Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

One eyed Jack

Ragnar Lothbrok wrote: »

Do some people seriously believe that life only begins at birth? I would hope that's not a view shared by many of the pro-choice people, as that seems a particularly barbaric point of view, given that we have all seen proof of children born as early as 24 weeks into pregnancy not only surviving, but thriving.

I think most people, whether they are pro-life or pro-choice, understand that life begins from the moment of conception, but it's the idea of bestowing a right to life on the unborn, from the moment of implantation, is the contentious issue for many people. We have indeed all seen proof of children born as early as 24 weeks into a pregnancy, and with advances in medical technology, I fully expect that we should see children born much earlier than that survive and thrive.

Those timelines though, are completely irrelevant IMO, when the issue is that women are currently forced to continue not only to remain pregnant against their will, but are also forced to give birth against their will, to a child that they never wanted to remain pregnant with in the first place, let alone that unborn child being allowed to develop to a point where women's lives are put at risk in order to give birth to the unborn child.

A child simply being born alive, shouldn't be the standard by which we judge whether to allow for abortion in this country or not.

One eyed Jack

oldrnwisr wrote: »

It's difficult to come up with an absolute definitive line when life begins. Firstly, trying to establish a line like that is difficult because you're trying to establish a step change in a continuously changing process. For example, we allow people to vote, drink etc. at 18 because we recognise that a step change has occurred. Now that's not to say that someone who is 18 years and 2 days old is any more mature than someone who is 17 years and 364 days old. It's just symbolic.

The problem we have in the abortion debate is to establish a line where we recognise that some significant change has occurred in the development of the foetus. IMO, the first line that should give us pause in the debate is 12 weeks. Beginning in this week we see the start of synaptogenesis (the rapid formation of neural connections in the brain) and the start of some kind of detectable brainwave. This is important for a number of reasons. Firstly, the brain is no longer really a lump of tissue but a working organ from this point on. Secondly, there is a nice synchronicity between establishing the beginning of life using brainwave activity and the already established method for determining death using brainwave activity.

This isn't a strict timeline because foetal development can vary between individuals. But it's the first point where we should start to think about restricting abortions and it's certainly a far more thought out position than life begins at conception.

It's a far more thought out argument if the question was when should society recognise personhood. The idea that we should restrict abortion based upon the detection of brainwave activity will indeed lead to cases where if such a standard were legislated for, you're going to encounter situations where women are denied an abortion because now we can detect brainwave activity if they are delayed past the 12 week mark.

Absolam

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Your wild swing is just that "wild" and well wide of the actual facts.

Well that is why I said it was a wild swing in fairness, but whether it is wide of the actual facts will have to wait until the publication of the report, since my swing was "I doubt it will show the number of abortions performed in the RoI (even per capita) is anywhere the number in the UK" and I very much doubt that you've seen what the report will show, have you?

oldrnwisr wrote: »

There are several problems in using the ROI vs. UK alone as a tool for refuting OscarBravo's point.

I imagine so, but still what I said was "I doubt it will show the number of abortions performed in the RoI (even per capita) is anywhere the number in the UK". Whether or not that is a worthwhile comparison in any sense is a different matter, notwithstanding the excellent and overwhelmingly extensive (as always) information you've provide to rebut a point I didn't make

Ragnar Lothbrok

Kantava wrote: »

Do you think the 6 mm long tadpole-like embryo in my belly has an equal right to life to me? Would you deny me essential medical treatment to preserve that?

No and no.

I'm firmly against abortion but I do recognise that in the very early stages of development a foetus/embryo/unborn child doesn't have the same rights as you or anyone else.

However, most pregnancies aren't discovered until well after the "6mm long tadpole-like embryo" stage, so the question isn't really a fair one.

As a matter of interest, do you consider yourself to have more rights than a six week old baby, and would you consider yourself more deserving of essential medical treatment than that same baby, given that a six week old baby probably isn't that much more developed than an unborn child in the later stages of pregnancy?

nozzferrahhtoo

Ragnar Lothbrok wrote: »

Just wondering...........when do pro-choice people consider that the unborn child is an actual life as opposed to a foetus that can be destroyed?

Hi there and welcome to the discussion. I do not envy anyone coming to the thread this late and having to catch up on it

I actually think that your question is the wrong question to ask. To me it is like looking at a rainbow and asking "At what point exactly does red stop being red and start being orange?". Try finding that point in a rainbow yourself some day. Or the exact moment day becomes night.

Instead for me the question is whether we can identify a point in the process when we are clearly looking at "red". In other words..... to now drop the analogy........ I base my pro-choice views not on identifying a point in the process where it goes from "fetus" to a human life worthy of human rights..... but on identifying points where there is no reason at all to treat it as a human life worthy of human rights.

And in the absence of such reasons, I see no reason to have moral concerns against aborting it.

In this of course I differ from the users on here who think you should be able to abort and kill it at ANY point in the process regardless, even one week before the birth due date. And they even hide this process behind words like "Euthanasia" to hide the fact they have no arguments at all for the position they hold.

Ragnar Lothbrok wrote: »

In my view it's certainly many months earlier than pro-choice people would agree to.

Yet what is "your view" based on given you just admitted to no expertise at all? There are a lot of people who just chose an arbitrary point to draw the line in the sand because it is simple to say or remember. Such as "at conception" or "at implantation" or "When the first heart beat is detected" and so on and so forth. But I have yet to see any one of them support those lines in the sand with any arguments, data, evidence or reasoning as being a useful or relevant point to mediate rights.

