Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Abortion Discussion, Part Trois
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »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.
So believing 'unborn child' is a valid term is enough to make you pro-life? I wonder what Cora Sherlock, Caroline Simons et al would think of that...0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
Ragnar Lothbrok wrote: »I'll be as honest as I can be here:
1. Yes - I don't consider that the foetus is a life in this case.
2. No - although I accept this is a severe disability I don't see it as reason enough to allow an abortion. This raises the whole question of disability in general, and whether it is OK to abort any disabled child.
3. Unsure. Do you mean that the foetus shows no sign of life at all? If so, then Yes.
4. No - although I accept the awfulness of this situation, I do not believe the baby should be killed.
5. No - as above.
6. No - not under any circumstances.
In point 3, I mean the foetus can only survive while living off the mother in the womb. It is likely to die during pregnancy and once born it will die due to some sort of fatal fetal abnormality.Ragnar Lothbrok wrote: »Points 4 and 5 above are awful, and as I have a daughter of my own I can only try to imagine the horror if she'd have been in this position when she was younger. We used to discuss such things and although I would have given her every emotional and financial support needed, at the end of the day it would have been her decision and I would have been there for her even if she decided to have an abortion. If she had continued with the pregnancy, the baby would have been solely hers, and would have been brought up in a loving family environment, regardless of the circumstances of its conception. Obviously, I accept that this is purely hypothetical, and I cannot guarantee that would have been my reaction if it had actually happened. I do believe that the unborn child would have been totally innocent though.
Did you read the link in point 5? It's not the same as point 4, the rape victim in that case was 11 years old. What difference should it make if an 11 year old wants or does not want a child? They are 11.Ragnar Lothbrok wrote: »The problem I have with most pro-choice arguments is that the extreme cases listed above (1-5) are used as a way to allow abortion on demand. Yes, there are terrible cases where abortion may be seen as being the only option, but in the vast majority of abortions worldwide, points 1-5 above aren't a factor. My experience in the UK is that many abortions are lifestyle choices.
But your experience with abortion is, by your own admission, mostly from pro-life material, so you are still not working with facts and data. This was pointed out to you before.
Your argument is still an almost complete ban on abortion because of a slippery slope fallacy. You don't deny the existence of points 1-5, you just ignore the horrors of those situations out of ignorance, pretend they aren't important enough to consider and because you are personally uncomfortable with a tangential situation (abortion on demand) that wont change anyway*, call for a complete ban on live abortion.
*Oldnwisr posted here about how abortion laws have no effect on abortion rates. Do you have any view on that? If you accept that a law banning abortion would have no effect on rates, would you have still support it?Ragnar Lothbrok wrote: »I wasn't ignoring your questions when you first posted them, it's just the case that there are so many posts on this topic that it is easy to miss some of them.
No problem, this thread gets quite busy at times and it easy to miss posts 0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
Mark Hamill wrote: »What someone's position is based on has no bearing for how it should be treated in a discussion.
Of course it does! Determining what a person's opinion is based upon of course has a bearing for how it should be treated in a discussion. That's why when discussing the issue of abortion, I'm not going to treat someone's opinion based upon their personal morality the same way as I would treat someone's opinion who can make a legal standpoint, or someone who argues with facts, rather than spin. This discussion unfortunately has no defined parameters, which is why it's unlikely there will ever be any consensus formed.Mark Hamill wrote: »You present an opinion, it is taken apart to examine it's logic to see if it holds up. You are in the wrong forum if you think you will get much agreement for the idea that some people's opinions should be treated special because their opinions are special to them.
I really don't think I am!
0 -
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?
Well, here's the thing.
We don't need to wait for the report because this topic has already been studied in the literature. In 2012 Sedgh et al. published this in the Lancet (linked to in my last post):
Induced abortion: incidence and trends worldwide from 1995 to 2008
This paper was an updated version of a paper originally published in 2007. Among its findings were:
"The abortion rate was lower in subregions where more women live under liberal abortion laws (p<0·05)."
and the authors concluded:
"Restrictive abortion laws are not associated with lower abortion rates."
So we already have peer-reviewed evidence on the issue which can inform the debate. We don't need to see the report. However, having said that, whether or not the findings of this report will be materially different from that already in the literature is another story.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
Then why make the comparison? You offered what seemed like a rebuttal to OscarBravo's point using the comparison between Ireland and the UK as evidence for this. Now as I posted previously the abortion rate for Irish women has been steadily declining since 2003 which, even if we ignore other factors, means that the Ireland v. UK comparison is meaningless in the context of OscarBravo's point.One eyed Jack wrote: »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.
That wasn't my point OEJ. I was responding to Ragnar's question here: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?
My point is that if we're going to come up with a solid basis for establishing when life or personhood, if you will, begins then there needs to be some measurable, recognisable step-change where the set of characteristics which the developing foetus possesses is more equivalent to that of a born child. IMO, the first time this happens is about 12 weeks when synaptogenesis happens. That is the first point at which we should begin to consider whether there ought to restrictions on elective abortions. I'm not advocating that there should be restrictions after this point, I'm just saying that it's the first point at which the debate becomes meaningful.0 -
One eyed Jack wrote: »It's an honest evaluation of your limitations. You can't speak for anyone else who feels that they can give an answer to the question that was asked.
