Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

robdonn

recedite wrote: »

Why? Why would human rights be conferred to the same individual at one end of the birth canal, and not at the other?

What rights would you confer at both ends of the birth canal?

Ragnar Lothbrok

Kantava wrote: »

I find this opinion so completely disrespectful of women, and underestimating (undervalueing) the impact that pregnancy and childbearing has on a life.

I am not being disrespectful to women at all. I completely understand the terrible position women can find themselves in due to an unwanted/unplanned pregnancy.

However, as I have said earlier in this thread, I personally know several women in England who had abortions just because they wanted to continue with their lives exactly as they were. They did not care about the life of the unborn child, nor about the feelings of the fathers. To me, this is not acceptable. It's like treating a pregnancy as trivially as any day-to-day decision such as what to have for breakfast. I'm not remotely suggesting that every woman who has an abortion treats the decision as flippantly as these people did.

robdonn

Ragnar Lothbrok wrote: »

I am not being disrespectful to women at all. I completely understand the terrible position women can find themselves in due to an unwanted/unplanned pregnancy.

However, as I have said earlier in this thread, I personally know several women in England who had abortions just because they wanted to continue with their lives exactly as they were. They did not care about the life of the unborn child, nor about the feelings of the fathers. To me, this is not acceptable. It's like treating a pregnancy as trivially as any day-to-day decision such as what to have for breakfast. I'm not remotely suggesting that every woman who has an abortion treats the decision as flippantly as these people did.

Abuse of a system is not a justification to remove the availability of a system. There are people who collect unemployment payments just to buy a few cans for the week, but it wouldn't justify eliminating the dole and taking away the service from those who need it.

lazygal

Ragnar Lothbrok wrote: »

I am not being disrespectful to women at all. I completely understand the terrible position women can find themselves in due to an unwanted/unplanned pregnancy.

However, as I have said earlier in this thread, I personally know several women in England who had abortions just because they wanted to continue with their lives exactly as they were. They did not care about the life of the unborn child, nor about the feelings of the fathers. To me, this is not acceptable. It's like treating a pregnancy as trivially as any day-to-day decision such as what to have for breakfast. I'm not remotely suggesting that every woman who has an abortion treats the decision as flippantly as these people did.

TBH if I was told my baby had a serious abnormality I would have a termination because I know how much of a burden a sick sibling can be on a family and I know my own capacities as a parent and I would rather life continue as normal as possible rather than have to go to full term and deal with the outcome of bringing a baby who may suffer into the world. I've not been faced with the decision thus far but I'm almost certain it would be a flippant decision, as in no great weighing up of what I would do would take place.

And so what if some women have abortions for what you consider flippent reasons? People get pregnant for flippant reasons, like wanting to 'go for the girl this time' or 'because I'm X age and its now or never'. Why is the reason someone has an abortion of any consequence?

Delirium

Ragnar Lothbrok wrote: »

I am not being disrespectful to women at all. I completely understand the terrible position women can find themselves in due to an unwanted/unplanned pregnancy.

However, as I have said earlier in this thread, I personally know several women in England who had abortions just because they wanted to continue with their lives exactly as they were. They did not care about the life of the unborn child, nor about the feelings of the fathers. To me, this is not acceptable. It's like treating a pregnancy as trivially as any day-to-day decision such as what to have for breakfast. I'm not remotely suggesting that every woman who has an abortion treats the decision as flippantly as these people did.

and what's the problem with that? They could have been using contraceptives that subsequently failed. A condom splits and it's 'tough luck, you're a mother now"?

Ragnar Lothbrok

robdonn wrote: »

Abuse of a system is not a justification to remove the availability of a system. There are people who collect unemployment payments just to buy a few cans for the week, but it wouldn't justify eliminating the dole and taking away the service from those who need it.