But it seems that 88% of abortions happen before 12 weeks anyway. 61% before 9 weeks. And as my pro-choice cut off point is somewhere in the area of 16 to 20 weeks..... you might be surprised as to how "early" a lot of pro-choice people actually argue for.

Whatever my ideal might be..... if it was a country with completely condition free access to abortion by choice up to 12 weeks.... I would be PRETTY happy about that progress. 16 weeks would be ideal for me, but I guess anyone campaigning for abortion votes will have to realize that the higher the number you campaign for, the more people you will lose. So whatever number of people would vote yes for 20 weeks, I have to assume more would vote for 16, and more again for 12.

Ragnar Lothbrok wrote: »

Do some people seriously believe that life only begins at birth? I would hope that's not a view shared by many of the pro-choice people

From reading some of the people advocating the position that abortion should be accessible at ANY stage in the pregnancy, I do not think I have seen one of them suggest that "life" only begins at birth. Rather they think human rights, such as the right to life, is allocated at birth. Therefore without a right to life, there is no argument against abortion.

I have yet to see one of them actually defend that position however with anything coherent. One user for example simply whined that he believes Hillary Clinton agrees with him. And that, despite being an irrelevant appeal to authority, was literally the full total of support he offered for the position.

But the position thus far remains incoherent and opaque to me. Why mere location, such as one end of the birth canal or the other, is a basis for the allocation (or not) of human rights.... is a mystery to me. Let alone whether babies born by C-section who do not travel this canal have different or no rights in their head. You would have to ask one of them to be clearer. But do not hold your breath on clarity there.

Hope some of that helps. Do come back with questions if you have more.

rainbow kirby

Kantava wrote: »

This is a very much wanted pregnancy, but I find it astounding that if anything were to happen to me requiring medical treatment, that this 2-6 mm much wanted being, has the same right to life as I do.
Its astounding!

This right here is why I am thankful that I didn't have my son in Ireland! I felt a lot safer without the chilling effect of the 8th over my care.

Penn

Ragnar Lothbrok wrote: »

No and no.

I'm firmly against abortion but I do recognise that in the very early stages of development a foetus/embryo/unborn child doesn't have the same rights as you or anyone else.

However, most pregnancies aren't discovered until well after the "6mm long tadpole-like embryo" stage, so the question isn't really a fair one.

As a matter of interest, do you consider yourself to have more rights than a six week old baby, and would you consider yourself more deserving of essential medical treatment than that same baby, given that a six week old baby probably isn't that much more developed than an unborn child in the later stages of pregnancy?

With respect, you're completely shifting the goalposts. The issue is the autonomy of the mother and her right to choose what to do with her own body. Before the baby is born, it is part of and completely dependent on the mother's body. Once it's born, whether six weeks or six seconds after birth, it is it's own independent body (though obviously still dependent on others as it's a baby, but not biologically dependent).

Ragnar Lothbrok

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Those timelines though, are completely irrelevant IMO, when the issue is that women are currently forced to continue not only to remain pregnant against their will, but are also forced to give birth against their will, to a child that they never wanted to remain pregnant with in the first place, let alone that unborn child being allowed to develop to a point where women's lives are put at risk in order to give birth to the unborn child./QUOTE]

There's two different arguments there though. Firstly that the mother shouldn't be forced into continuing with a pregnancy she doesn't want, and secondly where the life of the mother may be at risk.

If abortion legislation was to be liberalised in Ireland (and I begin to accept that it's inevitable eventually) , I would hope that timelines, which you see as "completely irrelevant", would be at the lower end of the scale, and extremely strictly enforced.

Ragnar Lothbrok

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Hi there and welcome to the discussion. I do not envy anyone coming to the thread this late and having to catch up on it

I actually think that your question is the wrong question to ask. To me it is like looking at a rainbow and asking "At what point exactly does red stop being red and start being orange?". Try finding that point in a rainbow yourself some day. Or the exact moment day becomes night.

Instead for me the question is whether we can identify a point in the process when we are clearly looking at "red". In other words..... to now drop the analogy........ I base my pro-choice views not on identifying a point in the process where it goes from "fetus" to a human life worthy of human rights..... but on identifying points where there is no reason at all to treat it as a human life worthy of human rights.

And in the absence of such reasons, I see no reason to have moral concerns against aborting it.

In this of course I differ from the users on here who think you should be able to abort and kill it at ANY point in the process regardless, even one week before the birth due date. And they even hide this process behind words like "Euthanasia" to hide the fact they have no arguments at all for the position they hold.



Yet what is "your view" based on given you just admitted to no expertise at all? There are a lot of people who just chose an arbitrary point to draw the line in the sand because it is simple to say or remember. Such as "at conception" or "at implantation" or "When the first heart beat is detected" and so on and so forth. But I have yet to see any one of them support those lines in the sand with any arguments, data, evidence or reasoning as being a useful or relevant point to mediate rights.

But it seems that 88% of abortions happen before 12 weeks anyway. 61% before 9 weeks. And as my pro-choice cut off point is somewhere in the area of 16 to 20 weeks..... you might be surprised as to how "early" a lot of pro-choice people actually argue for.

