Abortion Discussion

Dan_Solo

volchitsa wrote: »

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.

In that case this entire thread "Abortion Discussion" has nothing to do with destruction of the foetus and 99% of it is off topic.
That's inconvenient, isn't it?

Delirium

Dan_Solo wrote: »

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?

Presuming you mean if someone opposes that scenario, I wouldn't consider the person anti-abort. I'm not aware of many people that would label themselves pro-choice that would support the scenario you laid out.

robindch

Mod:

Peregrinus wrote: »

[...] are you "anti-abort"?

Dan_Solo wrote: »

anti-abort or not?

The terms "anti-abort" and "pro-abort" are unhelpful characterizations of two sides of this debate. As such, they don't really have any place in A+A and both terms should be avoided in general use.

Thanking youze.

Dan_Solo

volchitsa wrote: »

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.

That's beyond rich coming from somebody who has no definable position themselves.

Delirium

Absolam wrote: »

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.

And on that basis, caesarian sections could be classed as abortions which means that abortions are terminations of pregancies but not always of the foetus.

Dan_Solo

SW wrote: »

Presuming you mean if someone opposes that scenario, I wouldn't consider the person anti-abort. I'm not aware of many people that would label themselves pro-choice that would support the scenario you laid out.

Leaving definitions of nebulous groups of people out, what is your own position? On request termination of the foetus at any stage? 24 weeks? Anything at all specific?

volchitsa

Dan_Solo wrote: »

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)

Not a clue what you mean. Termination of pregnancy doesn't mean the word abortion can't also refer to the pregnancy. So does "ending" - so what?

Abortion is the premature ending of a process. Lots of processes, not just pregnancy. You were wrong to try to pick someone else up in that, because you're the one who misuses the word, not them. Now you're just trying to obfuscate, but you're not even very good at it.

Dan_Solo wrote: »

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?

I already answered that long ago, and so did others. Unless you redefine the terms more precisely, we're left with the fact that birth can't be advanced by a minute - that is still simply the moment of birth.

One of my children was induced ten days before term, for personal reasons : my o/h was being sent on an important mission abroad for his work, on which his career could depend, and I had literally no-one in that city to mind the other child if I gave birth before his return - and since the midwife told me I was almost certainly not going to go to term, I chose to give birth ten days early instead of possibly four or five days early. Was that an abortion? FWIW, she's now nearly 20 and in perfect health.

If your questions are so ambiguous as to be unanswerable, it's up to you to be a little clearer. If you can.

volchitsa

Dan_Solo wrote: »

That's beyond rich coming from somebody who has no definable position themselves.

But then I'm not the one asking meaningless questions and then whining because people aren't answering the way I want them.

Delirium

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Leaving definitions of nebulous groups of people out, what is your own position? On request termination of the foetus at any stage? 24 weeks? Anything at all specific?

...

Dan_Solo wrote: »

That's dodging the question again. So if the woman requests an abortion for no specific medical reason, at what point do you think this should be permitted? Up to the possible independent viability of the foetus? Up to the delivery day?
This whole argument is about on request abortions. I don't see anybody contesting medical necessity terminations (well not in the last few pages anyway).

SW wrote: »

Personally, I'd allow for abortion on request up to 20 weeks.

Dan_Solo

silverharp wrote: »

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.

Well I suppose that's the whole point of this debate? The legal position is already (somewhat) clear in each country. And doctor's can only follow the legal position, not forbid legal actions.
Unfortunately now it seems the word "abort" has no real meaning and needs to be amended to state:
Termination of pregnancy including termination of the foetus.
Termination of pregnancy without termination of the foetus.
I've never heard anybody ever refer to an "abortion" as the second of these until a few minutes ago.

Dan_Solo

volchitsa wrote: »

But then I'm not the one asking meaningless questions and then whining because people aren't answering the way I want them.

So you don't have any position on it at all you want to share.
You could have just said so.

Absolam

SW wrote: »

And on that basis, caesarian sections could be classed as abortions which means that abortions are terminations of pregancies but not always of the foetus.

