Abortion Discussion

Brian Shanahan

alaimacerc wrote: »

I'm guessing you might be getting hung up on the "universally" here. That seems to me to be an overclaim, as clearly there are some people who're Faithful Catholics(TM) on abortion, and all sorts of shades of progressive on broader social issues.

You know, in my near thirty-four years of life, I've not yet to witness an anti-abort nor meet one personally who has even been more progressive than Timur-i-Lang (I was going to say Chinngis Khan, but in some ways he was quite the progressive). I could be wrong, but the progressive anti-aborts are almost definitely an infinitessimal minority within the far right movement that is anti-abortion advocacy.

Brian Shanahan

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Why, could you not address his points either?

What points? Like him, you have none, just plain old distortion of the words of others.

Dan_Solo

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

What points? Like him, you have none, just plain old distortion of the words of others.

Funny how everybody who decided at the start that I was a pro-life Catholic and was left a bit eggy around the face when this didn't work out for them seems to think this. But everybody else doesn't. Most coincidental I'm sure.
So your own point was? :-)

Dan_Solo

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

You know, in my near thirty-four years of life, I've not yet to witness an anti-abort

You've studiously ignored that last three pages here where it was amply illustrated "anti-abort" could included anybody against an on request abortion one minute before birth. It's fairly much useless unless you mean opposed to any and all abortions under any possible circumstances.
Is that your definition, or are you going for the vague whatever I want it to mean from minute to minute thing too?

volchitsa

Dan_Solo wrote: »

You've studiously ignored that last three pages here where it was amply illustrated "anti-abort" could included anybody against an on request abortion one minute before birth.

Was it really? I haven't seen anyone other than various anti-aborts claim that. Yourself too of course.

Nor for that matter have I seen anything other than your own affirmation thqt you aren't a Catholic. That may even be true, but you can't make a claim to have done anything other than just said it. You could as easily tell us you are Breda O Brien or Pantibliss, and those would be just as fully proven - or not - as your non allegiance to Catholicism or any other belief system.

robindch

MrPudding wrote: »

My most humble apologies. Sometimes I suffer from an inability to stop typing what I am thinking. I won't promise it won't happen again, because I am pretty sure it would be a lie, and that would be a sin. I will however try really, really hard not to do it again, at least for sometime until you have maybe forgotten this occurrence.

Your sins are forgiven. Go and sin no more, my child.

Dan_Solo

volchitsa wrote: »

Was it really? I haven't seen anyone other than various anti-aborts claim that. Yourself too of course.

There it is again. "anti-aborts". Will you ever tell us what it means? Who knows? You refuse to define it. It's just an easily exposed cop-out that you think is a clever ploy to lump anybody you don't agree with into.
So, if I am opposed to on request abortions one minute before birth, that makes me an "anti-abort", technically huh? Do you have a definition or do you just not want to tell anyone?
BTW, not that you seem to have bothered to notice, but I never said whether I was a Catholic or not. I refused to answer the question because nobody came within an ass's roar of making a case that it had any bearing on the points being discussed. Oh, you've done that now too... aw snap.

volchitsa

Dan_Solo wrote: »

There it is again. "anti-aborts". Will you ever tell us what it means? Who knows? You refuse to define it. It's just an easily exposed cop-out that you think is a clever ploy to lump anybody you don't agree with into.

I did define it, as I understand it anyway - you just didn't like my definition and tried to deflect onto my own personal legal preferences about abortion might be. Which want the question at all.

Dan_Solo wrote: »

So, if I am opposed to on request abortions one minute before birth, that makes me an "anti-abort", technically huh? Do you have a definition or do you just not want to tell anyone?

Well that just proves you didn't bother reading my definition at all then, before going off on your rant(s) : I made it perfectly clear that someone can have quite a restrictive view (compared to my own, for example) of when abortion should be allowed and yet not be an anti-abort in my view.

Though as for your actual example, it's so unclear as to be meaningless - what do you mean by an abortion "one minute before birth"? Do you in fact mean infanticide? Or just terminating a pregnancy articificially, but where the baby could live? Cos that exists - it's just called "being induced". Or a C-section, depending.

