Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

Dan_Solo

oscarBravo wrote: »

This is the rhetorical rabbit hole I'm talking about. You doggedly insist on framing the debate solely in terms of "killing the foetus", and badger people for whom that's not what the debate is about.

It's a deeply dishonest debating tactic. You can keep shouting about how annoying it is that people won't join you in your debating chamber, but a pro-choice philosophy isn't predicated on a desire to kill foetuses.

Women don't have abortions to kill foetuses. They have abortions to end pregnancies.

People do X and Y happens. Therefore X is always acceptable? This is clearly logically nonsense, and a much worse debating tactic. It's OK to be a drunk driver or keep a pet Siberian tiger because you probably didn't mean to kill anyone. Same reasoning.
BTW, I see you have conveniently ignored that you lied about not being able to understand what "terminate the foetus" meant. Care to comment or will we leave it at "don't want to answer"?

Dan_Solo

volchitsa wrote: »

However, ending a pregnancy one minute before delivery doesn't in fact lead to the death of the fetus, so your question, as you insist on repeating it, doesn't actually make sense in the first place.

But now you've deliberately and transparently changed the question to one you are comfortable answering. The vast majority of abortions are not done with any intention at all of saving the foetus. The mother wants neither pregnancy nor baby. So what's so special about the foetus being past whatever age that we should wish or demand it be saved?

volchitsa

Dan_Solo wrote: »

People do X and Y happens. Therefore X is always acceptable? This is clearly logically nonsense, and a much worse debating tactic. It's OK to be a drunk driver or keep a pet Siberian tiger because you probably didn't mean to kill anyone. Same reasoning.

A better example (since it was the backdrop to and indeed source of the 8th amendment) would surely be the Catholic reasoning behind the times when abortion is acceptable to the catholic church : when the fetus is killed "unintentionally (despite that death being an unavoidable side effect of the procedure) then it's fine and is not really an abortion at all.

Oh but that's no good to you, you wanted to show that this logic doesn't exist anywhere. And you're right it doesn't - except in our approach to abortion.

volchitsa

Dan_Solo wrote: »

But now you've deliberately and transparently changed the question to one you are comfortable answering. The vast majority of abortions are not done with any intention at all of saving the foetus. The mother wants neither pregnancy nor baby. So what's so special about the foetus being past whatever age that we should wish or demand it be saved?

How have I changed the question? I've answered it. Word for word. You just don't like the answer.

Absolam

Shrap wrote: »

Absolam, this is a bit off topic but I note that you have thanked my comment on pedantry and then followed up with a reply, that I reckon is to me but as I don't engage in pedantry any longer (and I'm imagining that you have continued to belabor the point), I won't be adding to my very simple statement above.
Correct me someone else please if I'm wrong on Absolam's comment.......

Well, I was addressing your distinction between want and need.... Since you offered the distinction as being significant (and you don't engage in pedantry any more) I guess you don't think the distinction is pedantic.

Dan_Solo

Kev W wrote: »

At the point when the foetus become viable outside the womb. I feel like this has been said a few times.

And similarly to all the other times it's been said it has been presented as a self-evident truth. An "I said so" with no reasoning to back it up.

Dan_Solo

volchitsa wrote: »

How have I changed the question? I've answered it. Word for word. You just don't like the answer.

Come on now, this is straightforward stuff. I said "terminate the foetus" and you answer a question by saying "not terminate the foetus".

volchitsa

Dan_Solo wrote: »

And similarly to all the other times it's been said it has been presented as a self-evident truth. An "I said so" with no reasoning to back it up.

I think you'll find that the reason posters have been taking it as "self evident" is because you appeared to say so yourself :

Dan_Solo wrote: »

The foetal brain appears to "work" like a human at 22-24 weeks.

And this :

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Well that's because I agree with termination of the foetus for serious health reasons. Or indeed entirely electively before the foetus reaches the stage where I consider it to be a human.

Why would someone argue with you over a point that they and you are agreed upon?
if you've since changed your miond, perhaps you'd care to explain what you actually mean now?

