Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

Cabaal

Absolam wrote: »

I'd imagine a rapist could only be denied access to their biological offspring on the same basis as any other biological father could be; their fitness to be a father, as determined by our welfare and courts system. Where the fact that he raped the child's mother is not likely to be a sterling reference?

Plenty of men that are rapists are still allowed access to their children, so you personally would be ok with denying the child a father? Your view...not dodging the question by referring to courts again.

volchitsa

Cabaal wrote: »

Plenty of men that are rapists are still allowed access to their children, so you personally be ok with denying the child a father? Your view...not dodging the question by referring to courts again.

And not only rapists of other women, there are cases in the US where women who have children born of rape have been forced by court order to grant paternal access to the child. Most US states (31 apparently) have laws granting custody rights to rapists for any resulting children.

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/08/01/us/rapist-child-custody/

Absolam

Cabaal wrote: »

Plenty of men that are rapists are still allowed access to their children, so you personally would be ok with denying the child a father? Your view...not dodging the question by referring to courts again.

Well, you did ask two questions;
"Why should the rapist be denied access to their biological off spring if the fetus comes to term?"
Which I think I answered; referring to the Courts is hardly a 'dodge'; it's part of the method by which a rapist might be denied access to their children. Do you disagree?
As for "Would you deny a child created from a rape its father?", it wasn't directed at me but I would have thought my opinion was implicit in my observation on fitness. However, for the sake of explicitness, I would indeed if their father was unfit to be a father, and that someone is prepared to rape someone else would certainly indicate to me that they are not likely to be a fit father (though I think a more comprehensive system of checks and balances than my opinion of their criminal record, such as perhaps those provided by say a welfare and courts system might be appropriate in the final determination).

Regarding your observation that 'Plenty of men that are rapists are still allowed access to their children'; you haven't offered any evidence for it, but still, the fact that they may be doesn't really have anything to do with either question, does it? Still, I don't think I'd be inclined to kill the child in order to prevent the father having access to it, I think I'd rather find a less drastic response.

One eyed Jack

volchitsa wrote: »

I really don't understand what point you're making here. Because you've reached some sort of agreement to differ with your wife doesn't make either of you right and the fact that a woman (according to you) is against abortion under any circumstances doesn't automatically make such a stance any more - or any less - humane.

I'm pretty sure my wife is a woman (I'd certainly have noticed by now if she wasn't), and while I don't agree with her stance, it's absolutely humane. More or less humane, and right and wrong, are moral judgements that simply don't arise and shouldn't arise when the matter is an issue of ethics, although people's individual opinions are informed by their personal morality, and some people don't want to leave their personal morality to one side in these discussions. It's no wonder you missed my point when you immediately jumped on the most obvious fact that my wife is a woman.

As for "under any circumstances", well again we only have your word for it, but let's assume it's true.

Take the 9 year old child who was pregnant by her stepfather in South America - how can anyone who dismisses her right not to give birth at 10 years of age to her rapist's baby say they hold that stance to be humane? Clearly it isn't, it's ignoring one child's human rights in favour of granting human rights to something that isnt even sentient. A child who was raped can be the victim of a second crime of forced birth - how is that humane? It isn't.

Let's assume your story about a pregnant nine year old girl in South America, raped and impregnated by her stepfather, is true, well we only have her word for it... yeah, that is a fairly shìtty way to be dismissive of someone alright. Moving on - when we're talking about legislating for abortion in Ireland, I don't try and strawman the fcuk out of the discussion by bringing up a moral argument about a nine year old in South America, and when my wife says she is against abortion under any circumstances, I don't question her with some of the stupidity that's been shown here.

lazygal

So your wife opposes abortion in order to save a woman's life?

eviltwin

Rape of a child resulting in pregnancy is rare here but it's not rare in cases of domestic violence. I used to work in this area and most women I encountered were raped victims, many of them had become pregnant. It might not be as emotive as a child rape victim but it's equally as shocking, as destructive. I would imagine a lot of women are anti abortion until it happens to them or their loved one. Its easier to make an allowance for yourself or someone you know, it's easy to say it's different. I have no time for anyone who is against abortion in the case of rape but there is something about a woman treating another woman like that that's particularly difficult for me about that lack of empathy.