And your "question" is also, frankly, weird : how quick do you imagine a birth to be, that someone could choose to within a few minutes of it happening to just stop and go for something else instead?

obplayer

Dan_Solo wrote: »

There it is again. "anti-aborts". Will you ever tell us what it means? Who knows? You refuse to define it. It's just an easily exposed cop-out that you think is a clever ploy to lump anybody you don't agree with into.
So, if I am opposed to on request abortions one minute before birth, that makes me an "anti-abort", technically huh? Do you have a definition or do you just not want to tell anyone?
BTW, not that you seem to have bothered to notice, but I never said whether I was a Catholic or not. I refused to answer the question because nobody came within an ass's roar of making a case that it had any bearing on the points being discussed. Oh, you've done that now too... aw snap.

That makes you opposed to something which has never been requested, never will be requested and is a problem which exists only in your imagination.

Peregrinus

obplayer wrote: »

That makes you opposed to something which has never been requested, never will be requested and is a problem which exists only in your imagination.

That misses the point, though. Offering pejorative stereotypes about "anti-aborts" while failing to make it clear what you mean by "anti-abort" is not a useful contribution to discussion. If "anti-abort" means "people who favour legal restrictions on abortion and hold generally regressive social views", then saying that anti-aborts hold generally regressive social views is a truism. On the other hand, if "anti-abort" simply means "people who favour legal restrictions on abortion", then that's the great bulk of the population - most people who favour more liberal access to abortion than we currently have still favour some legal restrictions, as your own post acknowledges. And if Brian Shanahan's claim is that the great bulk of the population hold generally socially regressive views, well, I'm expecting that someday he will produce evidence for that, if he wants the claim to be entertained.

If, on the other hand, "anti-abort" means something between those two, before I can evaluate the claim I need to know what it means. And after three pages of posts, I'm still not much clearer. Which comes back to my opening point; throwing around pejorative claims which rest on vague concepts is, at best, unhelpful.

What absolutely bedevils the discourse about abortion in this country is it's polarisation; advocates on both sides tend to paint their opponents as extremists. The truth is that the great middle ground in this country favours restrictions on access to abortion. The dialogue we need to have should be aimed at finding some sort of consensus about the balance of restrictions and access that we can live with. Statements like Brians are more calculated to sabotage that dialogue than to advance it and, for anyone who actually wants a change in Ireland's abortion laws, that's a very, very stupid strategy to adopt.

alaimacerc

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Another essentially meaningless post. I am apparently both "pro-life" and "pro-choice" as I would advocate abortions at certain stages on request but not at others.

Another exercise in "we're all individuals". You may feel unhappy at being "lumped" with yet-more-strident opponents of abortion liberalisation, but it's hardly something that originated in this thread, by the "liberal" wing of the argument. (Just pop over to p.ie listen to people having "probort!" screamed at them if they suggest "maternal health risk" dare be factored into any consideration.)

Peregrinus

alaimacerc wrote: »

Another exercise in "we're all individuals". You may feel unhappy at being "lumped" with yet-more-strident opponents of abortion liberalisation, but it's hardly something that originated in this thread, by the "liberal" wing of the argument. (Just pop over to p.ie listen to people having "probort!" screamed at them if they suggest "maternal health risk" dare be factored into any consideration.)

But are you saying, then, that pejorative statements about "anti-aborts" are just the flip side of this behaviour, and are about as useful?

Because if that is what you'r saying, I'd agree.

Absolam

alaimacerc wrote: »

I'm guessing you might be getting hung up on the "universally" here.

Well, I don't know about 'hung up on' but it's a fairly bald preface to the claim, it doesn't really admit of any wriggle room, does it?

alaimacerc wrote: »

That seems to me to be an overclaim, as clearly there are some people who're Faithful Catholics(TM) on abortion, and all sorts of shades of progressive on broader social issues.

There may well be people like that, though I'm not sure how they relate to 'people who are universally of the type which will support policies which make it harder for poor people to get good jobs, get educated, get proper access to their rights and be treated, in general, like human beings', which seems to be describing a different person entirely?

alaimacerc wrote: »

How'd you feel about the proposition that the two are strongly positively correlated? In the form of "Movement Conservatives", as the jargon would have it.

I'd be skeptical, given there's been no evidence presented that the first kind exists it's hard to see what connections you'll show between the two, though I imagine saying both would, if they existed, be likely to be movement conservatives is a bit like saying if you had fairies and put hats on them they'd be rather like leprechauns.

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

You know, in my near thirty-four years of life, I've not yet to witness an anti-abort nor meet one personally who has even been more progressive than Timur-i-Lang (I was going to say Chinngis Khan, but in some ways he was quite the progressive). I could be wrong, but the progressive anti-aborts are almost definitely an infinitessimal minority within the far right movement that is anti-abortion advocacy.