Dan_Solo wrote: »

I don't see any specific difference between "inside human" and "outside human", no, and I don't subscribe to this degrees of humanity idea, so I don't see why the charge should be different.
In return, do you believe a foetus one day from term should be terminated electively?

Separate question, something I didn't really notice before : what do you mean by an "inside human" or an "outside human"? And what consequences do you derive from this (lack of) any distinction?

volchitsa

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Come on now, this is straightforward stuff. I said "terminate the foetus" and you answer a question by saying "not terminate the foetus".

Unlike Humpty Dumpty, Dan, you can't redefine language to make it say what you want it to. Or at least you must expect not to understood by others if you do. You'll have to explain this point, because I really can't see what your problem is with my answer : how exactly do you envisage this event happening?

You see, I said that I wouldn't normally agree with killing a fetus one minute before birth but I would agree with the mother being allowed to end her pregancy early - and I just can't see how that doesn't answer your question. So you'll have to explain what distinction I'm missing here.

Kev W

Dan_Solo wrote: »

And similarly to all the other times it's been said it has been presented as a self-evident truth. An "I said so" with no reasoning to back it up.

I presented it an an opinion as an answer to a question. Why does it matter how others have presented it? Does that invalidate my opinion?

robindch

Stanton Healthcare, a US-based anti-abortion group, has opened a "clinic" a few doors down from Belfast's Marie Stopes clinic. Present at the opening were a US congressman and Bernadette Smyth of 'Precious Life', convicted + sentenced last year for harrassing Marie Stopes' employees, a conviction which was later overturned.

Seems Stanton's founder is - why do so many people in the US have inappropriately appropriate names? - called 'Swindell'.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/american-anti-abortion-clinic-opens-in-belfast-1.2390605

Irish Times wrote:

An American pregnancy healthcare clinic has opened on Great Victoria Street in Belfast. The anti-abortion Stanton Healthcare group officially opened the clinic on Tuesday on the same street where the Marie Stopes clinic is located. US congressman Chris Smith visited Belfast on Monday to support the opening of the Stanton Healtcare clinic. He and Bernadette Smyth, of the Precious Life group in Northern Ireland, also met a number of SDLP and DUP politicians at Stormont.

Mr Smith, who is co-chairman of the Congressional Bipartisan Pro-Life Caucus, said women using the facility would be “cared for no matter what their circumstances”. “We have a number of clinics in the States and the value of what Bernadette can offer, you can’t put a price tag on it,” he said. “Women who have been helped, they come back, they volunteer, they radiate love and that is an enormous game changer.” He described the clinic as a “refuge” where women “can find tangible help and very loving individuals to help with their difficulty”.

Ms Smyth said the clinic would at no cost offer an alternative to abortion. “We believe that women and their unborn children deserve better than abortion. At Stanton, we will provide the best care and practical support for mums to help overcome obstacles in choosing life for her baby,” she said. Ms Smyth said the new centre “will be offering women facing unexpected pregnancies life-affirming options and quality healthcare”.

Last December Ms Smyth was sentenced to 100 hours of community service and given a five-year order restraining her from harassing Dawn Purvis, who was then director of the Marie Stopes clinic which is about a five-minute walk from the Stanton clinic on Great Victoria Street. Ms Smyth later won her appeal against the conviction. The American founder and chief executive of Stanton Healthcare, Brandi Swindell, also attended the opening of the clinic.

robindch

Mod:

Dan_Solo wrote: »

People do X and Y happens. Therefore X is always acceptable? This is clearly logically nonsense, and a much worse debating tactic.

I suggest you examine your own unhelpful debating tactics and use of prejudicial terminology before flapping wildly about other people's posts.

Shrap

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Well that's because I agree with termination of the foetus for serious health reasons. Or indeed entirely electively before the foetus reaches the stage where I consider it to be a human.
All I'm trying to do (and failing miserably, yes) is to get anybody to answer the question as to whether killing the foetus one minute before it's due to be delivered is morally acceptable to them.
If it is, then what's so fundamentally different about killing it after it's delivered?
If it isn't, then at what stage of development did it actually become unacceptable to electively kill the foetus?