True, but I don't agree with abortion in the first place, so I wouldn't be removing its availability just because some abuse the system.

nozzferrahhtoo

Ragnar Lothbrok wrote: »

I'm not remotely suggesting that every woman who has an abortion treats the decision as flippantly as these people did.

I am sure there are motivations for having an abortion that might even be "bad" to me. For example having an abortion because you simply do not want to get fat. Such a reason may send the eye brows to the back of my head, and I would probably judge the person for it, but at the end of the day it is not my business. At all.

Why? Because I differentiate between peoples right to have or do X, and their reasons for doing it.

For example I believe in your right to have cake. I would defend that right. Now if I found out you were eating copious amounts of cake with the goal of getting so fat you could stop work and go on disability allowance.... I would likely think you an abhorrent and disgusting human being. But I would STILL believe in, and defend, your right to have cake. (investigation of defrauding the state welfare not withstanding of course, the analogy is not perfect)

Because your abuse of that right, is independent from the reasons I think you have it.

My opinions on abortion are similar. I see no arguments, much less from anyone on this thread, as to why we should have moral or ethical concerns towards a 0-16 week old fetus. So for that reason I see no intellectual basis for having an issue against abortion.

Now some people IN that time frame might seek abortions for reasons I personally find abhorrent. But..... like stuffing yourself with cake..... that has ZERO impact of my opinion on their right to do it.

Mark Hamill

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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.

You say it does, then say that you do, but you don't actually explain why it should be treated differently.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I really don't think I am!

So you are saying that if someone thinks their opinion is special to them then everyone else should treat it as special too? Why?

drkpower

recedite wrote: »

Why? Why would human rights be conferred to the same individual at one end of the birth canal, and not at the other?

I suspect that most who make that argument are not saying that human rights are only conferred at the end of the birth canal, rather that it is only at that point that those rights should be exercised, because until then exercise of those rights (by the foetus) materially affects the rights of another.

Ragnar Lothbrok

lazygal wrote: »

TBH if I was told my baby had a serious abnormality I would have a termination because I know how much of a burden a sick sibling can be on a family and I know my own capacities as a parent and I would rather life continue as normal as possible rather than have to go to full term and deal with the outcome of bringing a baby who may suffer into the world. I've not been faced with the decision thus far but I'm almost certain it would be a flippant decision, as in no great weighing up of what I would do would take place.

Your example of choosing a termination if you were told you were carrying a child with a serious abnormality is far from what I was meaning when I mentioned lifestyle choices. Even if the decision to end your pregnancy would be easy for you to make I certainly wouldn't describe it as flippant.

lazygal wrote: »

And so what if some women have abortions for what you consider flippent reasons? People get pregnant for flippant reasons, like wanting to 'go for the girl this time' or 'because I'm X age and its now or never'.

But I believe that the unborn child is a human life, so I don't believe it should be acceptable to abort it just because it doesn't suit someone to become a parent at that particular time.

lazygal wrote: »

Why is the reason someone has an abortion of any consequence?

The reason for deciding to have an abortion IS important though. I find it far more difficult to oppose abortion in extreme cases such as rape, incest, etc, than I do in cases where the decision to abort is based on financial/lifestyle choices. I would imagine that many people who would support abortion in such extreme cases would also be against introducing abortion on demand?

Ragnar Lothbrok

Delirium wrote: »

and what's the problem with that? They could have been using contraceptives that subsequently failed. A condom splits and it's 'tough luck, you're a mother now"?

A condom splits and it's "tough luck, we're going to kill you now" (to the unborn child).

Mark Hamill

Ragnar Lothbrok wrote: »

True, but I don't agree with abortion in the first place, so I wouldn't be removing its availability just because some abuse the system.

You said before:

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.