One eyed Jack

lazygal wrote: »

So your wife opposes abortion in order to save a woman's life?

Similar to what eviltwin covered above, it's why I don't bring my work home with me (well, not most of the time anyway).

When someone who is an adult makes a definitive statement like that, any presenting them with "but what if this, but what if that, but what if the other...", isn't going to change their minds, and after nearly 20 years, I think I'd know my wife is just one of those types of people who is pretty adamant once she sets her mind on something. I said it in another thread here recently that I don't think my wife is callous or would intentionally want to hurt anyone or any of the rest of it, but I understand why she feels the way she does, because she doesn't think she will ever be in that position, and realistically, she's probably right.

volchitsa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Similar to what eviltwin covered above, it's why I don't bring my work home with me (well, not most of the time anyway).

When someone who is an adult makes a definitive statement like that, any presenting them with "but what if this, but what if that, but what if the other...", isn't going to change their minds, and after nearly 20 years, I think I'd know my wife is just one of those types of people who is pretty adamant once she sets her mind on something. I said it in another thread here recently that I don't think my wife is callous or would intentionally want to hurt anyone or any of the rest of it, but I understand why she feels the way she does, because she doesn't think she will ever be in that position, and realistically, she's probably right.

That's pretty much the dictionary definition of "callous" though I can quite understand why you would not wish to think that of your wife.

One eyed Jack

volchitsa wrote: »

That's pretty much the dictionary definition of "callous" though I can quite understand why you would not wish to think that of your wife.

Cheers for pointing that out. The discussion regarding abortion has once again been reduced to dictionary definitions and their interpretation.

FWIW though, it's neither the dictionary definition of callous, nor would I have any issue with pointing out someone was being callous if they were. Being related to me in some way would make no difference whatsoever, because I'm actually far more pragmatic than my wife, who often times would see what she thinks is my lack of empathy as callous. She's wrong in her assumption, but I don't spend all day arguing with her with the OED in my arse pocket.

volchitsa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Cheers for pointing that out. The discussion regarding abortion has once again been reduced to dictionary definitions and their interpretation.

FWIW though, it's neither the dictionary definition of callous, nor would I have any issue with pointing out someone was being callous if they were. Being related to me in some way would make no difference whatsoever, because I'm actually far more pragmatic than my wife, who often times would see what she thinks is my lack of empathy as callous. She's wrong in her assumption, but I don't spend all day arguing with her with the OED in my arse pocket.

Well I'm only going by what you say, which is all we have here. So how exactly is it not being callous to say that it doesn't matter all that much if something terrible happens to someone else, because it won't happen to me?

That is what you said, isn't it?

lazygal

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Similar to what eviltwin covered above, it's why I don't bring my work home with me (well, not most of the time anyway).

When someone who is an adult makes a definitive statement like that, any presenting them with "but what if this, but what if that, but what if the other...", isn't going to change their minds, and after nearly 20 years, I think I'd know my wife is just one of those types of people who is pretty adamant once she sets her mind on something. I said it in another thread here recently that I don't think my wife is callous or would intentionally want to hurt anyone or any of the rest of it, but I understand why she feels the way she does, because she doesn't think she will ever be in that position, and realistically, she's probably right.

Your wife thinks a woman like me who could well be pregnant shortly should die rather than have an abortion.
Sounds callous to me.

Samaris

However it's looked at, it's a bit morally cowardly to sit on the position of not in my backyard, and exporting it to the next country over. Not unheard of in other countries too of course, but still.

Abortion is always going to happen. And it's far too simplistic to make comments about "just because they feel like it". I would hazard that it's never a light option and it wasn't back in the days of coat-hangers or throwing yourself down the stairs either!

Things said approximately never: "To Do Today - get milk, newspaper, abortion..."