Fair question. Can't say I've been able to follow this thread with all the micro-focusing that goes on here currently, so have missed your take on it.

It isn't morally acceptable to me personally. If there was a reasonable window of opportunity to abort a late term foetus that was found to have a major disability and that option wasn't taken there and then, I would be advocating against abortion. I wouldn't see any acceptable reason to kill a foetus one minute before delivery even if the mother's life was at risk, as delivering the baby and saving the mother would be the only option available at that point anyway, with obviously the best survival options given to the mother.

So yes, I personally agree that there must be a point at which the "foetus" becomes a "baby" (with right to life granted, but not equal to the mother's life, ie. save the mother first), even in utero.

Dan_Solo

volchitsa wrote: »

You see, I said that I wouldn't normally agree with killing a fetus one minute before birth but I would agree with the mother being allowed to end her pregancy early - and I just can't see how that doesn't answer your question. So you'll have to explain what distinction I'm missing here.

Well if not one minute before, then when? You are against the killing of the foetus at any stage where the foetus could possibly survive the termination of pregnancy?
You have to be to have any kind of logical consistency.

Dan_Solo

Kev W wrote: »

I presented it an an opinion as an answer to a question. Why does it matter how others have presented it? Does that invalidate my opinion?

Not sure what your first line is getting at.
Who said you can't have an opinion? It's just opinions presented as self-evident with no reasoning behind them don't tend to convince anybody of anything or advance the debate.

Dan_Solo

volchitsa wrote: »

I think you'll find that the reason posters have been taking it as "self evident" is because you appeared to say so yourself :

That's interesting that things are now accepted by everybody as self-evident if I have said them! In any case, none of the things you have quoted me as saying refer to inside/outside the womb, so I've no idea why you are saying my claims on those are directly relevant to somebody else's claim on this.

Dan_Solo

oscarBravo wrote: »

It's a deeply dishonest debating tactic.

Hmm, is that more or less dishonest than claiming a phrase is irrelevant, then claiming the phrase doesn't exist when it clearly does and is in wide regular usage, and then refusing to admit or even discuss that you did any of the above?

Kev W

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Not sure what your first line is getting at.
Who said you can't have an opinion? It's just opinions presented as self-evident with no reasoning behind them don't tend to convince anybody of anything or advance the debate.

My first line explained the context of what you quoted.
I never said anyone had said I can't have an opinion. Why ask me that?

Dan_Solo

Kev W wrote: »

My first line explained the context of what you quoted.
I never said anyone had said I can't have an opinion. Why ask me that?

Exactly what you said was:

Kev W wrote: »

I presented it an an opinion as an answer to a question. Why does it matter how others have presented it? Does that invalidate my opinion?

So you did most certainly say you thought your opinion was being held as invalidated.

Kev W

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Exactly what you said was:So you did most certainly say you thought your opinion was being held as invalidated.

Having one's opinion invalidated is not the same as not being allowed to have one.

Besides which and arguably more pertinently, I never even claimed that my opinion had been invalidated. I asked if it had.

Dan_Solo

Kev W wrote: »

Having one's opinion invalidated is not the same as not being allowed to have one.

Besides which and arguably more pertinently, I never even claimed that my opinion had been invalidated. I asked if it had.

Being told your opinion, regardless of what that opinion is, is invalid is the same as not being allowed to give it TBH.
And well then you already have your answer. It has not been invalidated. It's just less likely to convince anybody of anything if there is no reasoning associated with that opinion.

The Randy Riverbeast

Dan_Solo wrote: »

But now you've deliberately and transparently changed the question to one you are comfortable answering. The vast majority of abortions are not done with any intention at all of saving the foetus. The mother wants neither pregnancy nor baby. So what's so special about the foetus being past whatever age that we should wish or demand it be saved?

The vast majority of abortions are done at a time where it is impossible to save the fetus so when it comes to the ability of saving it, it will be in the minority of cases.

