Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

alaimacerc

PopePalpatine wrote: »

This is a good example of "punch-down" "satire".

Unfortunately, like a lot of analysis on "privilege", "kyriarchy", etc, it depends on first agreeing what the ladder/hierarchy in question actually is. (Cf the whole "feminists vs trans" debacle, which often seems to be especially bitter because of a fundamental disagreement on this point.) The anti-abortion types will simply maintain that the poor blastocytic "persons, but not persons qua persons" are the real "down".

alaimacerc

recedite wrote: »

40.3.3 (the 8th amendment) has already been successfully repealed twice; the 13th and 14th amendments.

Repealing something twice? Is that some sort of double negative?

I'm not sure what definition of "repeal" you're working from, but it seems sharply different from everyone else's.

alaimacerc

Absolam wrote: »

Roe v Wade isn't good law if it doesn't reflect the will of the people, and it's fairly apparent that there's still quite some discussion about that in the US.

Interestingly different take on the presuppositional correctness of various constitutional processes. Outcome you happen to agree with: axiomatically correct, to the point of endlessly pestering people about only ever talking about "rights" that happen to be presently vindicated in that framework. Outcome you happen to disagree with: "bad law".

It's readily apparent that one does not to be autonomous to have a legal existence. Even people wholly dependant on life support with no autonomy whatsoever still have a legal existence.

I think John Stuart Mill is spinning in his grave (to get all Vitalist for a moment), just as biologists everywhere are shuddering, at your spinning of the concept of "autonomy".

And given that they didn't rely on the 8th in offering the distinction, I would think that in the absence of the 8th jurisprudence will still hold the unborn is a person, but it will be up to the courts and the legislature to determine what rights that person should have.

Given that the courts have almost invariably not offered that characterisation, and have only ever found the one right expressly stipulated in the 8th, this all strikes me as a massive, massive stretch of imagination, and of language.

I'm not aware of any common law jurisdiction has found foetal (much less embryonic, zygotic, etc...) personhood to arise therefrom. Or indeed, any (with the highly arguable exception of Ireland) that has legislated for it.

MrPudding

Interesting article here:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/05/abortion-opposition-religious-atheists-must-help-fight-for-choice

MrP

Absolam

alaimacerc wrote: »

Interestingly different take on the presuppositional correctness of various constitutional processes. Outcome you happen to agree with: axiomatically correct, to the point of endlessly pestering people about only ever talking about "rights" that happen to be presently vindicated in that framework. Outcome you happen to disagree with: "bad law".

Not to put too fine a point on it (since I know you realised this already), I never presented the 8th as axiomatically correct. I agree with it, and just like Roe Vs Wade, I'm quite prepared to agree it's a fact. And let's be honest, pointing out the right to life does exist (it's still a fact, isn't it?) isn't exactly endlessly pestering; if you're participating in a discussion about abortion in Ireland it a fairly salient fact. Unfortunately you're going to hear opinions (and indeed, facts) you find disagreeable as part of the discussion; if you think you're being pestered by it you need only not read them.
If it helps you along, I'm happy to stipulate Roe V Wade isn't axiomatically incorrect either, though I don't want to ruin any future diatribe you may have planned. Love the rights 'that happen to be presently' vindicated line though.. it almost makes it look accidental, and just a bit inconsequential, doesn't it? Though I don't think this discussion would be happening if that were the case.

alaimacerc wrote: »

I think John Stuart Mill is spinning in his grave (to get all Vitalist for a moment), just as biologists everywhere are shuddering, at your spinning of the concept of "autonomy".

I think Mr Mill is beyond caring, and any biologist who wants to take issue is free to do so, though I doubt a biologist anywhere has even essayed a tremor just yet. If they ever do then we can discuss why they'd imagine the concept of biological autonomy is likely to be a requirement for a legal existence, any more than Volchitsas ill-fated notion that autonomy should be.

alaimacerc wrote: »

Given that the courts have almost invariably not offered that characterisation, and have only ever found the one right expressly stipulated in the 8th, this all strikes me as a massive, massive stretch of imagination, and of language.