Whatever my ideal might be..... if it was a country with completely condition free access to abortion by choice up to 12 weeks.... I would be PRETTY happy about that progress. 16 weeks would be ideal for me, but I guess anyone campaigning for abortion votes will have to realize that the higher the number you campaign for, the more people you will lose. So whatever number of people would vote yes for 20 weeks, I have to assume more would vote for 16, and more again for 12.



From reading some of the people advocating the position that abortion should be accessible at ANY stage in the pregnancy, I do not think I have seen one of them suggest that "life" only begins at birth. Rather they think human rights, such as the right to life, is allocated at birth. Therefore without a right to life, there is no argument against abortion.

I have yet to see one of them actually defend that position however with anything coherent. One user for example simply whined that he believes Hillary Clinton agrees with him. And that, despite being an irrelevant appeal to authority, was literally the full total of support he offered for the position.

But the position thus far remains incoherent and opaque to me. Why mere location, such as one end of the birth canal or the other, is a basis for the allocation (or not) of human rights.... is a mystery to me. Let alone whether babies born by C-section who do not travel this canal have different or no rights in their head. You would have to ask one of them to be clearer. But do not hold your breath on clarity there.

Hope some of that helps. Do come back with questions if you have more.

One of the most interesting and level-headed responses I've ever seen or heard from a pro-choice supporter. I began to wonder if anyone on either side of this question could have a discussion without it descending into abuse.

I'm not sure that I need to have expertise in any scientific or medical areas to be able to have an opinion on this matter though. For me it's a question of morality, a gut feeling if you like, of the rights and wrongs of an argument (and that's a concept that I do believe in, despite being a life-long atheist).

I did have some input into this discussion on boards.ie a week or so ago, so I'm not exactly new to it (I was wondering if there were any other liberal, atheist, pro-life people!).

The reason I asked the particular question regarding the beginning of life was that I've often been asked to justify my beliefs by stating categorically at what stage of the pregnancy I considered life to begin, and I realised that I've never asked the same (albeit rather simplistic) question to pro-choice people.

Ragnar Lothbrok

Penn wrote: »

With respect, you're completely shifting the goalposts. The issue is the autonomy of the mother and her right to choose what to do with her own body. Before the baby is born, it is part of and completely dependent on the mother's body. Once it's born, whether six weeks or six seconds after birth, it is it's own independent body (though obviously still dependent on others as it's a baby, but not biologically dependent).

I don't agree that because an unborn baby is biologically dependent on its mother that it gives the mother the right to kill her baby, I'm afraid. I really don't see the difference between a baby who is six minutes before birth being any different to a baby who is six minutes after birth.

Although the unborn child is dependent on the mother, I do not see that child as being a part of the mother in the same way as her legs or arms or other body parts are. If she wants to dispose of her body parts then that's her choice/right, but surely you see that an unborn child is different to someone's arm or leg or whatever. (I don't mean to be flippant with that analogy, I just couldn't think of an easier way to put it.)

Some of the arguments put forward by the most ardent of pro-choice people could just as easily be used to justify infanticide.

One eyed Jack

Ragnar Lothbrok wrote: »

There's two different arguments there though. Firstly that the mother shouldn't be forced into continuing with a pregnancy she doesn't want, and secondly where the life of the mother may be at risk.

If abortion legislation was to be liberalised in Ireland (and I begin to accept that it's inevitable eventually) , I would hope that timelines, which you see as "completely irrelevant", would be at the lower end of the scale, and extremely strictly enforced.

Current legislation in Ireland only allows for abortion in circumstances where the woman's life is at risk, whereas my argument is based upon a woman's choice as to whether she wants to remain pregnant, or end her pregnancy, so that's why it might appear to be two different arguments.

I don't think though anyone should assume that abortion legislation in Ireland will be liberalised any time soon, so I wouldn't think it was inevitable at all. However, having said that, I personally would prefer to see abortion legislated for without terms and conditions attached, because having terms and conditions attached is only prolonging the inevitable circumstances were women will choose to put their own lives at risk, rather than be forced to continue their pregnancy, let alone give birth against their will.

Mark Hamill

Ragnar Lothbrok wrote: »

I'm not sure that I need to have expertise in any scientific or medical areas to be able to have an opinion on this matter though. For me it's a question of morality, a gut feeling if you like, of the rights and wrongs of an argument (and that's a concept that I do believe in, despite being a life-long atheist).

You don't have to have any actual data or facts to develop an opinion about something, sure, but why should anyone else take your opinion seriously in that case? You are literally arguing from ignorance, without evidence.

Lingua Franca

Ragnar Lothbrok wrote: »

Do some people seriously believe that life only begins at birth? I would hope that's not a view shared by many of the pro-choice people, as that seems a particularly barbaric point of view, given that we have all seen proof of children born as early as 24 weeks into pregnancy not only surviving, but thriving.

This hardly makes sense. If life begins at birth and a child is born alive, then it's life began at birth. The way this is worded it's like you're saying that pro choice people don't believe that a child born alive at 24 weeks is alive.

Penn

Ragnar Lothbrok wrote: »

I don't agree that because an unborn baby is biologically dependent on its mother that it gives the mother the right to kill her baby, I'm afraid. I really don't see the difference between a baby who is six minutes before birth being any different to a baby who is six minutes after birth.

Although the unborn child is dependent on the mother, I do not see that child as being a part of the mother in the same way as her legs or arms or other body parts are. If she wants to dispose of her body parts then that's her choice/right, but surely you see that an unborn child is different to someone's arm or leg or whatever. (I don't mean to be flippant with that analogy, I just couldn't think of an easier way to put it.)