Cabaal

Samaris wrote: »

However it's looked at, it's a bit morally cowardly to sit on the position of not in my backyard, and exporting it to the next country over. Not unheard of in other countries too of course, but still.

Abortion is always going to happen. And it's far too simplistic to make comments about "just because they feel like it". I would hazard that it's never a light option and it wasn't back in the days of coat-hangers or throwing yourself down the stairs either!

Things said approximately never: "To Do Today - get milk, newspaper, abortion..."

Spot on Samaris, its not something a women will just flippantly decide when they get up in the morning."oh I'll have an abortion cause I had sex last week with no protection".

Its an insult to women's intelligence to even in anyway suggest this. Not to mention it makes the person who suggests such a thing look like a complete idiot,

Suggesting women can't be trusted when it comes to access to abortions is like suggesting women can't be trusted to vote properly if they are given the vote....sure they could vote for any old idiot, you can't trust women with such an important decision.
:rolleyes:

Abortions happen, that is the reality of Ireland.
The fact we export them is shameful on everyone in this country because we are failing to provide care for women in this country who one way or another will seek to have an abortion...even if its back street or by drinking something that they think will abort a fetus.

If you claim abortion is murder and you don't lobby and campaign to have women traveling for abortions banned then you are nothing more then a hypocrite.

One eyed Jack

volchitsa wrote: »

Well I'm only going by what you say, which is all we have here. So how exactly is it not being callous to say that it doesn't matter all that much if something terrible happens to someone else, because it won't happen to me?

That is what you said, isn't it?

Yeah that's not what I said though, that's your interpretation of what I said, given either your unwillingness, or your incapacity to empathise with someone who would think that way.

They're clearly not the same thing, and while I tend to make allowances for people who are incapable of empathising with someone (given that they may have no experience of what that person has experienced, they lack perspective), I'm not given to making allowances for people who are capable of empathising with another person's experience, but choose not to. That's callous.

In your case (and in my wife's case obviously), I make allowances. I wouldn't judge someone for something they are simply incapable of being able to relate to.

lazygal wrote: »

Your wife thinks a woman like me who could well be pregnant shortly should die rather than have an abortion.
Sounds callous to me.

Well if she were to put herself in your position, she would rather that she would die than have an abortion. She wouldn't, as I've previously said, be so callous as to pass judgement upon a woman who has had an abortion, but she doesn't agree with abortion nor legislating for abortion under any circumstances. She wouldn't tell you personally what you should do, but with regard to the Constitution, she would be entitled to vote whatever way she wants in a referendum, and stories that she cannot relate to in any way, wouldn't change her perspective. That's not callous, as how can anyone be expected to empathise with someone or something which they have no experience of?

That's why it's more important (to me personally anyway), to ensure that people are informed with the facts, so that they can make real and informed choices, for themselves, rather than being used as a political football between two sides.

lazygal

Tl/Dr your wife would vote for a law that would let me die rather than have an abortion.
I've never been a suicidal 14 year old pregnant rape victim but that doesn't make me unable to empathize with miss x.

One eyed Jack

lazygal wrote: »

Tl/Dr your wife would vote for a law that would let me die rather than have an abortion.
I've never been a suicidal 14 year old pregnant rape victim but that doesn't make me unable to empathize with miss x.

Yes but that's you, speaking from your perspective, and that's grand, I can't contradict you, nor would I try to, as that would just be silly. In the same way, I'm not going to contradict my wife if she says she cannot empathise with a suicidal 14 year old pregnant rape victim. I wouldn't expect her to be able to, as she has never experienced what it is to be a suicidal 14 year old pregnant rape victim.

lazygal

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Yes but that's you, speaking from your perspective, and that's grand, I can't contradict you, nor would I try to, as that would just be silly. In the same way, I'm not going to contradict my wife if she says she cannot empathise with a suicidal 14 year old pregnant rape victim. I wouldn't expect her to be able to, as she has never experienced what it is to be a suicidal 14 year old pregnant rape victim.

What a bizarre way to deal with the world. Where unless you've experienced the precise situation someone else has been in you're simply unable to empathise with them. I'd find it very difficult to be around someone who simply couldn't empathise with a suicidal 14 year old rape victim because it had never happened to them.

One eyed Jack

lazygal wrote: »

What a bizarre way to deal with the world. Where unless you've experienced the precise situation someone else has been in you're simply unable to empathise with them. I'd find it very difficult to be around someone who simply couldn't empathise with a suicidal 14 year old rape victim because it had never happened to them.

Right now you're unable to empathise with someone whom you don't share their perspective, because you haven't shared their experiences. It's really not that bizarre at all. I understand why you would find it difficult to be around someone who doesn't think the same way you do, but it's never presented any difficulty for me, probably because I'm not so quick to pass judgement on people for one aspect of which we don't see eye to eye, due to my own experiences.

lazygal

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Right now you're unable to empathise with someone whom you don't share their perspective, because you haven't shared their experiences. It's really not that bizarre at all. I understand why you would find it difficult to be around someone who doesn't think the same way you do, but it's never presented any difficulty for me, probably because I'm not so quick to pass judgement on people for one aspect of which we don't see eye to eye.

I can empathise with her because I used to, to my shame, argue along similar lines. I now know i thought like this because of my religious schooling where the sex ed we got, which was generally good, contained large doses of anti abortion propaganda. I'm really sorry for her that she's seeing the world in such black and white terms and missing out on all the subtle shades of gray. Maybe if you shared her experiences with me of why she arrived at the conclusion that I should die rather than have an abortion my view of her could be more nuanced?

lazygal

Samaris wrote: »

However it's looked at, it's a bit morally cowardly to sit on the position of not in my backyard, and exporting it to the next country over. Not unheard of in other countries too of course, but still.

Abortion is always going to happen. And it's far too simplistic to make comments about "just because they feel like it". I would hazard that it's never a light option and it wasn't back in the days of coat-hangers or throwing yourself down the stairs either!

Things said approximately never: "To Do Today - get milk, newspaper, abortion..."

How can you hazard that? Caitlin Moran has been very open about how light an option it was for her, she said it was more difficult to pick out things for her kitchen - worktops I think - than deciding on an abortion. It can be a light option to decide to remain pregnant as much as it can be to decide to end a pregnancy.

One eyed Jack

lazygal wrote: »

I can empathise with her because I used to, to my shame, argue along similar lines. I now know i thought like this because of my religious schooling where the sex ed we got, which was generally good, contained large doses of anti abortion propaganda. I'm really sorry for her that she's seeing the world in such black and white terms and missing out on all the subtle shades of gray. Maybe if you shared her experiences with me of why she arrived at the conclusion that I should die rather than have an abortion my view of her could be more nuanced?

Eesh, I dunno would it really be of any benefit tbh. I've never pushed her on it because I know just how far I can push, and she really is that black and white on it. Nothing to do with religion, but from a humanitarian perspective, she just isn't, and has never been able to get her head around the idea that anyone would want to have an abortion, much less so that anyone should need one, and it isn't a subject she's at all comfortable talking about, so I don't push it with her and I accept that that's the way she is, that's who she is. She knows my views on abortion, she doesn't like them, can't get her head around why I think the way I do, but she acknowledges that there's more to me than just my views on abortion.

She's one of the most compassionate people I know (which probably isn't saying a lot for the people I know in your eyes if my wife's level of compassion is the standard by which I judge others), but just on this one issue (actually admittedly a couple of issues tbh but just this one in particular), she has concern for both, but sincere empathy with someone who would want to, or seek an abortion, is just one thing she isn't capable of understanding. That's something that would seem bizarre to her, but it would make sense to you or I.

I don't think people should feel ashamed for either thinking that abortion should be unlawful, and I don't think people should be ashamed for thinking that abortion should be lawful regardless of circumstances and time limits, etc.