You could, if you wanted, class them as an abortion of a pregnancy, but only as an abortion of a life if the child died in the course of it, and it would be within the usage of the word to do so. But of course most posters would probably agree that it is not an appropriate application of the term abortion, which goes back to my point; the common understanding of the terms abortion and termination in this context is that they result in the ending of the life of the foetus, and using them otherwise in the course of the discussion serves no purpose other than wilful pervarication.

volchitsa

Dan_Solo wrote: »

In that case this entire thread "Abortion Discussion" has nothing to do with destruction of the foetus and 99% of it is off topic.
That's inconvenient, isn't it?

Sorry, but I genuinely don't understand what you mean, nor what the problem you think you've identified is.

Dan_Solo

volchitsa wrote: »

If your questions are so ambiguous as to be unanswerable, it's up to you to be a little clearer. If you can.

Well apparently you have been using the word "abortion" all your life to refer to "termination of pregnancy". And you call me ambiguous!

Dan_Solo

SW wrote: »

...

Well done. You've quoted my position on abortions "and" termination of the foetus, or, what 99.99% of people call "abortion".
Any chance you'd do likewise?

SW wrote: »

Personally, I'd allow for abortion on request up to 20 weeks.

Which abortion though? Apparently it can mean both "termination of pregnancy" and "termination of the foetus". At 20 weeks that's before the current record I think, but in future this will most likely not be the case and these terms will not automatically overlap.

silverharp

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Well I suppose that's the whole point of this debate? The legal position is already (somewhat) clear in each country. And doctor's can only follow the legal position, not forbid legal actions.
Unfortunately now it seems the word "abort" has no real meaning and needs to be amended to state:
Termination of pregnancy including termination of the foetus.
Termination of pregnancy without termination of the foetus.
I've never heard anybody ever refer to an "abortion" as the second of these until a few minutes ago.

The viability point is the main factor in what happens next. I'd be correct in saying that the majority of countries would use this as a guide and back up from there. After the viability point there might /ought be an attempt to deliver the baby alive.

Dan_Solo

volchitsa wrote: »

Abortion is the premature ending of a process. Lots of processes, not just pregnancy. You were wrong to try to pick someone else up in that, because you're the one who misuses the word, not them. Now you're just trying to obfuscate, but you're not even very good at it.

Simply false. In every common usage the word "abortion" refers to termination of the foetus and pregnancy. But you used the word without clarification when you apparently believe it refers only to "aborting the pregnancy", which is when I picked you up on it. The confusion is entirely of YOUR making.

Dan_Solo

silverharp wrote: »

The viability point is the main factor in what happens next. I'd be correct in saying that the majority of countries would use this as a guide and back up from there. After the viability point there might /ought be an attempt to deliver the baby alive.

My position is that the current "medically" possible survival time is pretty close to when I consider the foetus to have become a human, and therefore entitled to all the right associated with a human. Even if a 1 day old foetus could medically survive outside the womb I could make no moral case for forbidding on request termination of that foetus.

volchitsa

Dan_Solo wrote: »

So you don't have any position on it at all you want to share.
You could have just said so.

Position on what exactly? I've set out my position on abortion several times. Go back and read my posts if you're interested, I don't see why I should do so again as part of your attempt at deflecting the conversation from what an idiot you've just made of yourself. And how you've been caught out trying to misrepresent both other people's views (about property of the fetus, which no-one had said) but also the meanings of words. You made a huge fuss a few pages back about someone's supposed (according to you) confusion of the words early and pre-term, and yet here you are telling us that it's not a pregnancy that's aborted but a fetus!!

You have no actual point to make, all you can do is twist and turn like a twisty turny thing that's hoist on its own petard.

Peregrinus

robindch wrote: »

Mod:The terms "anti-abort" and "pro-abort" are unhelpful characterizations of two sides of this debate. As such, they don't really have any place in A+A and both terms should be avoided in general use.

Thanking youze.

Not that I would dream of accusing you of bias, Robin - perish the thought! But the terms you mention were introduced into the discourse by Brian Shanahan. Dan_Solo and myself (and others) were interrogating his use of those terms for precisely the reasons that you mention.