Some of the arguments put forward by the most ardent of pro-choice people could just as easily be used to justify infanticide.

Of course I don't see the unborn child as being the same as an arm or a leg, however I do see a six-minute old after birth child as different to a six-minute before birth child. I don't see an unborn child as a body part, but to me, until the child is born the rights of the mother come before the rights of the child. Always. If the mother does not want to carry the child, she should not be forced to. Obviously, this decision should be made as early on as possible, but it's still a decision that should be in the mother's hands and the mother's hands only. It is her body. It should be her choice.

Mark Hamill

Ragnar Lothbrok wrote: »

I don't agree that because an unborn baby is biologically dependent on its mother that it gives the mother the right to kill her baby, I'm afraid.

Maybe, but it gives the mother the right to end the pregnancy. If that is 6 minutes before the birth was going to naturally take place then just having the birth is easiest way to do that. If it is 6 minutes after conception, then taking the morning after pill is easiest. 6 days, weeks or months after conception, then it is abortion.

nozzferrahhtoo

Ragnar Lothbrok wrote: »

I began to wonder if anyone on either side of this question could have a discussion without it descending into abuse.

Then long may I prove to be the exception

Ragnar Lothbrok wrote: »

I'm not sure that I need to have expertise in any scientific or medical areas to be able to have an opinion on this matter though.

Then I trust you will join me in rejoicing that I never suggested you do. Because I agree, you can have an opinion with or without any expertise on any subject. But so too can I ask you what, given the lack of such expertise, your opinion is based on. My asking that does not in any way suggest you can not have that opinion. I was merely inquiring as to the basis of it.

Ragnar Lothbrok wrote: »

For me it's a question of morality, a gut feeling if you like, of the rights and wrongs of an argument (and that's a concept that I do believe in, despite being a life-long atheist).

Ah indeed. Well gut feelings are good for a lot of things, but not usually good fodder for discourse. If your cut off points related to abortion are based entirely on a "gut feeling" then essentially that area of the conversation is complete between us. Because there is nothing more I can say on the matter.

Unfortunately for the pro-choice side of the debate, I fear a lot of anti-abortion voters ARE doing so purely on a gut feeling, and not on the basis of any actual arguments, evidence, data or reasoning. Which is why, I guess, a lot of pro-choice debaters bring up topics like raped women, incest and so forth. Because they are forced to attempt to counter emotion with emotion.

I am afraid I am no good at arguments from emotion myself so as I said I can not discuss that area much more with you. I can discuss the philosophical and intellectual reasons why I am pro-choice with 16/20 week cut off points. But none of those will make any impact on a position held purely on emotion. So I would risk wasting both your time and mine

Ragnar Lothbrok wrote: »

I was wondering if there were any other liberal, atheist, pro-life people!).

Christopher Hitchens was one. And he was one for reasons quite similar to your own which he expressed during a debate that was moderated by Ben Stein.

His position appeared to be based purely on linguistics.... in that he simply felt emotionally that the term "unborn child" has to mean something. And if it means something then abortion must be bad.

That is not a position / argument I can wrestle into coherence however. It seems purely an attempt to manufacture a point purely through linguistic acrobatics.

Ragnar Lothbrok wrote: »

The reason I asked the particular question regarding the beginning of life was that I've often been asked to justify my beliefs by stating categorically at what stage of the pregnancy I considered life to begin, and I realised that I've never asked the same (albeit rather simplistic) question to pro-choice people.

Well I think the issue for many is the word "life" is too all encompassing and general. I mean depending on what you mean by "life" it is "life" all the way down. The parents are alive. The sperm and egg are in some sense alive. And so on. There is no point where "life" begins. It is "life" all the way down.

For example in some eastern philosophies (which I probably can not now name or cite) they view "life" pretty much like a lava lamp. In that "life" only started once (the blob of lava first put into the lamp). And then things like reproduction and children are just how the blobs seperate, become individual, sometimes there are more of them or less of them than at other times..... but there really is just one blob "life" at the end of the day.

So the question stops being when does "life" begin.... but at what stage in the life cycle can we coherently talk about the developing entity as having moral concern.... or of being eligible for human rights. And I guess I differ from you in that a "gut feeling" is simply not enough for me to mediate how I view that concern. I just need more.... substance.... than that myself in life

Loafing Oaf

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Christopher Hitchens was one. And he was one for reasons quite similar to your own which he expressed during a debate that was moderated by Ben Stein.

Was he? How exactly do you define pro-life?

I don’t think a woman should be forced to choose, or even can be.” Hitchens does not recommend the overturning of Roe v. Wade

http://www.lifenews.com/2011/12/19/christopher-hitchens-abortion-survivor-post-abortive-father/

aloyisious

Ragnar Lothbrok wrote: »

I don't agree that because an unborn baby is biologically dependent on its mother that it gives the mother the right to kill her baby, I'm afraid. I really don't see the difference between a baby who is six minutes before birth being any different to a baby who is six minutes after birth.

Although the unborn child is dependent on the mother, I do not see that child as being a part of the mother in the same way as her legs or arms or other body parts are. If she wants to dispose of her body parts then that's her choice/right, but surely you see that an unborn child is different to someone's arm or leg or whatever. (I don't mean to be flippant with that analogy, I just couldn't think of an easier way to put it.)

Some of the arguments put forward by the most ardent of pro-choice people could just as easily be used to justify infanticide.