Nor do I recall suggesting otherwise. You really do enjoy stating the obvious. However as I am yet to see a coherent answer to the question anywhere it has been asked.... I feel like it is the wrong one to ask..... and that it may be inherently unanswerable........Because no one appears able to answer it with any coherency. Oh I am sure there are people who GIVE answers, do not jump to another chance to willfully take me up wrong, but not one of them appears to be able to elaborate on it and explain the basis of it.One eyed Jack wrote: »"Legal under any circumstances", it couldn't be clearer what that means - legal under any circumstances.
And again for many, myself included, the word "circumstances" applies to the things I listed, but not to WHEN in the process the abortion is sought. Something I have seen often enough to merely be cautious that the statistics say what you think they say, without further clarification. Especially in the light of them ALSO asking a separate question related to time.
Even a cursory read of this thread supports that caution as when people start to discuss circumstances they start discussing cases like pregnancy as a result of rape or incest, or pregnancy with some medical issue for the mother, child, or both. And so forth. Even one of the first articles on google discussing the gallup poll ramifies this when it points out "the circumstances" are "typically defined as cases such as rape, incest or if the life of the mother is in danger".
And here in this article also some differentiation is made when they say "Most Americans do not want to overturn Roe v. Wade. At the same time, however, they are willing to put some restrictions on abortion. Majorities of Americans favor notification of spouses, parental consent, and 24-hour waiting periods. They support first-term abortions, but oppose second and third-trimester ones."
So I am not seeing much at all here suggesting that people read that question and are including the cut off time in their answer. And AGAIN.... why the need to ask a separate question about cut off times if the answer to it was already included in this question? I am merely cautious that is all.... as to whether there is a difference in peoples minds between "circumstances" (how the woman came to be pregnant and why she seeks an abortion) and "restrictions" (points where, despite the womans circumstances, people would want her denied an abortion).One eyed Jack wrote: »So you're really not ok with abortion under any circumstances, you're ok with abortion under some circumstances, those circumstances being within time limits that suit your personal morality.
It certainly does pay to be cautious when people consider themselves pro-choice, but upon further inquiry, reveal themselves to be only pro-choice under certain circumstances that suit their personal morality.
I am ok with it under ANY circumstances where "circumstances" means what I indicated it means when I say it. In that the circumstances of how the woman came to be pregnant, or why she is seeking an abortion, are irrelevant to me.
And I see nothing wrong with merely being cautious as to what the people asking (or answering) the question mean by it..... given what I and many people in my experience mean by it.
And, I repeat, given they felt the need to ask a separate question related to the cut off point..... I am not entirely unwarranted in wondering whether they were including this in the first question.One eyed Jack wrote: »Does the word "any" not indicate to you what circumstances people mean? Any circumstances. It's basic english!
And you have shown yourself to have issues with "basic english" before. So I am not likely to be too swayed by you describing it as such here. Especially since all I have said is SOME caution is warranted here when reading the results. Nothing more.
I have nothing against the figure or the result. It does not cause any issue with my position or rebut anything I have said. So it is not like I have some agenda to rubbish the statistic or anything. I merely am cautious. And I genuinely would like to see a poll of solely pro-choice people in a break down of what their cut off are.One eyed Jack wrote: »Why would it be interesting, and what purpose would it serve?
I would find it interesting. I do not need to justify that to anyone, much less you. And I do not recall suggesting it would, or has to, serve a purpose. All I said is that I would genuinely be interested to know.
However if you are desperately keen to know why I am interested in the things I am interested in...... the reason I would be interested is that I have had a LOT of contact with pro-choice people. Online. Offline. In person, in letters, in forums. In debates both public and private. And through my work in AI and AAI. And this experience has been over the US, Ireland, UK and Germany mostly.
And as I said the number of people I have met who think abortion at ANY stage.... right up to the due date of birth..... is ok.... is a figure I could count on one hand even if you chopped half my hand off. Yet this figure in the link suggests 29% of people are ok with just that very thing? That's such a stark difference that I am perfectly warranted to be A) cautious as to whether I am reading the result correctly and
be interested to learn more.
I have been surprised by stats in the past, and on learning more have changed my opinion or admitted some idea or impression I had was wrong. But not once do I recall a statistic that came even REMOTELY close to being THAT far askew with my personal experience.
And actually this article here is a bit closer to what I would have expected. Where 10%, not 29%, indicate being ok with abortion in the last three months of pregnancy. I am still startled it is so high given how few (2) such people I recall ever meeting. But it is not so startling as the 29% figure. As I suspected, there is some nuance to the 29% that I do not think the words "any circumstance" is showing you.0 -
-
-
-
-
Why? Why would human rights be conferred to the same individual at one end of the birth canal, and not at the other?
Beats me
I have tried to get a coherent reply out of another user who has been espousing that very position. As he seems to have no other basis for it other than to state that that is what the law is, so that is why we do it. And he has, as usual, simply ignored the post where I attempted to gain more clarity on the position.
I myself see no one offering ANY reasons for such arbitrary nonsense. Ones location at one end of a canal or the other appears to be a non-sensical way to assign rights. And what of children born with C-section. Is that a case of "Go directly. Do not pass go, do not collect 200 rights".0 -
Advertisement
-
Two c section babies here. Both appear to have had their rights vindicated!nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Beats me I have tried to get a coherent reply out of another user who has been espousing that very position. As he seems to have no other basis for it other than to state that that is what the law is, so that is why we do it. And he has, as usual, simply ignored the post where I attempted to gain more clarity on the position.
I myself see no one offering ANY reasons for such arbitrary nonsense. Ones location at one end of a canal or the other appears to be a non-sensical way to assign rights. And what of children born with C-section. Is that a case of "Go directly. Do not pass go, do not collect 200 rights".0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement