Abortion Discussion

Two Sheds

Overheal wrote: »

Indeed: when you post something nonsensical, its really hard to offer a rebuttal, as it would only be based upon the nonsense of the originating post.

Don't be silly.

You haven't denied that gender-selective-abortion falls under the umbrella of abortion-on-demand or tried to defend the pro-choice support for such a practice.

If abortion-on-demand is permitted, should the state then facilitate a woman in having an abortion because she does not want to give birth to a baby girl?

Overheal

I mean, I can't personally think of any situation where a country permits abortion due to gender preference. At the very least I have never heard of a situation where someone had such an abortion. Even China bans abortions based on gender, and they have very liberal abortion laws - then again, they have a population of 1.4 billion. Do I think it should be allowed: no.

Peregrinus

Overheal wrote: »

I mean, I can't personally think of any situation where a country permits abortion due to gender preference . . .

Seriously? It's legally permitted in both the UK and the US, for a start. And, whatever about the formal legal position, it is widely practiced in both China and India, so it's certainly not effectively forbidden.

And the logic of a pro-choice stance, I think, is that it should be permitted. The point about a pro-choice stance is that if a woman's reasons for wishing to have an abortion are good enough for her, then they are good enough; period. They don't have to pass muster with any policeman or legislator or priest. Consequently if she wishes to have an abortion because the child she is carrying does not have the chromosomes she wants, she should not be prevented from doing so. It makes no difference whether the chromosomal "defect" she wants to avoid is Down syndrome or female gender.

Overheal

Try reading my whole post again.

Peregrinus

I did read your whole post. And I was struck by the fact that, though it ends with you expressing the view that sex-selective abortion should not be allowed, it starts out with the statement that you "can't personally think of any situation where a country permits abortion due to gender preference". The two countries with which Ireland is most often compared by pro-choice advocates on this board both permit it and, given that you think it shouldn't be permitted, I'm slightly surprised that you haven't noticed this.

As I say, the logic of a pro-choice position, it seems to me, is that it should be permitted, so many of the pro-choice voices on this board will be unbothered by the fact that it is permitted in the UK and the US. But it should bother you, surely?

It's not as though the UK position is a closely-guarded secret; a private members bill to amend the Abortion Act to outlaw sex-selective abortion was debated in the UK Parliament earlier this year (and defeated).

Overheal

Peregrinus wrote: »

I did read your whole post. And I was struck by the fact that, though it ends with you expressing the view that sex-selective abortion should not be allowed, it starts out with the statement that you "can't personally think of any situation where a country permits abortion due to gender preference". The two countries with which Ireland is most often compared by pro-choice advocates on this board both permit it and, given that you think it shouldn't be permitted, I'm slightly surprised that you haven't noticed this.

And yet, I have not. I was not aware the practice was legally permitted, and I can not recall a scenario in which I have read or heard about this practice being carried out.

As I say, the logic of a pro-choice position, it seems to me, is that it should be permitted, so many of the pro-choice voices on this board will be unbothered by the fact that it is permitted in the UK and the US. But it should bother you, surely?

Association Fallacy: assuming that because I support abortions, that I am part of some homogeneous pro-choice banner and approve of abortion in all situations.

Peregrinus

Overheal wrote: »

And yet, I have not. I was not aware the practice was legally permitted, and I can not recall a scenario in which I have read or heard about this practice being carried out.

You missed, obviously, reports of the the debate in the UK Parliament on this very topic earlier this year. Are you not glad that, as a result of taking part in this conversation, you are now better-informed about this than you were before? Because, you know, when your reply to my post giving further information on this subject was a terse "try reading my whole post again", I didn't quite pick that up.

Overheal wrote: »

Association Fallacy: assuming that because I support abortions, that I am part of some homogeneous pro-choice banner and approve of abortion in all situations.

I haven't assumed that at all; quite the opposite. My assumption is that, when you say that you don't think sex-selective abortion should be allowed, you mean it. And, therefore, when you learn that UK law permits it, you are disturbed by that, and think that it should not be so. I don't think those are unreasonable assumptions but, if you tell me that they are wrong, I will happily revise my view.

Overheal

Peregrinus wrote: »

You missed, obviously, reports of the the debate in the UK Parliament on this very topic earlier this year.

I live in the USA; I definitely had not. Highlights of the Trump debate though, oh yes.

I haven't assumed that at all; quite the opposite. My assumption is that, when you say that you don't think sex-selective abortion should be allowed, you mean it. And, therefore, when you learn that UK law permits it, you are disturbed by that, and think that it should not be so. I don't think those are unreasonable assumptions but, if you tell me that they are wrong, I will happily revise my view.

I wouldn't say disturbed so much as disapproving. OK - maybe disturbed that China allows it, not the UK, but thats comparative.

Are there statistics available for gender-exclusive abortion rates?

Peregrinus

Fair enough. We are pretty much on the same page, so. Generally pro-choice, but squeamish about accommodating some of the choices that might be made.

But that does actually present a problem that we have to confront at some point. If other people - those nasty priests in black frocks, those Iona Institute types rubbing their hands and cackling in their nerve centre in Merrion Square - don't get to veto the choices women make about their own bodies, how come we do?

Overheal

Its a tough question, one that seems like its answered best by 'we vote on it'. Most critical abortion law is done through referenda. To that end, both sides of the issue have that right.

Peregrinus

Overheal wrote: »

Its a tough question, one that seems like its answered best by 'we vote on it'. Most critical abortion law is done through referenda. To that end, both sides of the issue have that right.

That's true as far as it goes - as in, for better or worse, that is ultimately how we resolve disagreements about the terms of the law regarding abortions in Ireland.

But it's not much help. It doesn't offer any basis for saying what abortion law should provide, or for saying why it shouldn't provide what Those People Over There want it to provide. And it doesn't afford any basis for criticizing the abortion law we already have.

volchitsa

Peregrinus wrote: »

But that does actually present a problem that we have to confront at some point. If other people - those nasty priests in black frocks, those Iona Institute types rubbing their hands and cackling in their nerve centre in Merrion Square - don't get to veto the choices women make about their own bodies, how come we do?

You're claiming that the laws in a democracy are morally equivalent to those of a theocracy? I completely disagree.

But I think that's a philosophical question which is off topic here.

Peregrinus

volchitsa wrote: »

You're claiming that the laws in a democracy are morally equivalent to those of a theocracy? I completely disagree.

But I think that's a philosophical question which is off topic here.

That's not my claim.

But, as you say, it's off-topic here.

krankykitty

It doesn't make sense to ban abortion because some people use it for sex selection. It makes more sense to address the cultural issues that lead to a particular sex being preferred.

volchitsa

krankykitty wrote: »

It doesn't make sense to ban abortion because some people use it for sex selection. It makes more sense to address the cultural issues that lead to a particular sex being preferred.

Yeah, it's like saying you're going to ban people from not loving their children, by giving them a 14 year prison sentence for it. That'll really help.

MrPudding

Peregrinus wrote: »

Generally pro-choice, but squeamish about accommodating some of the choices that might be made.

I think that is probably a fair description of a large proportion of the pro-choice 'side'.

MrP

Peregrinus

MrPudding wrote: »

I think that is probably a fair description of a large proportion of the pro-choice 'side'.

MrP

I think it is. Absolutist pro-choicers are fairly rare.

But it does raise the question, how come my views about what a women can and cannot do with respect to her own body are a legitimate consideration here, but (say) Breda O'Brien's are not?

rainbow kirby

Breda O'Brien is trying to force the dogma of one faith which she happens to follow to be law, which is wrong.

Two Sheds

Overheal wrote: »

I mean, I can't personally think of any situation where a country permits abortion due to gender preference. At the very least I have never heard of a situation where someone had such an abortion. Even China bans abortions based on gender, and they have very liberal abortion laws - then again, they have a population of 1.4 billion. Do I think it should be allowed: no.

You're against abortion-on-demand and against a woman's 'right' to choose then. Why don't you just say so?

Peregrinus

rainbow kirby wrote: »

Breda O'Brien is trying to force the dogma of one faith which she happens to follow to be law, which is wrong.

A pro-choice stance is just as "faith-based" as any pro-choice stance. It's just that a pro-choice stance happens to be based on a faith position that you share. But that doesn't give it any greater objective validity.

Kev W

Peregrinus wrote: »

A pro-choice stance is just as "faith-based" as any pro-choice stance. It's just that a pro-choice stance happens to be based on a faith position that you share. But that doesn't give it any greater objective validity.

What faith position are you referring to here?

lazygal

Peregrinus wrote: »

A pro-choice stance is just as "faith-based" as any pro-choice stance. It's just that a pro-choice stance happens to be based on a faith position that you share. But that doesn't give it any greater objective validity.

On what faith is my pro choice stance based, do you think?

Peregrinus

Kev W wrote: »

What faith position are you referring to here?

The belief that a woman has a right to choose. It can't be empirically demonstrated to be true, any more than Breda's belief in the right to life can be emperically demonstrated to be true. They are both held as a matter of faith.

Two Sheds

krankykitty wrote: »

It doesn't make sense to ban abortion because some people use it for sex selection. It makes more sense to address the cultural issues that lead to a particular sex being preferred.

Sex-selective abortion is a key component of the war on women.

Have you considered your role in their oppression?

lazygal

Peregrinus wrote: »

The belief that a woman has a right to choose. It can't be empirically demonstrated to be true, any more than Breda's belief in the right to life can be emperically demonstrated to be true. They are both held as a matter of faith.

How is a pro choice belief faith based? On what faith, exacly?

Two Sheds

MrPudding wrote: »

I think that is probably a fair description of a large proportion of the pro-choice 'side'.

MrP

That paints a deplorable picture of the pro-choice character. Would any person admit to being so empty?

Peregrinus

lazygal wrote: »

How is a pro choice belief faith based? On what faith, exacly?

If "faith" is defined as "taking to be true something which is not shown by evidence to be true" - and that definition, or some variation of it, is commonly offered on this board - then the claim that a woman has a right to choose is a matter of faith. How, after all, can we possibly show by evidence that a woman has a right to choose? All claims about rights are faith-based.

lazygal

Peregrinus wrote: »

If "faith" is defined as "taking to be true something which is not shown by evidence to be true" - and that definition, or some variation of it, is commonly offered on this board - then the claim that a woman has a right to choose is a matter of faith. How, after all, can we possibly show by evidence that a woman has a right to choose? All claims about rights are faith-based.

I don't know what you're on about here. Breda O'Brien's position on abortion comes from her well voiced Catholic views, including the mental gymnastics that an abortion isn't an abortion when there's some sort of life saving element to it, except when suicide is involved, when suddenly abortion is always wrong.
How is a woman having the right to choose to continue a pregnancy or have a termination a faith based position?

Daith

Peregrinus wrote: »

If "faith" is defined as "taking to be true something which is not shown by evidence to be true" - and that definition, or some variation of it, is commonly offered on this board - then the claim that a woman has a right to choose is a matter of faith. How, after all, can we possibly show by evidence that a woman has a right to choose? All claims about rights are faith-based.

No, Breda's "Faith" comes from the teachings of the Catholic Church and their position. Forcing a religious viewpoint on people who don't follow that religion is the difference.

It's the entire reason during the marriage referendum that Iona et al did not try and reference their Catholic faith and when they lost they went hell for leather saying any Catholic who voted Yes wasn't a real Catholic.

That's the difference. You're definition of faith while true isn't the actual issue.

magicbastarder

what empirical evidence can we offer to show that a pro-choice position is the correct one?