(Reminds me of the Gospel this morning at mass, the story of the woman that had committed adultery, and the crowd wanted her to be stoned to death. I'm sure you're familiar with how it goes - "Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone", and there was nobody left to throw stones. Same principle here really)

eviltwin

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Yes but that's you, speaking from your perspective, and that's grand, I can't contradict you, nor would I try to, as that would just be silly. In the same way, I'm not going to contradict my wife if she says she cannot empathise with a suicidal 14 year old pregnant rape victim. I wouldn't expect her to be able to, as she has never experienced what it is to be a suicidal 14 year old pregnant rape victim.

Neither have I but ffs you don't need to have been in that position to have a shred of empathy and respect for someone else.

One eyed Jack

eviltwin wrote: »

Neither have I but ffs you don't need to have been in that position to have a shred of empathy and respect for someone else.

Some people don't, some people do. If I ever meet two people who think the same way and share exactly the same perspective, it'll be a first.

Some people think in terms of issues, some people think in terms of human life - who they have a shred of empathy and respect for, and the degree of empathy and respect they have for other people, will usually vary depending upon numerous factors.

If we're criticising black and white thinking here, would it not be just as hypocritical not to take that into account that every person doesn't think in the same terms we do?

volchitsa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Some people don't, some people do. If I ever meet two people who think the same way and share exactly the same perspective, it'll be a first.

Some people think in terms of issues, some people think in terms of human life - who they have a shred of empathy and respect for, and the degree of empathy and respect they have for other people, will usually vary depending upon numerous factors.

If we're criticising black and white thinking here, would it not be just as hypocritical not to take that into account that every person doesn't think in the same terms we do?

There's an excess of moral equivalence here that I find hard to comprehend, TBF. It's not about thinking in the same terms, it's about empathy, which is a normal human trait, to the extent that those without it are considered to be psychopathic. Someone who feels more empathy for a non sentient being than for a person with feelings and who may well have small children who are dependent on them, to the extent of letting that person die is seriously warped - but in this case we know that that's almost certainly due to the brainwashing of a religious education rather than to some innate psychopathic tendency.

The result however - a worrying lack of empathy for another group of people - is similar.

lazygal

One eyed Jack wrote: »

(Reminds me of the Gospel this morning at mass, the story of the woman that had committed adultery, and the crowd wanted her to be stoned to death. I'm sure you're familiar with how it goes - "Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone", and there was nobody left to throw stones. Same principle here really)

Not really, not if you don't think there's any such thing as sin.

volchitsa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Yeah that's not what I said though, that's your interpretation of what I said, given either your unwillingness, or your incapacity to empathise with someone who would think that way.

They're clearly not the same thing, and while I tend to make allowances for people who are incapable of empathising with someone (given that they may have no experience of what that person has experienced, they lack perspective), I'm not given to making allowances for people who are capable of empathising with another person's experience, but choose not to. That's callous.

In your case (and in my wife's case obviously), I make allowances. I wouldn't judge someone for something they are simply incapable of being able to relate to.

Well if she were to put herself in your position, she would rather that she would die than have an abortion. She wouldn't, as I've previously said, be so callous as to pass judgement upon a woman who has had an abortion, but she doesn't agree with abortion nor legislating for abortion under any circumstances. She wouldn't tell you personally what you should do, but with regard to the Constitution, she would be entitled to vote whatever way she wants in a referendum, and stories that she cannot relate to in any way, wouldn't change her perspective. That's not callous, as how can anyone be expected to empathise with someone or something which they have no experience of?

That's why it's more important (to me personally anyway), to ensure that people are informed with the facts, so that they can make real and informed choices, for themselves, rather than being used as a political football between two sides.

You're completely moving the goalposts here though.

It actually is what said, or if you think it isn't, then how exactly did I misrepresent what you said about your wife?

And in the meantime you've introduced a completely new idea which is that she wouldn't refuse an abortion to someone else, she would just refuse one for herself. But afaicr that's not what you said earlier.

It's certainly not what I replied to.

