Sanctity of Life (Abortion Megathread)

Overheal

Absolam wrote: »

I think it is generally the case that pro-choice proponents prefer to avoid the word 'child' as it carries somewhat negative connotations for the pro-choice argument. Hence Kev Ws' original post beginning this exchange; " there is no child involved in an abortion".
For some reason Kev appears to think that if he can wriggle around my statements sufficiently to give the impression that I agree there is no child involved in an abortion, it will somehow negate my own observation of the fact that Irish jurisprudence does refer to the 'unborn child'.

Personally I'm not convinced it makes a difference to anything really.

I prefer to use the terms interchangeably. Politics is one of those things, that is full of literally hundreds if not thousands of issues where 2 different people with the same information can reach 2 opposing viewpoints and both be at least partially if not completely valid. Gotta lend that - and your detractors - a bit of respect in that regard. Plus if I ever had to catch my self doing semantic acrobatics to prove my point, the point was probably a bit weak to start. tl;dr the term child doesn't bother me. IMO it's when the woman decides whether she wants to keep it or not, I think, that really determines whether she sees it as a child or a thing.

volchitsa

Overheal wrote: »

I prefer to use the terms interchangeably. Politics is one of those things, that is full of literally hundreds if not thousands of issues where 2 different people with the same information can reach 2 opposing viewpoints and both be at least partially if not completely valid. Gotta lend that - and your detractors - a bit of respect in that regard. Plus if I ever had to catch my self doing semantic acrobatics to prove my point, the point was probably a bit weak to start. tl;dr the term child doesn't bother me. IMO it's when the woman decides whether she wants to keep it or not, I think, that really determines whether she sees it as a child or a thing.

This.

Plus FWIW, in terms of semantics, I don't think the constitution does refer to the unborn child, but to "the unborn", or possibly to "unborn human life" or some similarly clunky term.

Unless perhaps I've missed out a section somewhere where it actually does use "unborn child" - but I don't think so.

Absolam

Overheal wrote: »

IMO it's when the woman decides whether she wants to keep it or not, I think, that really determines whether she sees it as a child or a thing.

I think that's a very large part of the thought process; if you want to get rid of it, it's easier to do that when you see it as a thing, hence the antipathy to the use of the word 'child'.
The converse being, starting from the position that is a child makes it less easy to think of as simply getting rid of a thing.

All this when in fact the word doesn't actually matter; it's the concept of the thing/child/entity/parasite that you hold without requiring a word to express it that determines how you will interact with it.

volchitsa wrote: »

This.
Plus FWIW, in terms of semantics, I don't think the constitution does refer to the unborn child, but to "the unborn", or possibly to "unborn human life" or some similarly clunky term.
Unless perhaps I've missed out a section somewhere where it actually does use "unborn child" - but I don't think so.

To be fair, no one said the Constitution refers to the unborn child. My point was that Irish jurisprudence refers to the unborn child.

Kev W

Absolam wrote: »

It didn't say it wasn't; I said I never mentioned abortion, just as I never agreed that a fetus is not a child. Are you sure we're having the same conversation? You seem to think I'm saying a lot of stuff when in fact I'm not.

So you're arguing a substantial difference between referring to something and mentioning something?

Absolam wrote: »

But you did actually say that I did, remember? You said "So we're finally agreed that a fetus is not a child, good to know." Hardly a qualified statement. There's no "Actually, you didn't say that, but if I extrapolate from a statement you did make I can infer from my extrapolation that you could be construed as agreeing such a thing, despite not actually doing so".

You do realise that you yourself are extrapolating here, yes?

Absolam wrote: »

Which is not to say that she cannot currently be a wife, is it? Or that she will never be a wife, even if you don't marry her?
Sure. Whether or not you can quit a prospective a job, it's still a job. It was a job before you decided you might want it, it will be a job even if you don't.
So, since we're indulging our allegories so exhaustively, do you understand how it is that I can be my mothers child, and yet not be a child?

You seem confused. My issue was not with the word "child" in "prospective child", it was with the word "prospective". You're defending the wrong part of the statement.

Absolam wrote: »

Well.. it does. Someone who pretends to something is someone who aspires to it or lays claim to it, particularly when their aspiration or claim is arguably not genuine. A limited use of English is a less than complete, or restricted, use of English. So you'll readily see that the order in which I put the words does have a meaning, it just may not be a meaning you understood?

It seems an odd use of the word "use", I would have used "understanding" but I'll leave it.

Absolam wrote: »

That said, since you've demonstrated that you can look a statement, extrapolate a conclusion from it, infer something from that conclusion and render it in an entirely new statement, it seems to me you don't actually have any lack of ability with the language, eh?

Why thank you.

Absolam

Kev W wrote: »

So you're arguing a substantial difference between referring to something and mentioning something?

No, I'm arguing that claiming I agree to something that you know I didn't agree to is untruthful.

Kev W wrote: »

You do realise that you yourself are extrapolating here, yes?

Well no. I'm pointing out that you didn't say something. Something that you could have said, and been truthful, rather that what you actually said, which was untruthful.

Kev W wrote: »

You seem confused. My issue was not with the word "child" in "prospective child", it was with the word "prospective". You're defending the wrong part of the statement.

No, not at all confused. Though I note that whilst I've diligently replied to your questions, you've paid no attention to mine.