Which is wonderfully waffly (are leprechauns an infinitesimal minority amongst fairies?), but doesn't really do anything whatsoever to support your assertion, does it?

Dan_Solo

alaimacerc wrote: »

Another exercise in "we're all individuals". You may feel unhappy at being "lumped" with yet-more-strident opponents of abortion liberalisation, but it's hardly something that originated in this thread, by the "liberal" wing of the argument. (Just pop over to p.ie listen to people having "probort!" screamed at them if they suggest "maternal health risk" dare be factored into any consideration.)

So I should be comforted about being lumped into a generalisation with no actual supplied definition by the fact this happens to somebody else somewhere.
Gee, thanks?

Dan_Solo

obplayer wrote: »

That makes you opposed to something which has never been requested, never will be requested and is a problem which exists only in your imagination.

You think no woman in history has asked for an abortion around the time of birth? OK.
What about a day before?
What about a week before?
What about a month before?
Ah, but you're just deliberately missing the point now anyway as you don't like where the answer leads. Plain as day.
As I already said (which has remained completely unanswered of course) why is it illegal to kill your baby shortly after death if equally "nobody would do that"?

Dan_Solo

alaimacerc wrote: »

Another exercise in "we're all individuals". You may feel unhappy at being "lumped" with yet-more-strident opponents of abortion liberalisation, but it's hardly something that originated in this thread, by the "liberal" wing of the argument. (Just pop over to p.ie listen to people having "probort!" screamed at them if they suggest "maternal health risk" dare be factored into any consideration.)

So I should be comforted about being lumped into a generalisation with no actual supplied definition by the fact this happens to somebody else somewhere.
Gee, thanks?

volchitsa

Dan_Solo wrote: »

You think no woman in history has asked for an abortion around the time of birth? OK.
What about a day before?
What about a week before?
What about a month before?
Ah, but you're just deliberately missing the point now anyway as you don't like where the answer leads. Plain as day.
As I already said (which has remained completely unanswered of course) why is it illegal to kill your baby shortly after death if equally "nobody would do that"?

How could someone have an abortion the day before birth? Isn't that just a birth? Or even a week or a month before? And no, that's not missing the point, because it is your point.

When the sad business about Miss Y was being discussed, we were informed by those supporting the brutal treatment she'd been given that she had indeed been allowed her pregnancy termination as the law required, so what was she complaining about, was the gist.

Even in those countries with the most liberal abortion laws in existence, late abortions are a tiny fraction of the total, and are almost without exception (probably in fact without exception, but I'm not going looking for the figures) due to severe fetal abnormalities which are often not diagnosed until late in pregnancy.

It just doesn't make sense to imagine that a woman will go through what is usually by far the most unpleasant part of pregnancy, the first trimester, then all of the second trimester and part of the third, and then suddenly decide "You know what, I don't want this baby, let's dump it!"

Her physical investment at that point is already huge. It shows a complete lack of understanding to claim that a woman who had done all that would change her mind for some some frivolous reason at the last minute.

If she no longer wishes, or can no longer bear, to be pregnant at that stage, she'll ask for an early birth, either by c-section or by induction. But an abortion "just because"? I don't believe it.

Absolam

volchitsa wrote: »

How could someone have an abortion the day before birth? Isn't that just a birth? Or even a week or a month before? And no, that's not missing the point, because it is your point.

Well, you could be talking about aborting the life of the child, which at that point you could call an abortion, as distinct from aborting the pregnancy which you might call a birth. I have a feeling you knew that though, and just wanted to muddy the point....

volchitsa wrote: »

When the sad business about Miss Y was being discussed, we were informed by those supporting the brutal treatment she'd been given that she had indeed been allowed her pregnancy termination as the law required, so what was she complaining about, was the gist.

Actually the gist was why should her wish to terminate the life of her child be acceded to, when terminating her pregnancy whilst saving the life of her child was a viable option for relieving her suicidal ideation which was caused by being pregnant, if I recall what was being put forward...

volchitsa wrote: »

Even in those countries with the most liberal abortion laws in existence, late abortions are a tiny fraction of the total, and are almost without exception (probably in fact without exception, but I'm not going looking for the figures) due to severe fetal abnormalities which are often not diagnosed until late in pregnancy.