Weren't we here before? At the time I offered you three instances where the members of the Supreme Court characterised the unborn as persons. You didn't actually offer a reply, so maybe you just decided to move on; I'm not certain whether you consider repeating it now as 'pestering'... still the notion that 'the courts have almost invariably not offered that characterisation' does seem a bid misleading. Having been established by the Supreme Court, what other Court would ever need to offer a characterisation?
If it helps though, the High Court in W. -v- M. & Anor (2010) referred to the Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Act 2009 as part of it's judgement:
2.1 In s. 23 “relevant person” is defined, in relation to a relevant trust, as meaning any of the following:
(a) a person who has a vested or contingent interest under the trust but who is incapable of assenting to an arrangement by reason of lack of capacity (whether by reason of minority or absence of mental capacity),
(b) an unborn person,
(which as you'll note wasn't exactly unprecedented) so I don't think the High Court (or the legislature) are averse to mirroring the Supreme Courts characterisation when needed.
And that's obviously before we even get to the huge number of HC and SC judgements that refer to the unborn child (unless you want the dispute the fact that children are people).

alaimacerc wrote: »

I'm not aware of any common law jurisdiction has found foetal (much less embryonic, zygotic, etc...) personhood to arise therefrom. Or indeed, any (with the highly arguable exception of Ireland) that has legislated for it.

I'm not aware of another jurisdiction with the same jurisprudence and legal history as Ireland either, so I guess it's reasonably fair to say it will be up to the courts and the legislature to determine what rights that person should have. As I did.
But let's not pretend it's entirely non-existant in other common law jursidictions either; the above case drew on jurisprudence from the United Kingdom, and the Variation of Trusts Act 1958 which states:
1.-(1) Where property, whether real or personal, is held on Jurisdiction trusts arising, whether before or after the passing of this Act, of courts to under any will, settlement or other disposition, the court may vary trusts. if it thinks fit by order approve on behalf of-
(a) any person having, directly or indirectly, an interest, whether vested or contingent, under the trusts who by reason of infancy or other incapacity is incapable of assenting, or
(b) any person (whether ascertained or not) who may become entitled, directly or indirectly, to an interest under the trusts as being at a future date or on the happening of a future event a person of any specified description or a member of any specified class of persons, so however that this paragraph shall not include any person who would be of that description, or a member of that class, as the case may be, if the said date had fallen or the said event had happened at the date of the application to the court, or
(c) any person unborn, or
So we're not exactly the only common law jursidiction that accords personhood to the unborn in legislation, the UK has been doing it since the 50s, regardless of the 8th...

recedite

MrPudding wrote: »

Interesting article here:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/05/abortion-opposition-religious-atheists-must-help-fight-for-choice
MrP

Based on a false premise though; that "abortion opposition is a religious stance". It can be, and it often is. But not always.

Hotblack Desiato

Look at the European countries with the most restrictive abortion stances though. Malta, Poland. Ireland. What have they got in common?

South America also.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Cabaal

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Ding, Ding, Ding
We have a winner

Dan_Solo

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Look at the European countries with the most restrictive abortion stances though. Malta, Poland. Ireland. What have they got in common?

South America also.

This doesn't invalidate what was said above though. The comments under that Guaridan article tear it to shreds TBH.

Edit: look at my spelling of Guardian... sheesh, that paper is rubbing off on me after all these years reading it.

robindch

Rich American Televangelist, Jim Bakker, announces that abortion clinics are 'legal cover' for Satanic child sacrifice.

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/10/televangelist-satanic-temples-are-hidden-in-planned-parenthood-clinics-as-legal-cover-for-child-sacrifice/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YcG1USDpfUQ

Hotblack Desiato

Dan_Solo wrote: »

This doesn't invalidate what was said above though. The comments under that Guaridan article tear it to shreds TBH.

You can spin it any way you want, it doesn't change the facts, anti-choice correlates strongly with religious influence in general and catholicism in particular.

Now if you have a specific comment or comments that you want to discuss, fire ahead, I'm not going to plough through hundreds of them to try to find out what your point is.

Dan_Solo

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

You can spin it any way you want, it doesn't change the facts, anti-choice correlates strongly with religious influence in general and catholicism in particular.

"Correlation" doesn't prove any specific connection between two things. The only "fact" is the correlation itself. See pirates v global warming.
In this case, the proposition in The Guardian is that being pro-choice is the only possibility for an atheist. This is completely untrue, whatever "correlations" you find. Now if you want to talk about correlations that's fine, but they have no connection to what that article proposes is a self evident universal truth.

oscarBravo

Dan_Solo wrote: »

In this case, the proposition in The Guardian is that being pro-choice is the only possibility for an atheist.