Kev W

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Being told your opinion, regardless of what that opinion is, is invalid is the same as not being allowed to give it TBH.

I know that. I never said otherwise. I asked if my opinion was invalidated, I never claimed that it had been. Please stop implying that I did.

Dan_Solo wrote: »

And well then you already have your answer. It has not been invalidated. It's just less likely to convince anybody of anything if there is no reasoning associated with that opinion.

There is reasoning associated, just not reasoning that you agree with, hence you pretend it doesn't exist. The reasoning being that once the fetus is viable outside the womb, if there is no danger to the mother then there is no reason to terminate.

Dan_Solo

The Randy Riverbeast wrote: »

The vast majority of abortions are done at a time where it is impossible to save the fetus so when it comes to the ability of saving it, it will be in the minority of cases.

So, yet again, because something won't happen much we can pretend it will never happen.
What could possibly go wrong there?

Kev W

Dan_Solo wrote: »

So, yet again, because something won't happen much we can pretend it will never happen.
What could possibly go wrong there?

To use your drunk driving analogy from earlier, most people don't drive drunk but should be outlaw cars just in case?

Dan_Solo

Kev W wrote: »

There is reasoning associated, just not reasoning that you agree with, hence you pretend it doesn't exist. The reasoning being that once the fetus is viable outside the womb, if there is no danger to the mother then there is no reason to terminate.

Here's where everybody jumps on you for daring to say "terminate" when you mean "kill" isn't it? Oops, sorry, wrong person.
Ah, so now you provide your reasoning. If you wish for us to pretend that you did so when you originally stated your opinion then fine, we'll do that.
Now, there most certainly could be a reason: that the mother wants to kill the foetus, which is what happens in almost all abortions: the mother does not want the pregnancy OR a baby.

Dan_Solo

Kev W wrote: »

To use your drunk driving analogy from earlier, most people don't drive drunk but should be outlaw cars just in case?

Cars are judged by most people to be of overall benefit to the individual and society. Are late term elective terminations of a healthy foetus considered likewise? That appears to be the Canadain model (although the doctors there don't appear to want to enact it to the letter) that so many people here are after.

Kev W

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Here's where everybody jumps on you for daring to say "terminate" when you mean "kill" isn't it? Oops, sorry, wrong person.
Ah, so now you provide your reasoning. If you wish for us to pretend that you did so when you originally stated your opinion then fine, we'll do that.
Now, there most certainly could be a reason: that the mother wants to kill the foetus, which is what happens in almost all abortions: the mother does not want the pregnancy OR a baby.

You've hit the nail right on the head.

Of course, the only REAL reason a woman would want an abortion is to satiate her MURDERLUST. Or if she just decides at the literal last minute that motherhood sounds boring.

(note to self: delete this bit before posting. can't have the truth getting out of the abortion industry will be SO MAD AT ME and i won't get invited to the Foetus Meat Picnics anymore.)

The reasoning has been presented over and over, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt that you'd been paying attention.

I shan't make that mistake again, I promise.

Dan_Solo

Kev W wrote: »

You've hit the nail right on the head.

Of course, the only REAL reason a woman would want an abortion is to satiate her MURDERLUST.

To be 100% honest i got this far and didn't bother with the rest. I never said the mother "wants to kill a baby" for the sake of it. You just fabricated that based on some imaginary post of mine. She wants to avoid having a pregnancy or baby so killing of the foetus serves this purpose. It is an inevitable part of it.
Any chance you can post with something even approaching a connection with what I have said?

Kev W

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Here's where everybody jumps on you for daring to say "terminate" when you mean "kill" isn't it? Oops, sorry, wrong person.
Ah, so now you provide your reasoning. If you wish for us to pretend that you did so when you originally stated your opinion then fine, we'll do that.
Now, there most certainly could be a reason: that the mother wants to kill the foetus, which is what happens in almost all abortions: the mother does not want the pregnancy OR a baby.