Which kind of entirely avoids the point; LexieOnRale asserted that she would support abortion at any stage of pregnancy, which (if she intended the meaning of aborting the life of the foetus rather than aborting the pregnancy) begs Dan_Solos question why it is conscionable to terminate the life of a child just before birth, but not just after.

volchitsa wrote: »

It just doesn't make sense to imagine that a woman will go through what is usually by far the most unpleasant part of pregnancy, the first trimester, then all of the second trimester and part of the third, and then suddenly decide "You know what, I don't want this baby, let's dump it!"

Well, if you're only imagining it, it's as valid a thought exercise as your own notions of logically extending a ban on abortion in one country into others in fairness...

volchitsa wrote: »

Her physical investment at that point is already huge. It shows a complete lack of understanding to claim that a woman who had done all that would change her mind for some some frivolous reason at the last minute.

I didn't see any expression of a frivilous reason, maybe it's your own lack of understanding of the question that led you to that conclusion?

volchitsa wrote: »

If she no longer wishes, or can no longer bear, to be pregnant at that stage, she'll ask for an early birth, either by c-section or by induction. But an abortion "just because"? I don't believe it.

Well, you yourself have presented the case of an individual who quite definitely wanted to terminate the life of her child, and not just her pregnancy, so it's not beyond the bounds of imagination...

Dan_Solo

volchitsa wrote: »

How could someone have an abortion the day before birth? Isn't that just a birth? Or even a week or a month before? And no, that's not missing the point, because it is your point.

If you have an abortion it's still a birth? Much as with somebody's confused "early" termination of pregnancy before, is there some new definition of the word "abortion" you would like to introduce to the world here that allows the birth to continue?
So instead of addressing the point all you're saying now is that it is my point... I kinda knew that. Your failure to address it is what's the problem here.

volchitsa wrote: »

Even in those countries with the most liberal abortion laws in existence, late abortions are a tiny fraction of the total, and are almost without exception (probably in fact without exception, but I'm not going looking for the figures) due to severe fetal abnormalities which are often not diagnosed until late in pregnancy.

It just doesn't make sense to imagine that a woman will go through what is usually by far the most unpleasant part of pregnancy, the first trimester, then all of the second trimester and part of the third, and then suddenly decide "You know what, I don't want this baby, let's dump it!"

Her physical investment at that point is already huge. It shows a complete lack of understanding to claim that a woman who had done all that would change her mind for some some frivolous reason at the last minute.

If she no longer wishes, or can no longer bear, to be pregnant at that stage, she'll ask for an early birth, either by c-section or by induction. But an abortion "just because"? I don't believe it.

This is just repeating the same refuted line over and over. As I've stated this approach doesn't work. Now, instead of just saying the same refuted thing again, why don't you answer the question?
If no woman would have a late-pregnancy abortion because of the "investment" she has put in, why is a mother murdering their post-birth children an offense? Nobody would ever do that would they? Much more investment involved too at that stage. Your case is that we don't need laws against things that are rarely done. Which isn't really a case at all TBH.
Your case also seems to be to have no regulation on abortions at all (in which case you would have to permit the one minute before birth abortion) but saying nobody would want that us just a fudge. You can't make laws based on that kind of wishy washyness.

Dan_Solo

Absolam wrote: »

Well, you could be talking about aborting the life of the child, which at that point you could call an abortion, as distinct from aborting the pregnancy which you might call a birth. I have a feeling you knew that though, and just wanted to muddy the point....

Somebody's confused I think. You don't "abort" a pregnancy, you "abort" a foetus.

Delirium

Dan_Solo wrote: »

If you have an abortion it's still a birth? Much as with somebody's confused "early" termination of pregnancy before, is there some new definition of the word "abortion" you would like to introduce to the world here that allows the birth to continue?

Birth:
the emergence of a baby or other young from the body of its mother; the start of life as a physically separate being.

Abortion: the termination of a pregnancy.

Dan_Solo

SW wrote: »

Birth:
the emergence of a baby or other young from the body of its mother; the start of life as a physically separate being.

Abortion: the termination of a pregnancy.

Ah, how convenient, no references for where you got these definitions. Wonder why? Not just invented on the spot by any chance? Oh no...

From wikipedia:
Abortion is the ending of pregnancy by the removal or forcing out from the womb of a fetus or embryo before it is able to survive on its own.