The article doesn't say that. If you're going to extrapolate that proposition from the article, you can't exactly complain about someone else extrapolating the proposition that opposition to abortion is a religious thing.

Dan_Solo

oscarBravo wrote: »

The article doesn't say that. If you're going to extrapolate that proposition from the article, you can't exactly complain about someone else extrapolating the proposition that opposition to abortion is a religious thing.

The Guardian wrote:

Abortion opposition is a religious stance.

No qualifier there I'm afraid, so you are wrong. Opposition to abortion need not be religious, just as you don't have to be atheist to be pro-choice.
They correlate but they are not absolutes as presented.
Very first reply sums it up totally for you:

Atheists’ hugely lopsided support for choice is a simple reflection that opposition to abortion is inherently a religious position

Err no. The fact that quite a few atheists oppose abortion proves that opposition is not inherently a religious position.

oscarBravo

Dan_Solo wrote: »

No qualifier there I'm afraid, so you are wrong. Opposition to abortion need not be religious, just as you don't have to be atheist to be pro-choice.

I'm not sure why that reply quoted me, because it's a complete non-sequitur to what I posted.

recedite

The headline clearly states "Abortion opposition is a religious stance. Atheists must help fight for choice."

The first proposition is wrong. The second sentence implies that atheists need to get more involved in the fight, and those that don't are apathetic. That's also wrong.

oscarBravo

recedite wrote: »

The headline clearly states "Abortion opposition is a religious stance. Atheists must help fight for choice."

The first proposition is wrong. The second sentence implies that atheists need to get more involved in the fight, and those that don't are apathetic. That's also wrong.

Sorry, I was discussing the article, not the headline. My mistake.

volchitsa

oscarBravo wrote: »

Sorry, I was discussing the article, not the headline. My mistake.

Presumably it's the article that counts, when the two are at odds?

It certainly wouldn't be the first time a headline oversimplified or even contradicted the content of the article it headed, and if so, I think it's generally the headline that's considered to be wrong. Apart from anything else, the headline may not even have been chosen by the author of the article.

Hotblack Desiato

If there were no religious opposition to abortion, the non-religious opposition would be so small as to be lost in the statistical noise. The premise of the article is correct.

The Randy Riverbeast

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

If there were no religious opposition to abortion, the non-religious opposition would be so small as to be lost in the statistical noise. The premise of the article is correct.

I attempted to find a pro life group which didnt have some large religion basis. It's fairly tough and they advertise themselves as being secular to separate themselves from the religious ones.

Go to an average pro life facebook page and god gets mentioned more than on a Sunday morning.

Anyone I know who is anti gay people, pro life or highly religious is the other 2 as well. It is a small sample size and Im not saying an atheist can not hate gay people and be pro life but they do appear to be in a minority.

volchitsa

The Randy Riverbeast wrote: »

I attempted to find a pro life group which didnt have some large religion basis. It's fairly tough and they advertise themselves as being secular to separate themselves from the religious ones.

Go to an average pro life facebook page and god gets mentioned more than on a Sunday morning.

I've looked for these as well, and of the few I've found who weren't clearly front groups for religious associations, not a single secular pro-life group took anything other than what would be considered a moderate pro-choice stance in Ireland, eg limited abortion for risk to the mother's health, rape, incest, FFA. I haven't come across any that advocate anything like the restrictions that the POLDPA contains.

recedite

Looking for groups is the wrong approach. You can't find many "agnostic" groups either, but that doesn't mean there aren't any agnostics.

Or to take another analogy, I don't know how many vegetarians would be left if Hindus and Buddhists started promoting beef, but the statement "opposition to eating beef is a religious stance. Atheists must help fight for Mc Donalds" would still be barmy.
The stance could be ethical, moral or religious or perhaps something else.

oscarBravo

recedite wrote: »

I don't know how many vegetarians would be left if Hindus and Buddhists started promoting beef...

Millions. Have you seriously never met a vegetarian that wasn't Hindu or Buddhist? Of all the vegetarians I know, I'm struggling to think of one that is.

...but the statement "opposition to eating beef is a religious stance. Atheists must help fight for Mc Donalds" would still be barmy.
The stance could be ethical, moral or religious or perhaps something else.

The analogy is broken by design. There are many, many reasons to be vegetarian. How many reasons are there for claiming that a fertilised egg is a human person with human rights?

Absolam

oscarBravo wrote: »

How many reasons are there for claiming that a fertilised egg is a human person with human rights?