...........................................................................................

Re your 1st para, I would't imagine that a baby's biological dependence on a mother (substitute feotus for unborn baby AND woman for mother) makes her think she can kill it. Using your wording to describe the relationship between feotus and woman AND what she may think she can do to the feotus, that sound's akin to your mention of infanticide above, very emotive, though both are completely different actions legally.

it's probable that most women who are considering having an abortion (the version in which the feotus ends up lifeless) don't have your view of the feotus in their wombs as being babies. Their point of view is probably completely different to your's at that stage of growth of the feotus.

Re the mention of 6 minutes before birth, in reference to an abortion at that stage, I don't think that that is legal merely for the purpose of allowing a woman to get rid of an unwanted feotus in her womb. My understanding is that would not be legal after a set stage of growth of the feotus.

Re your: Although the unborn child is dependent on the mother, I do not see that child as being a part of the mother [substitute woman for mother AND substitute feotus for unborn baby] like other body parts:, The woman see's the feotus in exactly the way you describe above, and not permanent fixtures to her body like her limbs and body parts with her from X-time of her growth in her own mother's womb, but rather a temporary presence growing in her womb. The approach of the woman would naturally be completely different to both.

Ragnar Lothbrok

Mark Hamill wrote: »

You don't have to have any actual data or facts to develop an opinion about something, sure, but why should anyone else take your opinion seriously in that case? You are literally arguing from ignorance, without evidence.

So every single person who has argued from a pro-choice point of view is an absolute expert? You must be joking Mark :mad:

I'm admitting I'm not an expert, but that doesn't mean I'm completely ignorant either. It's an issue that interests/worries/concerns me, so obviously I've done some reading up about it, although admittedly most of what I choose to read is pro-life material. I have also, however, read and heard many pro-choice arguments through the years.

One eyed Jack

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Was he? How exactly do you define pro-life?

http://www.lifenews.com/2011/12/19/christopher-hitchens-abortion-survivor-post-abortive-father/

Hitchens was indeed an atheist who espoused a pro-life position:

Christopher Hitchens, the bombastic and verbally double-jointed atheist intellectual, says the articulation of such points of view represents progress, a reaching for common ground after 30 years of oppositional acrimony. Hitchens, known for his defiant and politically incorrect positions, takes an uncharacteristic middle path on abortion. When asked whether he is "pro-life," he answers in the affirmative. He has repeatedly defended the use of the term "unborn child" against those on the left who say that an aborted fetus is nothing more than a growth, an appendix, a polyp. " 'Unborn child' seems to me to be a real concept. It's not a growth or an appendix," he says. "You can't say the rights question doesn't come up." At the same time, he adds, "I don't think a woman should be forced to choose, or even can be." Hitchens does not recommend the overturning of Roe v. Wade. What he wants is for both moral callousness and religion to be excised from the abortion debate and for science to come up with solutions to unwanted pregnancies, like the abortifacient mifepristone (RU-486), "that will make abortion more like a contraceptive procedure than a surgical one. That's the Hitchens plank, and I think it's a defensible one."

One of the most sympathetic and intriguing aspects of the Hitchens plank, as he outlines it, is how little the atheist talks about fetal science (terms like "viability" and "neural development" rarely come up) and how much he cedes to his squeamishness on the matter, a squeamishness he comes by honestly, he says, out of two personal experiences with abortion. Though he vehemently rejects religious arguments, one senses something very much like a rabbinical inner struggle in the development of his position. It's inconsistent and imperfect, for how is a pharmaceutical abortion any different from a surgical one? But as he says, "I'm happy to say some problems don't have solutions." In the abortion wars, such honest reflection is progress indeed.

Source: BELIEFWATCH: PRO-LIFE ATHEISTS

recedite

Ragnar Lothbrok wrote: »

The reason I asked the particular question regarding the beginning of life was that I've often been asked to justify my beliefs by stating categorically at what stage of the pregnancy I considered life to begin, and I realised that I've never asked the same (albeit rather simplistic) question to pro-choice people.

The question is not so much about "the beginning of life", its the beginning of an independent life. Lets say I take some cells from you and clone them.
Q.1 At what stage did the clone's life begin?
A.1 It did not begin, it was always alive. Life carries on and is passed through the generations.

Q.2 Would you or I have the ethical right to extinguish this growing clone?
A.2 In the early stages it is partly the property of the person whose genes contributed to it, and partly the property of the person who nurtures it. In the later stages it is nobody's property, and nobody has the right to kill it.
There is no single point when this independence of life begins, just as there is no single point when night changes to day.

If you apply this logic, you can get a reasonable handle on difficult issues such as abortion and surrogacy.

Also bear in mind there is no such thing as "an expert" in matters of right and wrong. That's why juries are composed of ordinary people, not legal "experts".

One eyed Jack

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I actually think that your question is the wrong question to ask. To me it is like looking at a rainbow and asking "At what point exactly does red stop being red and start being orange?". Try finding that point in a rainbow yourself some day. Or the exact moment day becomes night.

Instead for me the question is whether we can identify a point in the process when we are clearly looking at "red". In other words..... to now drop the analogy........ I base my pro-choice views not on identifying a point in the process where it goes from "fetus" to a human life worthy of human rights..... but on identifying points where there is no reason at all to treat it as a human life worthy of human rights.

And in the absence of such reasons, I see no reason to have moral concerns against aborting it.