Dan_Solo wrote: »

To be 100% honest i got this far and didn't bother with the rest. I never said the mother "wants to kill a baby". You just fabricated that based on some imaginary post of mine. She wants to avoid having a pregnancy or baby so destruction of the foetus serves this purpose.
Any chance you can post with something even approaching a connection with what I have said?

Yes.

Dan_Solo

Kev W wrote: »

Yes.

Amended while you were posting so as to remove the ambiguity you are preying on.
Clearly "wants to kill the foetus" is an inevitable part of "wants to not have the baby or pregnancy".
Does anyone want to have the abortion procedure in order to have an abortion? Clearly not either, but one entails the other definitively, so no woman wants an abortion by your reasoning.

Kev W

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Amended while you were posting so as to remove the ambiguity you are preying on.
Clearly "wants to kill the foetus" is an inevitable part of "wants to not have the baby or pregnancy". Do you want to have the abortion procedure in order to have an abortion? Clearly not either, but one entails the other definitively.

Not all terminations end in the death of the foetus, so you're incorrect.

Dan_Solo

Kev W wrote: »

Not all terminations end in the death of the foetus, so you're incorrect.

But the vast vast majority of them (which nobody here seems to want to even consider talking about) definitely do.
Are you claiming every effort is made to save every aborted foetus?

Kev W

Dan_Solo wrote: »

But the vast vast majority of them (which nobody here seems to want to even consider talking about) definitely do.
Are you claiming every effort is made to save every aborted foetus?

Are you claiming that lizard people rule the world? Because that's equally close to anything you've said.

Delirium

Dan_Solo wrote: »

But the vast vast majority of them (which nobody here seems to want to even consider talking about) definitely do.
Are you claiming every effort is made to save every aborted foetus?

The majority of abortions happen at what stage in the pregnancy?
Is it medically possible to allow the foetus develop outside the womb at that stage?

Dan_Solo

Kev W wrote: »

Are you claiming that lizard people rule the world? Because that's equally close to anything you've said.

So then you were making no point whatsoever when you said not every last termination of pregnancy results in killing the foetus. Glad we've cleared that up then.

Kev W

Dan_Solo wrote: »

So then you were making no point whatsoever when you said not every last termination of pregnancy results in killing the foetus. Glad we've cleared that up then.

No, I was making the point that not every termination results in killing the foetus.

The clue is in the words I used and the order in which I used them.

oldrnwisr

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Cars are judged by most people to be of overall benefit to the individual and society. Are late term elective terminations of a healthy foetus considered likewise? That appears to be the Canadain model (although the doctors there don't appear to want to enact it to the letter) that so many people here are after.

What relevance does Canada have to this discussion?

The Canadian model of not legislating for abortion is a broadly sensible idea. In fact even without the restrictions on abortion that the UK has, Canada manages to have an abortion rate which is less than half of that in the UK (185,331 vs. 82,869).

Furthermore, I don't see what import Canada has with regard to late term abortions. The data on gestational age in Canada is woefully incomplete to the point that any conclusion about late term abortions is indeterminate. Clinics in Canada are not required to report gestational age, so the only available data comes from hospitals. Hospitals in Quebec also don't report gestational age. Therefore, only 25,443 of 82,869 abortions record some kind of gestational age. A further 4,741 abortions do not have a reliable gestational age due to the lack of clinical assessment. The only solid data available is that there were 564 abortions performed at or after 21 weeks gestation.

From the limited data available, the trend in gestational age in Canada broadly follows the same pattern as in the UK in that the majority of abortions are performed before week 12 (70% in Canada vs. 92% in UK).

So, like I said, I can't really see the relevance of the Canadian model in a discussion on late term abortions.

Induced Abortions Reported in Canada 2013

Dan_Solo

Kev W wrote: »

No, I was making the point that not every termination results in killing the foetus.

The clue is in the words I used and the order in which I used them.

A "point" that makes zero substantiative alteration or contribution to what was being discussed. Yes, I got that from what you said perfectly thanks.

volchitsa

Dan_Solo wrote: »

That's interesting that things are now accepted by everybody as self-evident if I have said them! In any case, none of the things you have quoted me as saying refer to inside/outside the womb, so I've no idea why you are saying my claims on those are directly relevant to somebody else's claim on this.