Probably about as many as there are not. What is or isn't a person is pretty much an entirely philosophical question. Once you've decided something is a person, the right to life is probably the absolute minimum level of rights you can assign to it (which is not to say historically we've had a problem restricting even that right for some people), but I don't think we've seen much of a case being made for many more rights than that one being afforded to unborn people, to be fair. I think there might have been something about the right to inherit a while back, but I could be wrong?

It's nice and easy for a Christian; people have souls, if it has a soul it's a person. The Catholic Church along with most Christian faiths incline towards conception in that regard, and Hinduism and Buddhism generally seem to incline towards conception being the beginning of a person. Notably Islam stands out as not considering a foetus to be 'a life' until the four month gestation mark. But if you're not religious you have to make up your mind yourself; when does a human being become a person? Or at least something that you feel deserves sufficient distinction as to be termed a person. Most people will agree the assignation of human rights is not all or nothing; there are already progressive degrees of rights which proceed after birth through to adulthood, so no real reason (having determined personhood) they shouldn't proceed through gestation just the same.

I sometimes wonder if where you fall on the spectrum depends to any degree on whether the subject is approached from how far should a prospective mothers rights be permitted to determine the rights of a foetus, or from how far should a prospective childs rights be permitted to determine the rights of a pregnant woman.
If there were no pregnant woman involved in the equation; say we reached the technological point where we could mature a foetus right from conception to birth, what proportion of those who oppose the right to life of a foetus would continue to do so?

pauldla

volchitsa wrote: »

I've looked for these as well, and of the few I've found who weren't clearly front groups for religious associations, not a single secular pro-life group took anything other than what would be considered a moderate pro-choice stance in Ireland, eg limited abortion for risk to the mother's health, rape, incest, FFA. I haven't come across any that advocate anything like the restrictions that the POLDPA contains.

Could you post some links please, Volchitsa, if you have them to hand? It'd be interesting to get a look at secular anti-abortion groups.

volchitsa

pauldla wrote: »

Could you post some links please, Volchitsa, if you have them to hand? It'd be interesting to get a look at secular anti-abortion groups.

It was a while back, when someone claimed there were feminist/atheist pro-life groups, so I had a look. I didn't join any (!) so didn't keep them, and don't really have time to start googling at the moment, but I remember Sarah Palin was a member of a (fake?) feminist pro-life group.

Also they all seemed to be American groups. I might get back to you later in the week on it, or you could google them yourself. I can't even remember now what search words I used though, sorry.

Absolam

I am utterly convinced it is possible to find anything whatsoever in America, from apotheosis to damnation and everything in between, depending entirely on your inclination and means.

You can even find a couple of secular pro life groups... one of which is called secular pro life
Secular Pro Life
And Pro Life Humanists who look like they're of a similar sort of stripe.

It being America I wouldn't be entirely surprised if they were actually funded and run by a neo-Baptist Satanism Saturdays congregation in Idaho, but still....

pauldla

volchitsa wrote: »

It was a while back, when someone claimed there were feminist/atheist pro-life groups, so I had a look. I didn't join any (!) so didn't keep them, and don't really have time to start googling at the moment, but I remember Sarah Palin was a member of a (fake?) feminist pro-life group.

Also they all seemed to be American groups. I might get back to you later in the week on it, or you could google them yourself. I can't even remember now what search words I used though, sorry.

No googling for me, I'm afraid, Vol; I'll have a look on yahoo later. I just thought, on the off-chance, if you happened to have them to hand, etc.

Is lmgtfy.com still on the go, I wonder?

pauldla

Absolam wrote: »

I am utterly convinced it is possible to find anything whatsoever in America, from apotheosis to damnation and everything in between, depending entirely on your inclination and means.

You can even find a couple of secular pro life groups... one of which is called secular pro life
Secular Pro Life
And Pro Life Humanists who look like they're of a similar sort of stripe.

It being America I wouldn't be entirely surprised if they were actually funded and run by a neo-Baptist Satanism Saturdays congregation in Idaho, but still....

Thanks Absolam!

The Secular Pro-Life site is blocked here, though the other is accessible. Neither group seems to have a wikipedia entry, as far as I can tell. They don't seem to get a mention in the United States pro-life movement entry either.

I wonder what numbers are involved?

Absolam

pauldla wrote: »

Thanks Absolam!
The Secular Pro-Life site is blocked here, though the other is accessible. Neither group seems to have a wikipedia entry, as far as I can tell. They don't seem to get a mention in the United States pro-life movement entry either.
I wonder what numbers are involved?

