Abortion Discussion

dharma200

Oh we'll, if they say it I am sure all us woman will just be running, opening the floodgates, to kill our own newborns.... Get a grip

Brown Bomber

dharma200 wrote: »

The only point of true understanding is to be in the position of someone who is faced with 1: death if termination is not provided or 2: carrying an unviable foetus which will face an agonising death if brought to full term. 3: to be in a position where you are forced to be pregnant 4: To be in a position where carrying on with a pregnancy is detrimental to your own health.

None of these I presume you have had to face... That is true understanding.

Agreed, but I haven't argued against abortion in either of these cases to be fair.

And what you are saying works both ways. The only way of truly understanding the trauma and pain of an aborted foetus by D&E is to have your body torn apart piece by piece with a forceps which will then crush your brain.

Any volunteers out there from the pro-abortion folk?

Sarky

There really are not enough facepalms in the world, I think.

Brown Bomber

dharma200 wrote: »

Oh we'll, if they say it I am sure all us woman will just be running, opening the floodgates, to kill our own newborns.... Get a grip

I actually agree with these sociopathic, eugenicist <SNIP people >. What in your opinion is the difference between killing a viable foetus and a newborn baby?

dharma200

Same old... Of course one can't experience it, land no I wasn't aborted as a foetus so how would I know... Brilliant arguments... Really strong debating skills there... I bow out anyway. As a mother of three children, two of whom are girls, no one, I repeat, no one , will have autonomy over my or their body except me and them, not the constitution and not people who for one, don't have a womb, have never experienced any of the above, and who use religious doctrine to try to force pregnancy in women.

dharma200

My opinion really doesn't matter to you, and not yours to me... So lets leave it at that... I have to go and get dinner for my three children now.. I will not debate my own bodily autonomy.

Turtwig

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Before someone asks -


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9113394/Killing-babies-no-different-from-abortion-experts-say.html

Except of course they meant nothing of the sort.

“Why not? You should have known!” people keep on repeating everywhere on the web. The answer is very simple: the article was supposed to be read by other fellow bioethicists who were already familiar with this topic and our arguments. Indeed, as Professor Savulescu explains in his editorial, this debate has been going on for 40 years.

We started from the definition of person introduced by Michael Tooley in 1975 and we tried to draw the logical conclusions deriving from this premise. It was meant to be a pure exercise of logic: if X, then Y. We expected that other bioethicists would challenge either the premise or the logical pattern we followed, because this is what happens in academic debates. And we believed we were going to read interesting responses to the argument, as we already read a few on this topic in religious websites.

However, we never meant to suggest that after-birth abortion should become legal. This was not made clear enough in the paper. Laws are not just about rational ethical arguments, because there are many practical, emotional, social aspects that are relevant in policy making (such as respecting the plurality of ethical views, people’s emotional reactions etc). But we are not policy makers, we are philosophers, and we deal with concepts, not with legal policy.

Moreover, we did not suggest that after birth abortion should be permissible for months or years as the media erroneously reported.

If we wanted to suggest something about policy, we would have written, for example, a comment related the Groningen Protocol (in the Netherlands), which is a guideline that permits killing newborns under certain circumstances (e.g. when the newborn is affected by serious diseases). But we do not discuss guidelines in the paper. Rather we acknowledged the fact that such a protocol exists and this is a good reason to discuss the topic (and probably also for publishing papers on this topic).

However, the content of (the abstract of) the paper started to be picked up by newspapers, radio and on the web. What people understood was that we were in favour of killing people. This, of course, is not what we suggested. This is easier to see when our thesis is read in the context of the history of the debate.

We are really sorry that many people, who do not share the background of the intended audience for this article, felt offended, outraged, or even threatened. We apologise to them, but we could not control how the message was promulgated across the internet and then conveyed by the media. In fact, we personally do not agree with much of what the media suggest we think. Because of these misleading messages pumped by certain groups on the internet and picked up for a controversy-hungry media, we started to receive many emails from very angry people (most of whom claimed to be Pro-Life and very religious) who threatened to kill us or which were extremely abusive. Prof Savulescu said these responses were out of place, and he himself was attacked because, after all, “we deserve it.”