So your argument does seem to largely be based on removing (or blocking the introduction of) the whole system because of what you subjectively perceive of as widespread abuse.

nozzferrahhtoo

Ragnar Lothbrok wrote: »

But I believe that the unborn child is a human life

But what do you actually MEAN by that? What exactly do you MEAN by "human life". It is a pretty phrase on paper and sounds like you mean something, but generally when I try to unpack the meaning of "human life" with someone who is using it against abortion.... it breaks down as they were just emotionally invested in the phrase without putting too much consideration into it's content.

lazygal

Ragnar Lothbrok wrote: »

Your example of choosing a termination if you were told you were carrying a child with a serious abnormality is far from what I was meaning when I mentioned lifestyle choices. Even if the decision to end your pregnancy would be easy for you to make I certainly wouldn't describe it as flippant.




But I believe that the unborn child is a human life, so I don't believe it should be acceptable to abort it just because it doesn't suit someone to become a parent at that particular time.




The reason for deciding to have an abortion IS important though. I find it far more difficult to oppose abortion in extreme cases such as rape, incest, etc, than I do in cases where the decision to abort is based on financial/lifestyle choices. I would imagine that many people who would support abortion in such extreme cases would also be against introducing abortion on demand?

So how is deciding to stay pregnant not a lifestyle choice, but deciding to end a pregnancy can be? What did you mean by lifestyle choices, and what lifestyle choices should mean a woman must remain pregnant against her wishes? Why is the reason for deciding to have an abortion important? Is the reason for deciding to stay pregnant important?

While we're at it, maybe you could tell me exactly how far the state should go to ensure women stay pregnant if their reasons for wanting an abortion aren't good enough to warrant access to that service?

Mark Hamill

Ragnar Lothbrok wrote: »

A condom splits and it's "tough luck, we're going to kill you now" (to the unborn child).

A condom is worn and it's "tough luck, you two will never meet", to the sperm and egg.
Ultimately, up to say 12 weeks of pregnancy, what is the difference?

lazygal

Ragnar Lothbrok wrote: »

A condom splits and it's "tough luck, we're going to kill you now" (to the unborn child).

Does a miscarriage kill a child?

eviltwin

Ragnar Lothbrok wrote: »

I am not being disrespectful to women at all. I completely understand the terrible position women can find themselves in due to an unwanted/unplanned pregnancy.

However, as I have said earlier in this thread, I personally know several women in England who had abortions just because they wanted to continue with their lives exactly as they were. They did not care about the life of the unborn child, nor about the feelings of the fathers. To me, this is not acceptable. It's like treating a pregnancy as trivially as any day-to-day decision such as what to have for breakfast. I'm not remotely suggesting that every woman who has an abortion treats the decision as flippantly as these people did.

Just because those reasons may seem trivial to you doesn't make them trivial. It doesn't mean those women didn't struggle with the decision or feel it was their only option. People talk about women choosing abortion like its no bigger a deal than choosing chicken or beef, wearing the red dress or the blue. Frankly I'm amazed so many pro life posters know women who have had abortions and their reasons for doing so and their mental state. I don't think I'd be rushing to tell anyone let alone someone so anti abortion. Personally I've had an abortion, I'm quite open about it and don't have any regrets so I'm sure when I talk about my experience it might come across as flippant but the decision and process was anything but.

Mark Hamill

Ragnar Lothbrok wrote: »

But I believe that the unborn child is a human life, so I don't believe it should be acceptable to abort it just because it doesn't suit someone to become a parent at that particular time.

What about the morning after pill? Is it acceptable to use one, even though it amounts to the same thing?
If someone kills a pregnant woman, should they be tried for two murders?

lazygal

Ragnar Lothbrok, are you also opposed to IVF?

One eyed Jack

Mark Hamill wrote: »

You say it does, then say that you do, but you don't actually explain why it should be treated differently.

Because they're going to be different arguments based upon what way a person chooses to argue their perspective. If some god botherer for example is referring to the Bible to make their argument, I'll treat their opinion differently to a god botherer who is using legal statutes to make their argument. If an atheist is using rational thought and logic to make their arguments, I'm going to treat their opinion differently to an atheist making arguments from emotion based upon their personal experience.