Secular Pro Life claim it is a FACT that there are 6 million secular pro lifers in the US (a FACT derived from some statistically dubious maths);
"FACT: There are over six million pro-lifers in the United States who aren't affiliated with religion.
How do we know? According to the Pew Research Center, 19.6% of American adults have no religion. That's approximately 46 million people given the current population of the United States. And according to Gallup, somewhere between 15 and 19 percent of Americans with no religion are pro-life. Do the math, and it comes out to between 6.9 and 8.7 million. Out of an abundance of caution, Secular Pro-Life calls it 6 million.
The true number is likely far higher. We know that many non-religious Americans hesitate to self-identify as pro-life because it is unacceptable in their social circles; many have only "come out" to Secular Pro-Life. Compounding the problem, people with no religion are also more likely than average to believe (wrongly) that the pro-choice position commands a majority." So far they have 21 photos and about 9000 facebook likes. So somewhere between those three numbers?
Pro Life Humanists have about 1500 facebook likes. Not so popular I guess.

I'd be interested in the proposition that "according to Gallup, somewhere between 15 and 19 percent of Americans with no religion are pro-life" though.

alaimacerc

pauldla wrote: »

The Secular Pro-Life site is blocked here, though the other is accessible. Neither group seems to have a wikipedia entry, as far as I can tell.

Au contraire! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_Pro-Life

I wonder what numbers are involved?

According to their own fuzzy maths, about six million! (Citing vague survey numbers, and the logic of "there must be a pony in here someplace".) In reality, sounds more like a one-man outfit (or rather, a one-woman one).

Absolam

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

If there were no religious opposition to abortion, the non-religious opposition would be so small as to be lost in the statistical noise. The premise of the article is correct.

Hmm. According to alaimacercs wiki link, the Oxford Handbook of Religion and American Politics notes that 22% of nonreligious unaffiliated Americans describe themselves as "pro-life on abortion" and 12% of atheists and agnostics do; neither 22% nor 12% would seem to be so small a number as to be lost in the statistical noise.

alaimacerc

Absolam wrote: »

Hmm. According to alaimacercs wiki link, the Oxford Handbook of Religion and American Politics notes that 22% of nonreligious unaffiliated Americans describe themselves as "pro-life on abortion" and 12% of atheists and agnostics do; neither 22% nor 12% would seem to be so small a number as to be lost in the statistical noise.

I think you're overestimating the statistics. And sharply underestimating the noise.

Absolam

alaimacerc wrote: »

I think you're overestimating the statistics. And sharply underestimating the noise.

Nope, I'm taking the statistics straight from the book. And even 12% is sufficient to be statistically significant; not at all likely to get lost in statistical noise.

Dan_Solo

oscarBravo wrote: »

There are many, many reasons to be vegetarian. How many reasons are there for claiming that a fertilised egg is a human person with human rights?

For vegetarianism, there's religion, health and ethics.
For zygote human rights there's religion and ethics.
I'm not seeing the "many many" versus hardly any argument here TBH. And presenting the stance of human rights for fertilized eggs as the only position anybody on the pro-life side has is a bit like claiming all pro-choice people want to allow on demand termination of the foetus a minute before the delivery.

Cabaal

This is sort of relevant to this topic as cuts to finding means women are being put in a really bad situation

http://www.broadsheet.ie/2015/10/12/rape-crisis-what-rape-crisis/

Dan_Solo

alaimacerc wrote: »

I think you're overestimating the statistics. And sharply underestimating the noise.

Do you have alternative statistics or any specific complaint about the methodology? Otherwise claiming "noise" just sounds like you simply don't like the numbers.

Hotblack Desiato

So, anyone got any advance on two non-religious anti-choice groups - worldwide?
Compared to thousands of religious ones.
Down in the noise.

Dan_Solo

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Down in the noise.

Pointless comment. If you can't argue against the overall number of atheists who are pro-life, who cares how many groups can or cannot be named?

Absolam

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

So, anyone got any advance on two non-religious anti-choice groups - worldwide? Compared to thousands of religious ones. Down in the noise.

Well, let's not lose our sense of perspective; the assertion was "If there were no religious opposition to abortion, the non-religious opposition would be so small as to be lost in the statistical noise."
If you're going to rewrite that as "If there were no religious opposition to abortion, the non-religious opposition which is composed of discrete organisations with an immediately recognisable internet presence would be so small as to be lost in the statistical noise." then you might find less argument, but really, do we actually care how many such organisations there are? I haven't heard anyone saying they want to join one or anything....