You want to edit that page because the world doesn't seem to agree with you.

volchitsa

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Ah, how convenient, no references for where you got these definitions. Wonder why? Not just invented on the spot by any chance? Oh no...

From wikipedia:
Abortion is the ending of pregnancy by the removal or forcing out from the womb of a fetus or embryo before it is able to survive on its own.

You want to edit that page because the world doesn't seem to agree with you.

So what did Miss Y have then? Is a 25 week fetus able to survive on its own? Or does taking it out many weeks before it's ready,and when it's unclear if it's able to survive, and then employing violent medical methods to try to stop it from dying count as birth?

If there's a lack of clarity, it's yours at least as much as anyone else's. It's really not clear what exactly you're talking about, when one tries to see how your posts could apply to RL situations.

Try rephrasing your question more precisely, instead of expecting people to guess at what you're asking, and then whining because you're not getting a clear reply to the question in your head.

Delirium

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Ah, how convenient, no references for where you got these definitions. Wonder why? Not just invented on the spot by any chance? Oh no...

From wikipedia:
Abortion is the ending of pregnancy by the removal or forcing out from the womb of a fetus or embryo before it is able to survive on its own.

You want to edit that page because the world doesn't seem to agree with you.

this means that an abortion one minute before birth isn't possible

EDIT:

with regard to the definition for abortion:

from Dictionary.com

Also called voluntary abortion. the removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy.

from the Cambridge online dictionary:

the intentional ending of a pregnancy

volchitsa

SW wrote: »

this means that an abortion one minute before birth isn't possible

Or a week, or a month, as I pointed out some time back. (And was told I was avoiding the point. )

Absolam

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Somebody's confused I think. You don't "abort" a pregnancy, you "abort" a foetus.

In fairness, you can abort either, just as you can terminate either.

SW wrote: »

Birth:the emergence of a baby or other young from the body of its mother; the start of life as a physically separate being.

Which may be the result of the abortion of a pregnancy (for instance when a child is born, or delivered prematurely), and is always at the termination of a pregnancy.

SW wrote: »

Abortion: the termination of a pregnancy.

But also the abortion, or termination, of the life of a foetus.

There are no hard and fasts here; neither the word abortion nor the word termination is exclusive to the ending of lives or pregnancies. I think it is fair to say that the common understanding of the use of the word abortion or termination in the context of the ending of a pregnancy is that it also encompasses the ending of the life of the foetus though... and I'm sure if anyone can show anything to refute that they won't be slow about doing so

EDIT:
For the sake of comparison with Cambridge, Merriam Webster offers

abortion
: a medical procedure used to end a pregnancy and cause the death of the fetus

volchitsa

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Somebody's confused I think. You don't "abort" a pregnancy, you "abort" a foetus.

Someone is indeed confused.you Try a dictionary.

You can't abort a thing, you abort a process - aborting a landing for example, isn't an abortion of the plane.

So no, it definitely is the pregnancy that may be aborted. Not the fetus, that's an abuse of language, pure and simple.

Absolam

SW wrote: »

this means that an abortion one minute before birth isn't possible

A one minute old child isn't going to survive on it's own either...so if we're going to be pedantic and hold absolutely to every word of Dans wiki definition, it is possible, just as it is possible at a week, or a month before birth.

Dan_Solo

volchitsa wrote: »

Someone is indeed confused.you Try a dictionary.

You can't abort a thing, you abort a process - aborting a landing for example, isn't an abortion of the plane.

So no, it definitely is the pregnancy that may be aborted. Not the fetus, that's an abuse of language, pure and simple.

Then what is the phrase "termination of pregnancy" for?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/abortion
: the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus: as

(edit: snap from above post)

So even allowing for that, you are STILL left with the question of an on request termination of pregnancy with termination of the foetus one minute before birth. anti-abort or not?

silverharp

I can't follow this at all . most people would reject the idea that you can kill an 8 mth baby either in the womb or take it out and kill it then. So it would either be against the law or the doctor's medical association would hopefully forbid it.
Essentially the way I look at it is that once its possible to transfer rights to the baby then the baby is delivered with the intention of keeping it alive. Up to that point the woman is free to abandon rights to the baby/foetus and have it removed if thst is her wish.
As for the man's rights, the DNA connection is irreverent as its not an issue of ownership of the foetus , simply the mother's right to disconnect from the foetus. If in the future medicine could transfer a 1mth foetus then society could decide to take over the abandoned rights to the foetus if there was demand.