Kev W wrote: »

It seems an odd use of the word "use", I would have used "understanding" but I'll leave it.

I'm glad I was able to help you all the same, you're welcome.

Kev W wrote: »

Why thank you.

Please, consider it more of an observation than anything else.

Kev W

Absolam wrote: »

No, not at all confused. Though I note that whilst I've diligently replied to your questions, you've paid no attention to mine.

What questions have I paid no attention to?

Absolam

Kev W wrote: »

What questions have I paid no attention to?

Absolam wrote: »

I am my mothers child, yet I'm not a child, I'm an adult. How can this be?

Absolam wrote: »

So, since we're indulging our allegories so exhaustively, do you understand how it is that I can be my mothers child, and yet not be a child?

Oh, just the one, though in fairness I did repeat it since you didn't pay any attention to it...

Kev W

Absolam wrote: »

Oh, just the one, though in fairness I did repeat it since you didn't pay any attention to it...

Oh right yes, I did skim over that because it wasn't relevant to anything I had said. But if you insist:

You are indeed your mother's child, even though you are an adult. Though at one point in the past you were neither. At that point you were a prospective child.

There, answered.

Absolam

Kev W wrote: »

Oh right yes, I did skim over that because it wasn't relevant to anything I had said. But if you insist:
You are indeed your mother's child, even though you are an adult. Though at one point in the past you were neither. At that point you were a prospective child.
There, answered.

So the word child applies in all three instances? Excellent.

Kev W

Absolam wrote: »

So the word child applies in all three instances? Excellent.

Three instances? There's the instance where you're not a child, times passes and we have the instance in which you are. What's the third instance?

Jesus Christ

Nick Park

Overheal wrote: »

IMO it's when the woman decides whether she wants to keep it or not, I think, that really determines whether she sees it as a child or a thing.

But the woman's feeling does not change objective reality. She is either deluded in seeing a person as a 'thing', or is deluded in seeing a mere 'thing' as a child.

Human rights are not just about protecting those who we have good feelings about. They are about protecting the rights of all people, including those whom others perceive as being nuisances and mere 'things'.

Overheal

General comment: the "child" "not a child" semantics are mind-dullingly boring to read and I've lost the energy to discuss it. Can we carry on?

Kev W

Overheal wrote: »

General comment: the "child" "not a child" semantics are mind-dullingly boring to read and I've lost the energy to discuss it. Can we carry on?

Agreed.

Absolam

Kev W wrote: »

Three instances? There's the instance where you're not a child, times passes and we have the instance in which you are. What's the third instance?

The one you offered; the point in the past where according to you I was neither my mother's child, nor an adult, but a prospective child.

Absolam

Overheal wrote: »

General comment: the "child" "not a child" semantics are mind-dullingly boring to read and I've lost the energy to discuss it. Can we carry on?

Kevs call really, he's the one (on this occasion) that introduced the whole 'not a child' attempt.

Overheal

Absolam

cattolico

So Amnesty only gets 14 Irish Doctors in its latest push for Abortion, They must don't seem very popular with Irish Medical professionals.

Kev W

cattolico wrote: »

So Amnesty only gets 14 Irish Doctors in its latest push for Abortion, They must don't seem very popular with Irish Medical professionals.

Any chance of a link so we might have some idea of what you're talking about?

La Fenetre

Good money to be made hacking up the unborn, if you like that sort of thing.

Kev W

La Fenetre wrote: »

Good money to be made hacking up the unborn, if you like that sort of thing.

Thank you for that illuminating contribution to the discussion.

lazygal

La Fenetre wrote: »

Good money to be made hacking up the unborn, if you like that sort of thing.

How does the abortion pill hack up the unborn? Or is there no money to be made in it?

La Fenetre

lazygal wrote: »

How does the abortion pill hack up the unborn? Or is there no money to be made in it?

There's great money in dealing drugs, legal or ilegal.

cattolico

La Fenetre wrote: »

Good money to be made hacking up the unborn, if you like that sort of thing.

Sadly that is the reality.

lazygal

La Fenetre wrote: »

There's great money in dealing drugs, legal or ilegal.

So how is an unborn child hacked up by the abortion pill?

If I don't donate a kidney to someone who needs one to vindicate their right to life, am I hacking up that person?

La Fenetre

lazygal wrote: »

So how is an unborn child hacked up by the abortion pill?

I dunno, that's your words your arguing with, did you take too many pills ?

lazygal

La Fenetre wrote: »

I dunno, that's your words your arguing with, did you take too many pills ?

You referred to the unborn being hacked up. How does the abortion pill, used in the majority of abortions, hack up the unborn?

What pills are you suggesting I have taken? I haven't taken any pills for the purposes of abortion, if that's what you're trying to suggest.

La Fenetre

lazygal wrote: »

You referred to the unborn being hacked up. How does the abortion pill, used in the majority of abortions, hack up the unborn?

You can poison them if you're quicker but not too handy with the old forceps and hoover. You can still make good money at either though if that's your thing.

lazygal

La Fenetre wrote: »

You can poison them if you're quicker but not too handy with the old forceps and hoover. You can still make good money at either though if that's your thing.

So abortion doesn't always involve hacking up the unborn. How much money is made from the abortion pill?