There's no such thing as the wrong question to ask. Any idiot can switch the question to one that suits them and answer their own question from their own perspective instead, but that still doesn't answer the question Ragnar actually asked.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

In this of course I differ from the users on here who think you should be able to abort and kill it at ANY point in the process regardless, even one week before the birth due date. And they even hide this process behind words like "Euthanasia" to hide the fact they have no arguments at all for the position they hold.

I have given plenty of arguments for the position I hold. I don't need to hide behind any nonsense like referring to the unborn as "the foetus" and all the rest of that euphemistic crap that has absolutely no legal recognition whatsoever in terms of the Irish Constitution and legislating for abortion in this country.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Yet what is "your view" based on given you just admitted to no expertise at all? There are a lot of people who just chose an arbitrary point to draw the line in the sand because it is simple to say or remember. Such as "at conception" or "at implantation" or "When the first heart beat is detected" and so on and so forth. But I have yet to see any one of them support those lines in the sand with any arguments, data, evidence or reasoning as being a useful or relevant point to mediate rights.

By that same token, your evidence, data, etc, which informs your morals, means nothing more than you only have one vote, the same as anyone else who only has one vote. That, is how rights are mediated, by popular vote, and all your evidence, data etc, means about as much as a shítty hill of beans to anyone but yourself. It means even less to a woman who is pregnant who wants to avail of an abortion, no matter at what stage she is in her pregnancy. Your morals don't count for anything in that case.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

But it seems that 88% of abortions happen before 12 weeks anyway. 61% before 9 weeks. And as my pro-choice cut off point is somewhere in the area of 16 to 20 weeks..... you might be surprised as to how "early" a lot of pro-choice people actually argue for.

Whatever my ideal might be..... if it was a country with completely condition free access to abortion by choice up to 12 weeks.... I would be PRETTY happy about that progress. 16 weeks would be ideal for me, but I guess anyone campaigning for abortion votes will have to realize that the higher the number you campaign for, the more people you will lose. So whatever number of people would vote yes for 20 weeks, I have to assume more would vote for 16, and more again for 12.

The problem with your time limits is that they would deny a woman who doesn't want to be pregnant, any real choice. "Pro-choice... up to 20 weeks" is not pro-choice. It's an arbitrary line in the sand based upon your morals, which are utterly irrelevant to a woman whose pregnancy has gone past that point. As for your idea that the higher number you campaign for, the more people you will lose - in the UK, a woman may avail of an abortion up to 26 weeks into her pregnancy, that's 10 weeks more than your morals would allow for.

What would be the actual point in arguing for a term in which most women will avail of an abortion anyway? It seems to me at least, like a redundant point, arguing for a piecemeal compromise in legislation which is of no real use to women really as it places a limit on their choices. You can't honestly call yourself pro-choice if you're only willing to allow women a choice up to a certain point that suits your morality.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

From reading some of the people advocating the position that abortion should be accessible at ANY stage in the pregnancy, I do not think I have seen one of them suggest that "life" only begins at birth. Rather they think human rights, such as the right to life, is allocated at birth. Therefore without a right to life, there is no argument against abortion.

I have yet to see one of them actually defend that position however with anything coherent. One user for example simply whined that he believes Hillary Clinton agrees with him. And that, despite being an irrelevant appeal to authority, was literally the full total of support he offered for the position.

You appear to take a certain delight in your ability to misrepresent other people's opinions, without actually presenting a coherent argument yourself within a legal framework. That is how rights are bestowed, through law. You haven't at any point in the discussion, referred to anything in law which would support your so-far incoherent arguments and passive aggressive whining. I pointed out to you Hillary Clinton's position as an example of the fact that the idea of allowing women full and free choice over their pregnancies wasn't the abhorrent idea you were trying to make out that no reasonable person would advocate for. It wasn't any appeal to authority at all, but more of your classic misrepresentation. It certainly wasn't by any means the full total of support I offered for my position, but quite frankly if the sum total of your rebuttals is piss-poor waffling nonsense, then I don't see why I should be required to bother going to the effort of presenting you with volumes of evidence which would support my position.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

But the position thus far remains incoherent and opaque to me. Why mere location, such as one end of the birth canal or the other, is a basis for the allocation (or not) of human rights.... is a mystery to me. Let alone whether babies born by C-section who do not travel this canal have different or no rights in their head. You would have to ask one of them to be clearer. But do not hold your breath on clarity there.

Really? Would you like me to start from the beginning and explain to you how the unborn appears in a woman's womb in the first place, and then we might move on to more difficult concepts like how my argument has never been about any "difference in location" nonsense that you made up in your own ideaspace, but it is the difference in unborn, and born. The difference in status between unborn and born, is where the born human life is conferred with rights that the unborn human life doesn't have. If that's not clear enough for you, then it's when the child takes it's first breath outside the womb.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Hope some of that helps. Do come back with questions if you have more.

Why would anyone bother, when you can't even answer the questions they do ask?

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Ah indeed. Well gut feelings are good for a lot of things, but not usually good fodder for discourse. If your cut off points related to abortion are based entirely on a "gut feeling" then essentially that area of the conversation is complete between us. Because there is nothing more I can say on the matter.

Ragnar did say his opinion is based upon his morality, a gut feeling if you like, which clearly you don't, as you ignored the first part, and just ran with the second. His personal morality is as relevant as your personal morality.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

You don't have to have any actual data or facts to develop an opinion about something, sure, but why should anyone else take your opinion seriously in that case? You are literally arguing from ignorance, without evidence.