However, contrary to your actual assertion, people who identify as both non religious and pro life on abortion are sufficiently statistically significant to be identified on The Oxford Handbook of Religion and American Politics table from their National Survey; (non religious unaffilated 22% and atheist/agnostic 12% in case you missed it) so not exactly down in the noise at all really. After all, only 37% of the Irish electorate voted for same sex marriage, and that certainly wasn't 'down in the noise'.

Hotblack Desiato

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Pointless comment. If you can't argue against the overall number of atheists who are pro-life, who cares how many groups can or cannot be named?

I was referring to groups in the first place.

Dan_Solo

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

I was referring to groups in the first place.

What you said was:

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

If there were no religious opposition to abortion, the non-religious opposition would be so small as to be lost in the statistical noise. The premise of the article is correct.

(my emphasis)
Now you want to qualify that post hoc to say "religious groups" instead of just "religious"?

volchitsa

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Pointless comment. If you can't argue against the overall number of atheists who are pro-life, who cares how many groups can or cannot be named?

It matters, in fact it changes everything, from a legislative point of view, according to what people who say they are pro-life actually mean.

It can vary from: "I personally would not have an abortion" up to "I would be prepared to see women left infertile rather than allow them to have an abortion" and, in a very few cases, beyond that.

From what I saw of "secular" pro-life groups, their policies were situated in fact at what would be the "moderate" edge of the Irish pro-choice spectrum (ie FFA, rape, incest and often mother's health all given as legitimate exceptions to any ban), so if all these other "pro-life" secular people are not even motivated enough either to join one of these pro-life groups nor to form one of their own, I think we can assume they are merely aspirational in their views, and don't want or require legislation to enforce their opinons on others.

Which after all is the issue here.

volchitsa

Dan_Solo wrote: »

What you said was:
(my emphasis)
Now you want to qualify that post hoc to say "religious groups" instead of just "religious"?

No, because it's the opposition that matters. People can be pro-life, as I've just said, without wishing to organise opposition to it being available to others. They just don't consider that they personally would ever use that possibility.

robdonn

Dan_Solo wrote: »

For vegetarianism, there's religion, health and ethics.

There is also economics (vegetables are a lot cheaper and more readily available in certain areas), culture (which can be distinct from religion) and taste, which I would hope would not apply to a zygote. :P

seamus

Well certainly there are economic and cultural arguments around abortion too. Though I would tend to bundle cultural and religious together. One usually informs the other, especially when it comes to things that are strictly verboten.

Dan_Solo

volchitsa wrote: »

No, because it's the opposition that matters. People can be pro-life, as I've just said, without wishing to organise opposition to it being available to others. They just don't consider that they personally would ever use that possibility.

If it's the "opposition" that matters, they why is he (now) banging on about groups? Are the numbers not opposed if they're not in a group?
The vast vast majority of the public are in neither a pro-life (er, except technically the RCC) or a pro-choice group but they have an opinion on it regardless.
So, for example, public support for gay marriage rights is immaterial as 99% of those who voted for it aren't in any pro-gay rights group?

robdonn

seamus wrote: »

Well certainly there are economic and cultural arguments around abortion too.

True, but the question wasn't about abortion in general, it was about "claiming that a fertilised egg is a human person with human rights".

TBH, my point was really just that there are more than the three reasons given, not that they are exclusive to vegetarianism, and whether they count as 'many many' is up to interpretation I suppose.

volchitsa

Dan_Solo wrote: »

If it's the "opposition" that matters, they why is he (now) banging on about groups? Are the numbers not opposed if they're not in a group?
The vast vast majority of the public are in neither a pro-life (er, except technically the RCC) or a pro-choice group but they have an opinion on it regardless.
So, for example, public support for gay marriage rights is immaterial as 99% of those who voted for it aren't in any pro-gay rights group?

I think s/he has a point in that, outside of a vote (and in the US there hasn't been a vote on that subject, nor in many countries for that matter) the only way for people to make their opinions heard is by creating or joining a group.

So if people in the US aren't prepared to do that, they presumably are happy enough with the law as it is, ie abortion as per Roe-Wade. So they can't reasonably be counted upon as being pro-life in the Irish sense of the word (which would be considered an extreme form in just about any other country).