We do not think anyone should be abused for writing an academic paper on a controversial topic.

However, we also received many emails from people thanking us for raising this debate which is stimulating in an academic sense. These people understood there was no legal implication in the paper. We did not recommend or suggest anything in the paper about what people should do (or about what policies should allow).

We apologise for offence caused by our paper, and we hope this letter helps people to understand the essential distinction between academic language and the misleading media presentation, and between what could be discussed in an academic paper and what could be legally permissible.
Source.

This is why you shouldn't really use newspaper articles to make a point. Especially when they make a mess of interpreting the original sources' opinion!

Brown Bomber

dharma200 wrote: »

My opinion really doesn't matter to you, and not yours to me... So lets leave it at that... I have to go and get dinner for my three children now.. I will not debate my own bodily autonomy.

I am afraid this is about more than just your body.

So I take it you won't be answering the question then? Can't say I am surpised tbh.

Delirium

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Before someone asks -

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9113394/Killing-babies-no-different-from-abortion-experts-say.html

And there are probably doctors who say that abortions are never necessary. Do we make abortion illegal? Or do we try find a more realistic solution which lies somewhere between those two extremes?

dharma200

The question really doesn't require an answer. It has nothing to do with the issue of women access health care.

I am under no obligation to answer your questions, take note of your selective copy and pasting, or watching your you tube videos. You have no obligation to have an opinion on my reproductive rights, my born or unborn children, or my access to health care. If you are so worried about new borns I am sure there are many charities which help support women and new born children in third world countries, also there are many options to adopt and care for children in Ireland... There are also lots of charities that you could support which would help ease the suffering of children in the world, hospitals that take donations, etc etc. that would be a suggestion of mine if you are so concerned about new borns in this world.

Brown Bomber

Jernal wrote: »

Except of course they meant nothing of the sort.




This is why you shouldn't really use newspaper articles to make a point. Especially when they make a mess of interpreting the original sources' opinion!

The authors are are back-pedalling. The article is accurate.

ABSTRACT
Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not
have anything to do with the fetus’ health. By showing
that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the
same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that
both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3)
adoption is not always in the best interest of actual
people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth
abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all
the cases where abortion is, including cases where the
newborn is not disabled.

Brown Bomber

koth wrote: »

And there are probably doctors who say that abortions are never necessary. Do we make abortion illegal? Or do we try find a more realistic solution which lies somewhere between those two extremes?

I absolutely agree that we need to find a balance. Almost everyone who cares about this issue is an extremist IMO one way or the other. What I'd really love to see is a committee setup which excluded the extremists and included 50% pro-life - including representatives of all the major faiths and 50% pro-choice and to thrash out a compromise through making negotiated concessions.

Nodin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Agreed, but I haven't argued against abortion in either of these cases to be fair.

And what you are saying works both ways. The only way of truly understanding the trauma and pain of an aborted foetus by D&E is to have your body torn apart piece by piece with a forceps which will then crush your brain.

Any volunteers out there from the pro-abortion folk?

...and we're back to that one again. Well done.

You realise you're just regurgitating the same rebuffed arguments in a circular manner?

Nodin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I am afraid this is about more than just your body.
./.....

Not really, and failing to grasp that may be your problem.

dharma200

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I absolutely agree that we need to find a balance. Almost everyone who cares about this issue is an extremist IMO one way or the other. What I'd really love to see is a committee setup which excluded the extremists and included 50% pro-life - including representatives of all the major faiths and 50% pro-choice and to thrash out a compromise through making negotiated concessions.[/

No, I would suggest the women who are in need of health care are the ones on the panel. I take extreme offence that anyone who has any kind of religious ethics has any kind if say in my secular womb thanks. The priest in the mater makes it all to clear the woman would be proffered by them to die.

Brown Bomber

dharma200 wrote: »

The question really doesn't require an answer. It has nothing to do with the issue of women access health care.