The reason people should take Ragnar's opinion seriously is because he has an equal right to vote in any referendum on abortion the same as anyone else here. Do you think women who want to avail of an abortion when they need to, care all that much for evidence from other people's perspectives?

Loafing Oaf

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Hitchens was indeed an atheist who espoused a pro-life position:




Source: BELIEFWATCH: PRO-LIFE ATHEISTS

So if someone describes themselves as 'pro-life' that means they are?

Supposing Ireland had an abortion law equivalent to Roe v Wade, i.e. allowing abortion on demand in the first trimester, would it be valid for someone opposed to the repeal of that law to say they were 'pro-life'?

Absolam

Penn wrote: »

With respect, you're completely shifting the goalposts. The issue is the autonomy of the mother and her right to choose what to do with her own body. Before the baby is born, it is part of and completely dependent on the mother's body. Once it's born, whether six weeks or six seconds after birth, it is it's own independent body (though obviously still dependent on others as it's a baby, but not biologically dependent).

I would suggest that that is simply placing goalposts on ground where most proc-choice advocates want the goalposts to be. The issue from a pro-choice view revolves around the pregnant woman; hence placing the goalposts as you do (or somewhere similar). The issue from a pro-life point of view revolves around the unborn child; hence placing the goalposts as Ragnar does (or somewhere similar). Essentially all it says is both sides are involved in different games (to over-stretch the analogy).

One eyed Jack

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

So if someone describes themselves as 'pro-life' that means they are?

Yes?

Supposing Ireland had an abortion law equivalent to Roe v Wade, i.e. allowing abortion on demand in the first trimester, would it be valid for someone opposed to the repeal of that law to say they were 'pro-life'?

The validity of someone's position is relevant really only to themselves, so if someone wants to identify themselves as pro-life while objecting to the repeal of Roe v Wade, they are as entitled to that position as someone who puts forward the position they are pro-choice because they aren't opposed to abortion in the first trimester.

This is why I personally have never identified as either pro-choice or pro-life, because I don't see it as my right to impose my personal morality on women's choices that they will make for themselves, regardless of my opinion on the issue of abortion.

nozzferrahhtoo

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Was he? How exactly do you define pro-life?

http://www.lifenews.com/2011/12/19/christopher-hitchens-abortion-survivor-post-abortive-father/

More to the point I wonder how HE defined it. This is quoted from memory so apologies if it is not word perfect. I can dig out the video of it on you tube if you want however to check how accurate my memory really is

Ben Stein:

Are you involved in the Pro Life movement then?

Hitchens:

I believe that the concept unborn child is a real concept yes. And I have had a lot of quarrels with fellow materialists and secularists on this point.

I think however if the concept "child" means anything then the concept "unborn child" can be said to mean something.

And actually all the discoveries of embryology and viability............. which have been very considerable in the last century......... appear to confirm that opinion.

And I believe it should be innate in everybody.... and innate in the Hippocratic oath...... the instinct that exists in anyone who has ever watched a sonogram. So "YES" is my answer to your question.

nozzferrahhtoo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

There's no such thing as the wrong question to ask.

Of course there is. There are many ways this can happen. A question can, for example, be internally non-sensical. Such as the question "What is the color of jealousy?".

But more to the point on THIS thread a question can be the wrong one to ask if it does not coherently or effectively bring one to a useful or usable point in a discussion. And it can even less be the right question to ask if it drops one right in the middle of a fallacy such as the "no true scotsman" fallacy which is where defining "exact" moments in the process tends to leave one.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Any idiot can switch the question to one that suits them and answer their own question from their own perspective instead, but that still doesn't answer the question Ragnar actually asked.

Then take it up with someone who is switching the question merely because it suits them. I have explained EXACTLY the basis for me thinking one question is better than the other.... and it has nothing to do with it merely "suiting" me. Though ignoring a persons content in order to assume a motivation or agenda on their behalf that they never expressed, is indeed one of your more common MOs.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I have given plenty of arguments for the position I hold.

Not in my presence you have not. In fact last time I asked, you simply ran away.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I don't need to hide behind any nonsense like referring to the unborn as "the foetus"

There is nothing nonsense about calling a spade a spade. Because it IS a spade. The nonsense therefore comes solely and entirely from YOU in your attempts to call it something it is not, or to lambast people for calling it what it is.

That you declare it nonsense to call it what it is, but never once explain why it is nonsense to call it what it is.... tells us all we need to know about the quality of your position on the matter.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

and all the rest of that euphemistic crap

Except hiding behind that crap is EXACTLY what you do. Such as referring to killing a child one week before it is due to be born as "Euthanasia". Hiding behind words and euphemism is pretty much ALL you do.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The problem with your time limits is that they would deny a woman who doesn't want to be pregnant, any real choice. "Pro-choice... up to 20 weeks" is not pro-choice.

This is the linguistic tosh you have pedaled numerous times before and I have schooled you on just to have you run away and spew it again later.

You have this nonsense image that "pro choice" means being pro ANY choice without ANY limits. Even the most liberal person on any issue will usually put some caveats and conditions on the freedoms they espouse. For example the Fry and Hitchens discussion on the limits of Free Speech.

Similarly I am pro your freedom to walk how you like down the street. But not to the point where you do so swinging your arms helicopter style wildly and wander into the path of others where your arms or fists impact and injure them.