If someone is just talking nonsense, whether they be religious or non-religious, I'm going to treat their opinion differently again.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

So you are saying that if someone thinks their opinion is special to them then everyone else should treat it as special too? Why?

No, that's not what I'm saying.

I'm saying that I disagree with your assertion that I am in the wrong forum if I think that I will see much agreement among people that their opinions should be treated as special because their opinions are special to them.

I've witnessed plenty of times in this forum where people have had their opinions treated as infallible and above scrutiny because those people share the belief that person's opinion is somehow more worthy of consideration and above criticism because the person themselves believes their opinion is infallible, above scrutiny, more worthy of consideration than anyone else's, and is therefore above criticism.

I can string woefully wordy posts together too, but apart from it being an awfully boring endeavour to display an intellectual prowess I really don't have, I simply don't have the time for that kind of nonsense, or what you might think of as moral and philosophical musings.

robdonn

Ragnar Lothbrok wrote: »

True, but I don't agree with abortion in the first place, so I wouldn't be removing its availability just because some abuse the system.

So in what situations would you allow an abortion to occur?

PopePalpatine

Ragnar Lothbrok wrote: »

A condom splits and it's "tough luck, we're going to kill you now" (to the unborn child).

You get pregnant from rape and it's "tough luck, your bodily integrity & autonomy is violated for another 6-9 months!"

Mark Hamill

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Because they're going to be different arguments based upon what way a person chooses to argue their perspective.

Again, you are explaining that you treat arguments differently, but not why. Why should what someone else bases their argument on effect what you base your argument on? It doesn't matter if someone tries to use science or the law or their own personal perspective, if some data shows they are wrong then they are wrong regardless.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I've witnessed plenty of times in this forum where people have had their opinions treated as infallible and above scrutiny because those people share the belief that person's opinion is somehow more worthy of consideration and above criticism because the person themselves believes their opinion is infallible, above scrutiny, more worthy of consideration than anyone else's, and is therefore above criticism.

Do you have any examples? Because whilst I have seen plenty of examples of opinions with common support from nearly all the regulars on this forum, this has always been because those opinions have been rigorously defended in the past. The ones who come into this forum expecting their specially held opinions to be uncritically accepted are invariably religious types who can't deal with their arguments being torn asunder and don't stay long.

eviltwin

On a positive note people from Rosa are doing a Repeal the 8th canvass outside my local supermarket today. They were there about an hour when I met them. I asked them what the response had been like and they had encountered zero negativity.

Delirium

Ragnar Lothbrok wrote: »

A condom splits and it's "tough luck, we're going to kill you now" (to the unborn child).

'you' is a matter of personhood. Are you suggesting that 'you' exists from conception?

One eyed Jack

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Again, you are explaining that you treat arguments differently, but not why. Why should what someone else bases their argument on effect what you base your argument on? It doesn't matter if someone tries to use science or the law or their own personal perspective, if some data shows they are wrong then they are wrong regardless.

I did explain why I treat different arguments differently already:

One eyed Jack wrote: »

How much value we as individuals would choose to give a person's opinion will depend upon numerous factors really. Some people are more amenable to arguments using facts and statistics, and some people are more amenable to arguments from emotion, personal experience and anecdotes.

I would fall somewhere in between the two because I understand that abortion is an emotive issue and it cuts to the very core so to speak of a person's morality regarding the meaning of life and the value they place upon human life, but legislating for abortion and having it regarded as a human right, that requires an objective perspective, and personal morality is anything but objective. It is inherently subjective and only relevant to the individual. Outside of that, applying their personal morality to an issue that affects anyone beyond themselves, renders their arguments based upon their personal morality irrelevant.

It's why I don't apply my personal morality to the issue, but I can understand where others are coming from, and for me the most important thing is to understand where they come from first, rather than telling them they're asking the wrong questions. That was how religious authoritarians gained the power they did in the past, because people were told they were ignorant and they're asking the wrong questions.