I am under no obligation to answer your questions, take note of your selective copy and pasting, or watching your you tube videos. You have no obligation to have an opinion on my reproductive rights, my born or unborn children, or my access to health care. If you are so worried about new borns I am sure there are many charities which help support women and new born children in third world countries, also there are many options to adopt and care for children in Ireland... There are also lots of charities that you could support which would help ease the suffering of children in the world, hospitals that take donations, etc etc. that would be a suggestion of mine if you are so concerned about new borns in this world.

So you refuse to share what the difference there is (if any) in your opinion between a newborn and a viable foetus.

I can only deduct that you don't think that there is any. For what other possible reason would you avoid answering a simple question?

dharma200

Oh for god sake I have three children. I have raised three new borns . Go figure.

Nodin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

So you refuse to share what the difference there is (if any) in your opinion between a newborn and a viable foetus.

....how many times has this been asked and answered? Does every new poster on this thread have to go through the same monotonous series of loaded questions?

dharma200

Apologies for last post. I have made it clear I have no interest in your questions. I am not answerable to you, and I feel there can be no benefit atall from debating with you.

Brown Bomber

dharma200 wrote: »

Oh for god sake I have three children. I have raised three new borns . Go figure.

Go figure what? What is the difference between killing a newborn infant and a viable foetus?

What is the distinction. I don't believe there is one.

Brown Bomber

Nodin wrote: »

....how many times has this been asked and answered? Does every new poster on this thread have to go through the same monotonous series of loaded questions?

Answered satisfactorily? None.

Brown Bomber

dharma200 wrote: »

Apologies for last post. I have made it clear I have no interest in your questions. I am not answerable to you, and I feel there can be no benefit atall from debating with you.

You are not answerable to me, correct, but we are supposed to be engaging in a discussion, which involves questions and answers.

You can ask me anything you want. I have nothing to hide.

Your refusal to answer and speak directly from your "secular heart" says to me far more than any answer you would have given anyway, Enjoy your dinner

eviltwin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

You are not answerable to me, correct, but we are supposed to be engaging in a discussion, which involves questions and answers.

You can ask me anything you want. I have nothing to hide.

Your refusal to answer and speak directly from your "secular heart" says to me far more than any answer you would have given anyway, Enjoy your dinner

You don't see anything offensive about the question you have asked?

Turtwig

Brown Bomber wrote: »

The authors are are back-pedalling. The article is accurate.

You're still missing the point there. It's a bioethics paper. They argue for something that isn't necessarily their opinion. They're just exploring the ethical frameworks of personhood from a specific angle. If you read more bioethics papers this would be immediately obvious. The media jumped on the paper because it was such an easy bandwagon. But in reality it's like reporting that Schrodinger advocated experimenting with a cat or that the trolley problem was an actual proposed experiment! The point of the paper was to scrutinise logic, nothing more nothing less!

Sarky

But but but the tiny bayyybeees!

Brown Bomber

eviltwin wrote: »

You don't see anything offensive about the question you have asked?

Offensive? No. Considering a harsh and brutal reality? Yes.

Turtwig

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Go figure what? What is the difference between killing a newborn infant and a viable foetus?

What is the distinction. I don't believe there is one.

One is attached to the body of another entity. The other isn't. Huge distinction when you explore it in detail.

Nodin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Answered satisfactorily? None.

Your satisfaction is not an agreed measurement of certitude. When faced with an answer you don't like, you'll either refuse to accept it, or move on to the "horror stories" in a seemingly infinite loop of emotive terms and hand wringing.

eviltwin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Offensive? No. Considering a harsh and brutal reality? Yes.

Abortion isn't the killing of a live baby. Asking a pro choice poster if they are in favour of killing children is offensive. It doesn't deserve a response.

Brown Bomber

eviltwin wrote: »

Abortion isn't the killing of a live baby. Asking a pro choice poster if they are in favour of killing children is offensive. It doesn't deserve a response.

If I was in favour of killing viable foetuses but in order to sleep at night I'd managed to wrap up this fact in layers and layers of delusion so it became something different, something somehow positive and then having the reality of this killing put before me it wouldn't be "offense" I would be feeling it would be cognitive dissonance. Though labelling it offense could well be part of the grand delusion.