860's?

Whatever, about the position of the RCC ... 'thou shall not kill' seems pretty clear to me.

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Or how is it that up to half of all human pregnancies are spontaneously aborted without any medical intervention, simply a normally functioning bodily process?

Many people die of natural causes every day ... ethical and legal issues only arise where these deaths are caused by third parties.
... and abortions are also caused by third party interventions.

J C

volchitsa wrote: »

No, you said that there are undoubtedly some women "who do this for kicks" , which really proves how unbelievingly stupid and misogynistic you must be. You didn't even have the wit to say it "could" happen - though really unless the woman was mentally ill, I don't see how that could be true anyway.

Do you think anyone gets a tooth out for kicks? Why in the name of anything would a same person have an abortion for kicks?

Why do people take illicit drugs, drink to excess or otherwise engage in self-destructive activities, like joy-riding or self-harm or semi-asphyxiation for 'kicks'?

I don't know why people do this ... but it undoubtedly happens.

inocybe

J C wrote: »

Whatever, about the position of the RCC ... 'thou shall not kill' seems pretty clear to me.

Many people die every day ... ethical and legal issues only arise where these deaths are caused by third parties.
... and abortions are also caused by third party interventions.

Really? Not necessarily a third party. What if a woman takes a pill that has side-effects? What if she drinks a lot? What if she goes into a state of severe stress and doesn't eat properly? What if she can't afford to travel and has to google home abortions?

J C

volchitsa wrote: »

Do you think anyone gets a tooth out for kicks?

A masochist might.

J C

inocybe wrote: »

Really? Not necessarily a third party. What if a woman takes a pill that has side-effects? What if she drinks a lot? What if she goes into a state of severe stress and doesn't eat properly? What if she can't afford to travel and has to google home abortions?

All such women are in need of counselling and/or other medical intervention to help them with whatever personal or medical problems are troubling them.
Why do you seem to presume that an abortion is some kind of panacea to every possible ailment that a pregnant woman may suffer from?

inocybe

J C wrote: »

All such women are in need of counselling and/or other medical intervention to help them with whatever personal or medical problems are troubling them.
Why do you seem to presume that an abortion is some kind of panacea to every possible ailment that a pregnant woman may suffer from?

Facepalm.
Because the personal and medical problem that is troubling her IS unwanted pregnancy.

J C

inocybe wrote: »

Facepalm.
Because the personal and medical problem that is troubling her IS unwanted pregnancy.

... and if she has an abortion ... continuing to take a pill that has side-effects, drinking a lot and being in a state of severe stress and not eating properly will just magically disappear, as a result?

alaimacerc

J C wrote: »

Who are you talking of ... the pregnant woman or the child she is carrying?

in any event, I wouldn't presume to tell anybody about how they should feel about being pregnant or facing imminent death.

I'm afraid, I'd be lost for words.

You certainly seem to be pretty short of logically consistent -- much less remotely empathetic -- things to say as it stands. Given that you were characterising this a moment ago with the astonishingly breezy "chance of a lifetime". Yes, losing those would have been a very good start.

Earlier we were having the idea floated that "personhood", and hence "right to life" must somehow start at the earliest even-arguably-detectable signs of electrical activity in the embryonic precursor of what later becomes the brain. (And then deducting a week or so extra, presumably in line with the old cricket concept that the benefit of the doubt goes to the batsman, even when there's no doubt.) But if we were to take the above maudlin rubbish seriously, we'd have to define it from time of ability to form abstract thoughts about the sadness of one's own demise. Radical!

J C

alaimacerc wrote: »

You certainly seem to be pretty short of logically consistent -- much less remotely empathetic -- things to say as it stands. Given that you were characterising this a moment ago with the astonishingly breezy "chance of a lifetime". Yes, losing those would have been a very good start.

I was responding to the introduction of 'the chance of a lifetime' concept by lazygal
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92197859&postcount=6435

alaimacerc wrote: »

Earlier we were having the idea floated that "personhood", and hence "right to life" must somehow start at the earliest even-arguably-detectable signs of electrical activity in the embryonic precursor of what later becomes the brain. (And then deducting a week or so extra, presumably in line with the old cricket concept that the benefit of the doubt goes to the batsman, even when there's no doubt.) But if we were to take the above maudlin rubbish seriously, we'd have to define it from time of ability to form abstract thoughts about the sadness of one's own demise. Radical!

... and does this mean that many of us, who never contemplate such thoughts, have no right to life ... in accordance with your 'radical' doctrine?:)

alaimacerc

J C wrote: »

Whatever, about the position of the RCC ... 'thou shall not kill' seems pretty clear to me.

Slaying of the Canaanites? He who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death? Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live? In this sign conquer? Papal Bulls authorising the English conquest or Ireland? Crusades? Go bomb ISIL?

I'm sure all religious texts and practices are "pretty clear" if you cherrypick hard enough.

Many people die of natural causes every day ... ethical and legal issues only arise where these deaths are caused by third parties.
... and abortions are also caused by third party interventions.

Ah yes, back to axiomatic foetal, and indeed presumably embryonic and zygotic, personhood. Round and round we go.

Not. Legally. The. Case.

Your idea of "ethics" may vary. (Though seems essentially like RCC reproductive "moral teaching" without much in the way of the usual half-hearted demonstrations of compassion. (As opposed to merely periodically asserting "I'm compassionate, me."))

alaimacerc

J C wrote: »

I was responding to the introduction of 'the chance of a lifetime' concept by lazygal
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92197859&postcount=6435

And you don't think there's a distinction between using it with bitter irony and using it as an uncritical endorsement?

... and does this mean that many of us, who never contemplate such thoughts, have no right to life ... in accordance with your 'radical' doctrine?:)

Eh? This is your position I'm teasing out here, not mine. Or did someone else naughtily put that thought in your head, too, when you started on about foetal feelings? (Sorry, "preborn child", because Reasons. Like assuming that which you're most clearly unable to verify by any means.)

alaimacerc

swampgas wrote: »

That's a massive red herring. If she is suicidal because she is pregnant and can't get the abortion she desperately wants, I would suggest she have an abortion.

If she isn't pregnant, it's a completely different issue, so don't try that bit of misdirection thanks very much.

You say it's "misdirection", but that might be giving it rather too much it too much credit. Sounds more like someone's been listening to the anti-abortion "not a treatment for suicidal ideation" slogan, forgetting that it only makes sense if you bear in mind the "constructive ambiguity" in the mentally reserved context and qualification for that, and extrapolating it in their own wacky manner.

Suggesting that advocates for any sort of liberalisation are actually saying "feeling down? then have an unwanted pregnancy, and get an abortion, you'll feel much better than when you started" fail immediately on the manifest lack of them actually saying anything like this.

Frito

professore wrote: »

There isn't a suitable analogy to a woman carrying her unborn child inside her.

But then abortion isn't quite murder either, to draw on your neighbour analogy it's more akin to eviction.

If the preservation of life is so important, blood, bone marrow (and potentially organ donation) should be mandatory, with penalties for eligible persons not registering.

Although I would hope that those eligible persons* of a pro-life persuasion are already registered to donate bone marrow, their organs after death, cord blood from their placenta and regularly donate blood. The Irish transfusion service needs 3000 units a week. I can't find exact numbers, but on average 70% of people needing bone marrow die waiting for it.

---

edit

---

*Can't force them to donate though, especially not for the sake of argument.

alaimacerc

J C wrote: »

Although all analogies have weaknesses ... it is more analogous to getting a puppy for Christmas, and the first time it causes you any discomfort, having it killed.

Yes, the essential "weakness" of the offered one obviously being "can't happen to me, thus I don't care, amirite?

If you don't want a puppy ... or a child ... don't get one.
... if you do ... you then have responsibilities to the puppy and the child ... and these responsibilities cannot be ethically extinguished by having them killed.

See, what you have there is not so much an analogy, which like all analogies has its "weaknesses", as a comparison that's offensive, naff, twee, and trite.