The careless reader might think that,by offering myself and Dan to exemplify th use of the terms in question, you might give the impression that you didn't object to Brian employing the terms; just to us pointing out how unhelpful they are. I'm sure you wouldn't like such a reading to pass uncontradicted.

volchitsa

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Simply false. In every common usage the word "abortion" refers to termination of the foetus and pregnancy.

You sure about that?

Absolam

silverharp wrote: »

The viability point is the main factor in what happens next. I'd be correct in saying that the majority of countries would use this as a guide and back up from there.

Do you have a source that backs up your assertion that you'd be correct in stating that?

Dan_Solo

volchitsa wrote: »

You sure about that?

Well done. You found something on the internet that agrees with you. Round of applause.

Delirium

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Well done. You've quoted my position on abortions "and" termination of the foetus, or, what 99.99% of people call "abortion".
Any chance you'd do likewise?

you asked for my position my opinion regarding on-request abortion and quoted your previous question and my response.

Could you clarify exactly what your asking as I'm not sure exactly what your question is at this stage?

Dan_Solo

volchitsa wrote: »

Position on what exactly? I've set out my position on abortion several times.

But apparently "abortion" (according to you) can mean either "termination of pregnancy" and/or "termination of the foetus". Now if you feel "abortion" can be either/both of these you are straight up admitting you didn't make your position in the slightest bit clear to anybody.
I agree with stuff and disagree with other stuff. You just have to work out what I mean by stuff...

robindch

Peregrinus wrote: »

Not that I would dream of accusing you of bias, Robin - perish the thought!

I'm happy to hear it

Peregrinus wrote: »

But the terms you mention were introduced into the discourse by Brian Shanahan.

I didn't say you introduced them, or dan_solo introduced them. I did include you on the note as you represent one side of the debate while dan_solo represents the other side of the the debate. This is done to make it clear that there is no moderator bias in this.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Dan_Solo and myself (and others) were interrogating his use of those terms for precisely the reasons that you mention.

Discussing the meaning of the terms is fine, but both sides of the debate had used the terms to describe people. And given the emotions concerned and the lack of a clearly agreed meaning, that's something that's really best avoided.

Delirium

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Well done. You've quoted my position on abortions "and" termination of the foetus, or, what 99.99% of people call "abortion".
Any chance you'd do likewise?


Which abortion though? Apparently it can mean both "termination of pregnancy" and "termination of the foetus". At 20 weeks that's before the current record I think, but in future this will most likely not be the case and these terms will not automatically overlap.

At 20 weeks, it currently is 0% chance of survival for the foetus.

volchitsa

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Well done. You found something on the internet that agrees with you. Round of applause.

No need for a round of applause. The word abort means to terminate a process before term. That includes pregnancy, among other processes.

In the context of this thread, I don't think I misunderstood or misused the term in any way by not specifying that I was using it in reference to pregnancy - but your attempt at redefining it as being about the fetus just isn't one of its many possible uses. Which is why it was necessary to look at its more general meaning outside of this context to show you why you were wrong.

In the context of pregnancy, btw, it doesn't even mean only artificially ending a pregnancy before the baby is viable - it also refers to early miscarriage. The fact that many people prefer the euphemism of miscarriage for what is actually too early to be, technically, a miscarriage, doesn't make you any righter.

And as I said, the problem I have is that you are simultaneously guilty of gross misuse of language and of reproaching others for minor imprecisions in theirs.

Dan_Solo

SW wrote: »

At 20 weeks, it currently is 0% chance of survival for the foetus.

Yes, that's what I said.
So your acceptance of termination of the foetus is entirely dependent on that foetus' ability to survive outside the womb and will change with the advancement of medicine?

silverharp

Absolam wrote: »

Do you have a source that backs up your assertion that you'd be correct in stating that?

The UK is 24 weeks , which is getting to the viability point and is part of their reasoning for arriving at that point. France have general abortion up to 12 weeks and graduated reasons up to around 24 weeks.