So being liberal or pro-choice does not mean..... nor does it have to mean..... being pro ANY choice without ANY limits. You have just made up that linguistic nonsense in order to look like you have SOMETHING to say on the issue. The more a choice impacts another being the more people tend to have conditions or objections or caveats.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's an arbitrary line in the sand based upon your morals

Except it is not, because when I call it "arbitrary" I am distinguishing between position one can argue and reason out (which I can) and ones merely picked from emotion or convenience. If you see no difference there... then the fault lies with you, not me.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

As for your idea that the higher number you campaign for, the more people you will lose

Your example in no way rebuts the idea though? So not even clear why you think you brought it up.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

What would be the actual point in arguing for a term in which most women will avail of an abortion anyway?

Because I recognize the differences between the real world and my internal ideals.... and the benefit of tempering one in order to realize it in the other..... by looking at what is realistic.... what people would actually go for.... and what the majority actually require.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You can't honestly call yourself pro-choice if you're only willing to allow women a choice up to a certain point that suits your morality.

I can call myself what I want thanks. As well you should know giving the whinging and whining you did about the people espousing "You can not honestly call yourself catholic if you do / do not......" points on a recent thread. Funny how you get all uppity when people place limits on how you can define yourself.... but you are more than happy to do so yourself. Hypocrisy another one of your MOs alas.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You appear to take a certain delight in your ability to misrepresent other people's opinions

That is rich given A) I did no such thing and I have had to pull your words out of my mouth on a vast number of occasions and knock down the numerous strawmen you have built up on my positions. But as I have said multiple times in the past..... you appear to take a certain delight in projection of accusing others of doing what only you are actively engaging in.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

without actually presenting a coherent argument yourself within a legal framework.

If I am making a legal argument I will present it within a legal frame work thanks. When I am not I won't. I am making a moral and philosophical argument on the topic of abortion. You have tried and failed before to parse my arguments in the wrong frame in order to dodge them with your classic misrepresention.... while spewing out your incoherent arguments and passive aggressive whining.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I pointed out to you Hillary Clinton's position as an example of the fact that the idea of allowing women full and free choice over their pregnancies wasn't the abhorrent idea you were trying to make out that no reasonable person would advocate for. It wasn't any appeal to authority at all

Except it was an appeal to authority because rather than present ARGUMENTS to support the position, you merely cited another person who you believe also holds that position. You have yet to present me a single argument supporting your position at all.

I am still waiting to hear WHY you think it reasonable. Or WHAT the coherent moral or ethical differences actually are between killing a child one week before birth and one week after..... to give one example. But I guess if the the sum total of what you have to offer to support your position is piss-poor waffling nonsense.... I can expect no better.

nozzferrahhtoo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I don't see why I should be required to bother going to the effort of presenting you with volumes of evidence which would support my position.

I was wondering at what point in the post you would retreat behind your most common dodge MO of "I have evidence and arguments..... I just can not be bothered to lay them out".

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Really? Would you like me to start from the beginning

IF you think that is what is required then your understanding of my points and positions is as poor as your understanding of your own. What are the moral and ethical differences between killing a child one week before birth and one week after it..... other than whining the words "Clinton" and "Euthanasia"?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The difference in status between unborn and born, is where the born human life is conferred with rights that the unborn human life doesn't have.

You are begging the question here and forcing it into a circular argument dodge. I am asking about arguments justifying assigning that status at that point. And all you do is restating the issue I am querying. What is the difference between "born" and "unborn" other than location really?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Why would anyone bother, when you can't even answer the questions they do ask?

You not liking an answer to a question is not the same as me not having answered it. I saw his "if you like" as being an indication they were both the same thing. So I ignore nothing. At all. Anywhere. That's your job. Plus I note the user in question, despite you riding to his defense like a haughty knight in rusty armor, had few complaints and in fact thanked me verbally and in the system for my post. So he appears to have had few issues with my reply either. But by all means interpret my post whatever way allows you to manufacture a failing on my part that is not actually there.

Ragnar Lothbrok

Lingua Franca wrote: »

This hardly makes sense. If life begins at birth and a child is born alive, then it's life began at birth. The way this is worded it's like you're saying that pro choice people don't believe that a child born alive at 24 weeks is alive.

I think you misunderstand what I wrote.

I am saying that an unborn child, if born at 24 weeks, is capable of independent life. Therefore (assuming there are no other medical issues) any unborn child 24 weeks (or even less in some cases) into pregnancy is capable of independent life. Yet many pro-choice advocates would have no problem with allowing abortions long after this stage, arguing that life doesn't begin until after the baby is outside the womb, when this is patently untrue.

Cabaal

Ragnar Lothbrok wrote: »

I think you misunderstand what I wrote.

I am saying that an unborn child, if born at 24 weeks, is capable of independent life. Therefore (assuming there are no other medical issues) any unborn child 24 weeks (or even less in some cases) into pregnancy is capable of independent life. Yet many pro-choice advocates would have no problem with allowing abortions long after this stage,

Even catholic health care providers have argued that a fetus at 28 weeks is not a person - http://edition.cnn.com/2013/01/26/us/colorado-fetus-lawsuit/

arguing that life doesn't begin until after the baby is outside the womb, when this is patently untrue.

I'm not actually aware of anyone that has made that specific argument in this forum,
You're making a somewhat blanket statement by saying many pro-choice people believe this, its like me claiming many pro-life people believe the morning after pill is murder.