Using data to argue one way or the other only works if the group is agreed to work from the same set of data. That just doesn't happen often because each person as we have seen already will present data that confirms their already held beliefs, which renders any meaningful discussion utterly useless, because everyone is operating off different sets of data.

We've seen it already where in Irish legislation, "the unborn" is referred to as:

“unborn”, in relation to a human life, is a reference to such a life during the period of time commencing after implantation in the womb of a woman and ending on the complete emergence of the life from the body of the woman;

Yet we still have posters here arguing about birth canals and foetuses, which to me at least, is just talking nonsense. They're not using a fcuking transporter beam to give birth to the unborn. It's going to have an effect on the woman's body either way, whether the procedure is a c-section or vaginal birth.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Do you have any examples? Because whilst I have seen plenty of examples of opinions with common support from nearly all the regulars on this forum, this has always been because those opinions have been rigorously defended in the past. The ones who come into this forum expecting their specially held opinions to be uncritically accepted are invariably religious types who can't deal with their arguments being torn asunder and don't stay long.

Rigorous defence of an opinion doesn't make it any more factual than it already isn't. You're making the error of mistaking group think acceptance for people employing their own critical faculties to question an opinion. There were plenty of people who expect their specially held opinions to be uncritically accepted who asked for their own special forum to be set up so that they could have a space to have their opinions validated, so that they could separate themselves from the imposition of religious types. I don't think an inability to deal with their ideas being questioned is a trait peculiar to people who are religious at all. It's a trait peculiar to people who are full of their own self-importance, regardless of whether they happen to be religious or not.

Cabaal

Ragnar Lothbrok wrote: »

A condom splits and it's "tough luck, we're going to kill you now" (to the unborn child).

You consider a 24hr old bunch of cells a unborn child and the morning after pill is now a murder weapon?

Mark Hamill

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I did explain why I treat different arguments differently already:

Apologies, I missed that. However I still disagree: If you are right and someone else is wrong then that means their "data" is wrong, whether it is scientific, legal or personal. That someone is then in denial about how their data is wrong is irrelevant. If someone argues with a fallacy, then you arguing back with another fallacy wont bring anyone to the correct position in the argument.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Rigorous defence of an opinion doesn't make it any more factual than it already isn't. You're making the error of mistaking group think acceptance for people employing their own critical faculties to question an opinion. There were plenty of people who expect their specially held opinions to be uncritically accepted who asked for their own special forum to be set up so that they could have a space to have their opinions validated, so that they could separate themselves from the imposition of religious types. I don't think an inability to deal with their ideas being questioned is a trait peculiar to people who are religious at all. It's a trait peculiar to people who are full of their own self-importance, regardless of whether they happen to be religious or not.

So that's no examples then?
Without any evidence, does any of this wailing deserve response? The people on this forum all disagree with you, so it must be group-think and arrogance, in fact the whole forum was set up because of those arrogant group-thinkers are afraid of criticism from the religious. Way more believable than you are demonstrably wrong and everyone else can see it :rolleyes:

Lingua Franca

Just checking that everyone here knows how the morning after pill works:

The normal menstrual cycle is altered, delaying ovulation; or
Ovulation is inhibited, meaning the egg will not be released from the ovary;
It can irritate the lining of the uterus (endometrium) so as to inhibit implantation.

Loafing Oaf

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That's the same site that Loafing Oaf made the error of linking to when he tried to counter your suggestion that Christopher Hitchens was indeed an atheist who held a pro-life position.

woah there, I only linked to the site because that was one of the ones that came up when I was Googling the quote. I believe it originally came from here:
http://www.newsweek.com/beliefwatch-pro-life-atheists-85273

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.

I stand by my claim that Hitchens cannot reasonably be labelled 'pro-life' in the sense that the term is used and understood in Ireland...