Abortion Discussion

Two Sheds

robdonn wrote: »

Ok, here is a list of some of the silly questions that you've avoided this morning:

You'll have noticed that this is a thread on Abortion.

But because I ask awkward questions about abortion, some posters try to divert into other topics by way of avoiding an answer.

Others ask me to defend a position I never stated.

Two Sheds

krankykitty wrote: »

How exactly is banning or restricting abortion for all women oppressing women who feel obliged to abort because of societal pressures in their own cultural background/community because of sex? As I said in my post, that you conveniently ignored, the way to address this is to look at the cultural situation that puts women in this position. That's the oppression, not the availability of abortion. If legal abortion is unavailable, it doesn't stop abortion happening. It makes dangerous unregulated backstreet abortion happen. Do you think the men who force women to have abortions because of the sex of the baby would have qualms about putting a woman through an illegal backstreet abortion?

By this logic we should ban knives because some people use them to stab others with, rather than cut up their dinner.

How dare you suggest to me that I have a role in their oppression. Have YOU considered your role in the oppression of women worldwide by wishing to curtail their reproductive options?

Let's say - a woman has 2 girls and then finds herself pregnant with another girl, who she doesn't want.
Should she be entitled to abort simply because of the sex of the unborn?
There's no societal pressure and no cultural pressure involved.

According to the reasoning of abortion-on-demand, she should be supported in her choice - don't you agree?

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

alaimacerc

Peregrinus wrote: »

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).

Defeated largely on the basis that sex-selective abortion is already illegal. That was expressly the position of the government ministry concerned. The chair of their select committee on health said the proposal was "unnecessary" and could have "unintended consequences". That ring any bells from anywhere?

Two Sheds

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Don't be silly. There's nothing personal in anything I've asked.
Your post is yet more deflection.

alaimacerc

Two Sheds wrote: »

According to the reasoning of abortion-on-demand, she should be supported in her choice - don't you agree?

What's your standard for "on demand"? Normally the "liberal abortion regime" bogeyman in these discussion is Perfidious Albion. Gasp, shock, horror, them shockin' heathen Proddy Brits. Will you for clarity stipulate that this is not "on demand" in the sense you're using here?

Pherekydes

Two Sheds wrote: »

Anonymous internet guy...

Two Sheds is your real name?

volchitsa

Two Sheds wrote: »

Let's say - a woman has 2 girls and then finds herself pregnant with another girl, who she doesn't want.
Should she be entitled to abort simply because of the sex of the unborn?
There's no societal pressure and no cultural pressure involved.

According to the reasoning of abortion-on-demand, she should be supported in her choice - don't you agree?

What do you mean there's no societal pressure? Why would anyone terminate a healthy pregnancy at whatever number of weeks it takes to get a definite identification of the gender without a solid reason for doing so? You clearly haven't been pregnant, it's not just sitting around drinking ginger to reduce nausea you know.

A woman who wants to abort "purely" because of gender has an underlying reason for that. Why does she want a boy, to the extent of ending a healthy pregnancy? What if she ends that one and doesn't manage to get pregnant again, or has another girl. or has a boy with a problem of some sort instead of a healthy girl? It doesn't make sense. There's other stuff going on there - often exactly the sort of misogynistic pressure krankykitty mentioned.

Overheal

Two Sheds wrote: »

Another pro-choice belief, contradicted by broad consensus and by science.

You have been asked multiple times to back this statement up with sources. Which is completely on the subject of abortion.

But btw: science distinguishes between zygote, embryo, fetus, etc. so I too am rather curious about whatever broad consensus you are referring to

alaimacerc

Two Sheds wrote: »

Termination doesn't happen by magic. You want the machinery of State to be involved - taxpayers, doctors, hospitals, courts and constitution.

I think someone's being more than a little selective here in their reading of the desirability of a role of the "machinery of the state". Very clearly anti-abortion-rights advocates want the "machinery of the state" to be involved -- in its most irreducible form, indeed: they want it to be criminalised. (Your shock and surprise at the criminal penalties "only" being reduced from life in prison to 14 years, and not to a mere 12 (or indeed 5) notwithstanding.)

That's the core of the matter. If a woman wants to control the contents of her own body, by means of her own involuntary muscular system, her own hormone levels, etc, should the "machinery of the state" forcibly prevent and punish this? To what extent this should be "socialised" is very much a second-order question. Though an important one, if one believes in any sort of social equity.

Overheal

Two Sheds wrote: »

Not killing an unborn child is not the same as forcing anybody to do anything.

Who forces people to have abortions? Did the birth rate suddenly go to zero in countries that legalized abortion?

Two Sheds

alaimacerc wrote: »

Defeated largely on the basis that sex-selective abortion is already illegal. That was expressly the position of the government ministry concerned. The chair of their select committee on health said the proposal was "unnecessary" and could have "unintended consequences". That ring any bells from anywhere?

If making certain types of abortion illegal is to be the standard defence for supporting abortion, then nobody should have a problem with abortion being illegal, to differing degrees, in different jurisdictions.

Ireland's laws on abortion should be as acceptable as those in the UK.

The truth is that those who support abortion on demand are unwilling to state what is blindingly obvious - that they support a woman's choice to abort her unborn because she is the wrong sex.

alaimacerc

robdonn wrote: »

And at no point has anyone given the right of bodily integrity to the unborn, but the woman has.

Several posters here have asserted otherwise. It's ascribed a "personal right", therefore foetal personhood, therefore whatever rights yer havin' yersel'. But as far as I'm aware, no court here has inferred the existence of such a right -- or indeed any other right at all. That's conspicuously the case in the recent "foetal right to die" case, where that was found to follow from the right to life itself, and not from any right of bodily integrity (which immediately provides for being able to refuse medical treatment).

Overheal

Two Sheds wrote: »

If making certain types of abortion illegal is to be the standard defence for supporting abortion, then nobody should have a problem with abortion being illegal, to differing degrees, in different jurisdictions.

Ireland's laws on abortion should be as acceptable as those in the UK.

The truth is that those who support abortion on demand are unwilling to state what is blindingly obvious - that they support a woman's choice to abort her unborn because she is the wrong sex.

Slippery slope fallacy - and Association fallacy

krankykitty

Two Sheds wrote: »

Let's say - a woman has 2 girls and then finds herself pregnant with another girl, who she doesn't want.
Should she be entitled to abort simply because of the sex of the unborn?
There's no societal pressure and no cultural pressure involved.

According to the reasoning of abortion-on-demand, she should be supported in her choice - don't you agree?

I 100% agree, because it's not for me to decide whether another woman's abortion is "valid" enough for me. I'm not the judge of that.

alaimacerc

Two Sheds wrote: »

[...]those who support abortion on demand [...]

Which are who, exactly? As you're neglecting -- nay, refusing! -- to specify what you mean by "on demand", and whether the UK (or France, or Sweden, or wherever else) qualifies, it's entirely opaque to whom you're ascribing such a view.

Two Sheds

Overheal wrote: »

You have been asked multiple times to back this statement up with sources. Which is completely on the subject of abortion.

But btw: science distinguishes between zygote, embryo, fetus, etc. so I too am rather curious about whatever broad consensus you are referring to

the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth

Convention on the Rights of the Child
We've already covered this extensively (or maybe it was on the other abortion thread)

The Medical Council refers to 'the baby' in the context of abortion guidelines.

Overheal

Two Sheds wrote: »

Convention on the Rights of the Child
We've already covered this extensively (or maybe it was on the other abortion thread),

That isn't proof of a *scientific consensus*. Try again honey

Two Sheds

Overheal wrote: »

That isn't proof of a *scientific consensus*. Try again honey

That's your phrase, not mine. Try again.

robdonn

Two Sheds wrote: »

That's your phrase, not mine. Try again.

Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity.

You quoted law, not scientists. Try again.

Overheal

Alright: what "broad consensus" and what "science"

alaimacerc

Two Sheds wrote: »

That's your phrase, not mine. Try again.

Is this Simon Says, or a serious discussion? That was entirely the gist of your (false) claim.

Two Sheds

alaimacerc wrote: »

Which are who, exactly? As you're neglecting -- nay, refusing! -- to specify what you mean by "on demand", and whether the UK (or France, or Sweden, or wherever else) qualifies, it's entirely opaque to whom you're ascribing such a view.

The term 'abortion-on-demand' is self-explanatory.

Those who object to sex-selective abortions are limiting a woman's "right" to choose in the same way that pro-life want to restrict such choice.
It's then only a question of degrees... and hypocrisy.

An answer to 'do you support abortion on demand?' is not 'but the law doesn't allow that'.

Two Sheds

alaimacerc wrote: »

Is this Simon Says, or a serious discussion? That was entirely the gist of your (false) claim.

Please point out where I invoked a 'scientific consensus'
(Perhaps I did, in which case I'll be happy to clarify.)

alaimacerc

Two Sheds wrote: »

The term 'abortion-on-demand' is self-explanatory.

You may need to take it up with your fellow anti-abortion types that insist on using it to mean the UK abortion legislation, or indeed pretty much anything other than the pretend-absolutist status quo. They've rendered it as a meaningless epithet, rather than a term with any descriptive utility.

It's then only a question of degrees... and hypocrisy.

Your diagnosis of "hypocrisy" is remarkably broad spectrum. People that vote to reduce the penalty for abortion, but not "enough", according to a wildly arbitrary standard. People that favour any legislative arrangements other than rhetorically convenient extremes.

alaimacerc

lazygal wrote: »

What would you call compelling a woman to remain pregnant who doesn't wish to?

Presumably it's called "Ryanair departure gate to 'other jurisdictions' is thataway."

I don't take the anti-abortion lobby's concerns for the severity of the criminal sanctions involved seriously when they're simply seen to be bidding them down to five or twelve years -- and even that much only in connection with trying to horse-trade away the X Case judgement.

I might when they're no longer content to regard several days exile and a couple of thousand euros "fine", payable in advance -- with no consideration for economic means -- as a suitable sanction.

robdonn

Two Sheds wrote: »

Please point out where I invoked a 'scientific consensus'
(Perhaps I did, in which case I'll be happy to clarify.)

Did you use the term "scientific consensus"? No.
So what did you say?

Two Sheds wrote: »

Daith wrote: »

It's not a child. Otherwise the morning after pill will need to be stopped.

Another pro-choice belief, contradicted by broad consensus and by science.

So is "science" a person? A friend of yours? Or are you referring to the entire discipline? If that's the case, then we shall repeat:

Overheal wrote: »

science distinguishes between zygote, embryo, fetus, etc. so I too am rather curious about whatever broad consensus you are referring to

Two Sheds

Overheal wrote: »

Alright: what "broad consensus" and what "science"

The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child constitutes a very broad consensus.

The science doesn't need explaining for anybody who can join the dots from conception to adulthood. When is a human being not a human being?

Dr. Jerome LeJeune, professor of genetics at the University of Descartes in Paris, was the discoverer of the chromosome pattern of Down syndrome. Dr. LeJeune testified to the Judiciary Subcommittee, “after fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being.” He stated that this “is no longer a matter of taste or opinion,” and “not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence.” He added, “Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception.”

Two Sheds

krankykitty wrote: »

I 100% agree, because it's not for me to decide whether another woman's abortion is "valid" enough for me. I'm not the judge of that.

It's refreshing to read a poster who has the courage to say what is obvious, instead of hiding behind the skirts of political correctness.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.