First, you're misspelling "become pregnant", "get a child". You may want to refer to a biology textbook, rather than the stork-based or gooseberry-bush-using folklore that this comment seems to only make sense in the context of. Secondly, you can't "get a puppy" by an act of violence by someone else. You can't make all reasonable attempts to avoid "getting a puppy" only to for it to happen by misadventure, or failure of the imperfect terminology. You can't be put in the position where your only choices are "killing the puppy" or having it take over your body and your endocrine system for 40 weeks. (Or if you're "lucky", find out at 8 weeks, get a caesarian at 24, having been misled, detained, generally messed around and force-feed in between.)

alaimacerc

Frito wrote: »

But then abortion isn't quite murder either, to draw on your neighbour analogy it's more akin to eviction.

One prominent US Libertarian defender of what they call an "intermediate" position on abortion explicitly calls it "evictionism", on the basis that women should be allowed to opt to be induced at any time, as long as they don't "directly" harm the foetus. (Which is a bit like a Randroid parody of the RCC's similarly non-consequentialist position on a number of things other than abortion per se, like treatment of ectopy.)

If the preservation of life is so important, blood, bone marrow (and potentially organ donation) should be mandatory, with penalties for eligible persons not registering.

Although I would hope that those eligible persons* of a pro-life persuasion are already registered to donate bone marrow, their organs after death, cord blood from their placenta and regularly donate blood. The Irish transfusion service needs 3000 units a week. I can't find exact numbers, but on average 70% of people needing bone marrow die waiting for it.

---

edit

---

*Can't force them to donate though, especially not for the sake of argument.

It's not something I would actually propose, I think it should go without saying, but look at it like this: they're proposing a comparable, if not more extreme, "duty of care" of a particular section of the population (whether or not they belong to it themselves), to save the life of an entity that no legal system on the planet that I've heard of defines as a person. Why is there no such absolute duty of care for the "post-birth"

If the Categorical Imperative were in the constitution (and their first move wasn't simply just to vote it back out again), then the soi-disant "pro life" would be thereby (as well as logically at present, if "logically" buttered any parsnips) compelled to propose this, if they insist on proposing similar to pregnant women.

Essentially we'll get some blether to the effect that the "natural" for an embryo is in whichever womb it ends up in (and being referred to as a "child"), while the "natural" place for their bone marrow is exactly-where-it-is thank-you-very-much!

Zubeneschamali

thomur wrote: »

Abortion is murder full stop. No different from the ISIS nuts killing people in Syria/Iraq

See, Absolam? This guy is anti abortion!

No wishy-washy "it isn't practicable" stuff here!

lazygal

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

See, Absolam? This guy is anti abortion!

No wishy-washy "it isn't practicable" stuff here!

It's nice to see a clear statement from someone who opposes abortion and isn't afraid to say so.
Now, when will those hand wringing over how it's not possible to prevent women from travelling to murder the unborn start the campaign to repeal the right to travel and information and introduce legislation to prosecute women on return if they abortions.

volchitsa

J C wrote: »

Why do people take illicit drugs, drink to excess or otherwise engage in self-destructive activities, like joy-riding or self-harm or semi-asphyxiation for 'kicks'?

I don't know why people do this ... but it undoubtedly happens.

Illicit drugs etc - because it's enjoyable, stoopid.

Self harm - because they have psychological problems, idiot.

I can't believe you are comparing having an abortion to driving too fast or smoking dope. You need help. Or proper education.

lazygal

What possible kick would a woman get from getting pregnant just to have an abortion, especially in Ireland when she'd have to incur hassle to get one? This attitude towards women, that they'll just have abortions left, right and centre if we let them, is not surprising but it's extremely patronising and misogynistic, which I'd expect from those whose solution to every unwanted pregnancy is the same.

Loafing Oaf

lazygal wrote: »

It's nice to see a clear statement from someone who opposes abortion and isn't afraid to say so.
Now, when will those hand wringing over how it's not possible to prevent women from travelling to murder the unborn start the campaign to repeal the right to travel and information and introduce legislation to prosecute women on return if they abortions.

And presumably to stop abortions to treat pre-eclampsia etc. Can't have murder going on in our maternity hospitals can we...