One eyed Jack

volchitsa wrote: »

There's an excess of moral equivalence here that I find hard to comprehend, TBF. It's not about thinking in the same terms, it's about empathy, which is a normal human trait, to the extent that those without it are considered to be psychopathic. Someone who feels more empathy for a non sentient being than for a person with feelings and who may well have small children who are dependent on them, to the extent of letting that person die is seriously warped - but in this case we know that that's almost certainly due to the brainwashing of a religious education rather than to some innate psychopathic tendency.

Without meaning to state the obvious, but couldn't I just as easily point out that judging someone incapable of empathising with someone whom they have no shared experience, as warped, is a moral judgement in itself, based on your own perspective of morality?

To put it in simpler terms - I as a man can never empathise with a woman in terms of her ability to become pregnant. I can certainly sympathise with her when she's in pain, but to claim I could empathise with her, I'd be talking out my arse, let's be honest.

Having never given birth, I wasn't prepared for the horror show of seeing my wife practically being torn asunder on the delivery table. I knew the medical staff had to do what they had to do, but whatever idiot claimed it was a special moment and blah de blah... blow it out their rear end. It was something I'd rather never witness again. My wife figures it was amazing, but then she was doped up on pethidine for most of it.

That's the difference between empathy, and sympathy - nobody can make a legitimate claim to be able to empathise with someone on the basis of something they have no experience of. That isn't any indication of a psychopathic pathology.

Human perspective has less to do with any religious ideology, and more to do with experience, or indeed lack thereof.

The result however - a worrying lack of empathy for another group of people - is similar.

Should we just go back to calling the unborn a foetus then and dehumanising human life in the most clinical terms possible? I don't mind like, but then to criticise other people for their lack of empathy seeing as we all share the experience of being born, well, IMO that sort of passing judgement seems just a tad redundant, and doesn't appear to have anything to do with religious ideology either.

Now while you have a PhD in biology and have probably spent half your life referring to the unborn as a foetus, other people haven't, but I'm not going to say you were brainwashed by science, as that would just be silly. The point is that your experience informs your morality and by extension your opinion. That's why I didn't press you on your 12 week cut-off point and suggesting you would be lacking in sympathy for a woman who was 17 weeks pregnant and seeking an abortion. I think it's a reasonable assumption that you would sympathise with a woman in that scenario, in spite of the fact that your cut-off point that you would be comfortable legislating for is 12 weeks.

I just don't know what you would do for a woman in that scenario, and I don't like to ask as I have enough respect for you that I wouldn't want to put you on the spot like that. It's reasonable to assume it wouldn't be an easy question to answer, as it presents quite a moral quandary if you have no experience you can draw on, or if the experience might upset you. I'd consider it a dick move on my part personally to put you on the spot like that.


Christ I hope that makes sense!!

One eyed Jack

lazygal wrote: »

Not really, not if you don't think there's any such thing as sin.

Well that's why I said the principle is the same. Like obviously I know you're not religious so the idea of sins would make no odds to informing your morality, but at least you'd be familiar with the principle at least, upon which the ideology is based.

lazygal

I don't understand your definition of empathy OEJ. I'd think it was something like this:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/empathy
Full Definition of empathy
1: the imaginative projection of a subjective state into an object so that the object appears to be infused with it
2: the action of understanding, being aware of, being sensitive to, and vicariously experiencing the feelings, thoughts, and experience of another of either the past or present without having the feelings, thoughts, and experience fully communicated in an objectively explicit manner; also : the capacity for this

but you seem to think that if I haven't had an exactly similar experience to someone I can't empathise with them.

lazygal

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Well that's why I said the principle is the same. Like obviously I know you're not religious so the idea of sins would make no odds to informing your morality, but at least you'd be familiar with the principle at least, upon which the ideology is based.

It's a nonsense ideology though. It implies that we can't ever throw metaphorical stones, or, say, criticise anyone, because we're not perfect. Humans are always flawed and generally able to make reasoned arguments for why they don't agree. I've never agreed with the throwing stones line of argument myself.