I put "self evident" in quotes because it was your choice of word, not mine.

My point was that you put forward a view that you claimed as being your own, and are now expressing surprise that others have accepted it as being your view and are not taking issue with it. Why should they, unless they actually have a problem with it? Do you mean it's not your view?

Kev W

Dan_Solo wrote: »

A "point" that makes zero substantiative alteration or contribution to what was being discussed. Yes, I got that from what you said perfectly thanks.

I'm just trying to debate on your level.

What do you call it? Dodgeball-style?

Dan_Solo

Kev W wrote: »

I'm just trying to debate on your level.

What do you call it? Dodgeball-style?

Fine, so you are now fully admitting your "point" was an irrelevance. Can we move on?

Kev W

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Fine, so you are now fully admitting your "point" was an irrelevance. Can we move on?

Certainly. Do you have any other questions you'd like to claim nobody will answer, that once they are answered you will ignore?

volchitsa

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Fine, so you are now fully admitting your "point" was an irrelevance. Can we move on?

You could try replying to my posts instead of pretending yours haven't been answered. That's if you actually do want to move on that is.

(You said you had no issue with abortion before around 22 weeks. So why are you now complaining because other posters, who also have no issue with that limit, aren't arguing with you about it? Seems more than odd. It actually seems rather schizophrenic.)

Oh, and inside/outside thing was indeed a quote from you : I asked you to explain what you meant by it. I don't think you've done so yet, have you?

Dan_Solo

volchitsa wrote: »

You could try replying to my posts instead of pretending yours haven't been answered. That's if you actually do want to move on that is.

(You said you had no issue with abortion before around 22 weeks. So why are you now complaining because other posters, who also have no issue with that limit, aren't arguing with you about it? Seems more than odd. It actually seems rather schizophrenic.)

The Canadian model, which nearly everybody here appears to support, says nothing at all about a limit, so I've no idea where you're making up the idea that everybody "agrees" with 22 weeks from. Also, the fact that I may agree with others about the time stage of the limit says nothing at all about why I agree with the limit or any other aspect of the whole thing. As said before, medical advances will undoubtedly eventually have us with a 10 week old foetus surviving. If "survival outside the womb" is being used as a criteria, then presumably the abortion limit will then have to be moved to 10 weeks?

volchitsa wrote: »

Oh, and inside/outside thing was indeed a quote from you : I asked you to explain what you meant by it. I don't think you've done so yet, have you?

OscarBraco-esque deliberate "confusion" I see. Inside and outside what? You can't guess? A box, yes, the foetus can gestate in a box...

Kev W

Dan_Solo wrote: »

The Canadian model, which nearly everybody here appears to support, says nothing at all about a limit, so I've no idea where you're making up the idea that everybody "agrees" with 22 weeks from.

I see you do this a lot. You make up something that someone else has said and then claim you don't know where they're getting their ideas from. Presumably to distract from your own lack of any point.

Dan_Solo

Kev W wrote: »

I see you do this a lot. You make up something that someone else has said and then claim you don't know where they're getting their ideas from. Presumably to distract from your own lack of any point.

I see you like to say something is wrong but you are, of course, unable to say why it's wrong. Intuition, is it?

Kev W

Dan_Solo wrote: »

I see you like to say something is wrong but you are, of course, unable to say why it's wrong. Intuition, is it?

Do you need everything restated constantly so you don't get confused?

Dan_Solo

Kev W wrote: »

Do you need everything restated constantly so you don't get confused?

Nope, only from you. Funny that. It's almost as if it isn't me at all...
Tip: "restated" isn't the word you're grasping for when you haven't said something in the first place.

Kev W

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Nope, only from you. Funny that. It's almost as if it isn't me at all...
Tip: "restated" isn't the word you're grasping for when you haven't said something in the first place.

Maybe I did and you just reinterpreted it as a completely different statement so you could ask where I got the idea.