The Alabama senate has voted to ban abortion after six weeks

One eyed Jack

batgoat wrote: »

Planned Parenthood is the largest contributor of those services in the US so it's entirely relevant.

They’re the largest private provider of abortion services. They’re not the largest provider of education and sexual health services.

The guy who shot up the clinic a few years back directly referenced rhetoric such as yours to justify his actions... The guy who killed George Tiller was an anti abortion activist so you'd have to be really living in a bubble to claim this sort of rhetoric hasn't resulted in murders.

The difference between me referring to abortion services providers as death merchants profiteering off people’s misery, and someone who is nuts is that I’m not nuts (well, depends upon who you ask I suppose). It’s still an entirely accurate summation of abortion given that it results in death. Nut jobs with guns and bombers are an entirely separate issue.

Timberrrrrrrr

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I stand by what I said, they are highly profitable as can be seen from their annual report. What they do with their profits is what classified them as a nonprofit organisation. From your own link -


In economic terms, it is an organization that uses its surplus of the revenues to further achieve its ultimate objective, rather than distributing its income to the organization's shareholders, leaders, or members. Nonprofits are tax exempt or charitable, meaning they do not pay income tax on the money that they receive for their organization.

Yes they make money (note, abortion is a small percentage of the services provided) and that money is pumped back into the organisation to further help women.

Who do you think gains from this apart from women who need help?

biko

Ursus Horribilis wrote: »

Roe vs Wade's on shaky ground though, isn't it? One more supreme court appointment by Trump and there'll be another conservative pro-lifer there for decades.

As you might know - Norma McCorvey (aka "Roe") herself went on to become a staunch pro-lifer

So if you would appointed the main part in the case to the supreme court - you might have ended up where Alabama is now...

Life takes odd turns sometimes.

One eyed Jack

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Yes they make money (note, abortion is a small percentage of the services provided) and that money is pumped back into the organisation to further help women.

Who do you think gains from this apart from women who need help?

The people who run these organisations obviously benefit from it!

biko

Lurching wrote: »

What's the demographic of the senate?
I'm guessing they were mostly men in their 50's+?
Great idea asking them to make a decision on something like this.

Here they are signing it into law

Oh noes, it's Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey (woman)

volchitsa

biko wrote: »

Here they are signing it into law

Oh noes, it's Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey (woman)

So a few women have decided to make internalised misogyny their MO. Great career move as long there are only a few of them, and neither new nor limited to women.

Castle Catholics, Uncle Toms etc - there's a long, bitter tradition of some members of an oppressed group choosing to make themselves available for use by the oppressors as an alibi for their own personal gain.

biko

volchitsa wrote: »

So a few women have decided to make internalised misogyny their MO.

Just can't win with you.
Are you saying that women who don't agree with you have internalised misogyny?

Have you no faith in women's own power or will?

volchitsa

biko wrote: »

Just can't win with you.
Are you saying that women who don't agree with you have internalised misogyny?[/quite]

Eh, no, I'm saying that women in power who choose to participate in oppressing other, probably poorer and certainly less powerful women have chosen to prioritise their career over the interests of women as a whole.

Perhaps they don't even try to justify it, in which case it's cynicism and not misogyny. But usually they do - women's human rights are lesser than the fetus's. That's misogyny.

biko wrote: »

Have you no faith in women's own power or will?

It seems to be the governor who has no faith in that - since she can't apparently convince women not to have abortions but wants to enforce her own opinion using the law instead.

biko

volchitsa wrote: »

Eh, no, I'm saying that women in power who choose to participate in oppressing other, probably poorer and certainly less powerful women have chosen to prioritise their career over the interests of women as a whole.

Women aren't an homogeneous group, I don't understand why you think it should be.
Should men always put men first, just because they are men?
You argument doesn't make sense, and is probably sexist.

MrMusician18

JupiterKid wrote: »

The thing is though that although Roe vs Wade in 1973 legalised abortion on a federal basis, many deeply backward, racist, sexist, homophobic states such as Alabama, Texas, Georgia, Mississippi etc NEVER willingly introduced legal and safe abortion and and had it imposed upon then by the Supreme Court.

This new law (which is unconstitutional at the Federal level) is just an attempt to get Roe vs Wade overturned. It is a disgusting ploy to sharply curtail womens' reproductive rights. It has nothing to do with cherishing life and everything to do with punishing and controlling women. It is no surprise that these same states mete out and practice the death penalty with gusto.

What next for these states? Recriminalising homosexuality? Denying non whites and women the vote?

As for that slip up by One Eyed Jack, I'm not all that surprised that he operates a second boards account...for all we know, he may have a few. As his alias crock rock we perhaps see the more true views on certain issues behind the mask of supposed well-informed and nuanced debate he wears as ONJ.

Generally, women get spared the death penalty afaik.

volchitsa

biko wrote: »

Women aren't an homogeneous group, I don't understand why you think it should be.
Should men always put men first, just because they are men?
You argument doesn't make sense, and is probably sexist.

Since it's not what I said, I don't see why I should bother refuting it.

Though I will say that I wasn't the one who brought up the fact that the governor was a woman, I merely replied to it.


(Have the moderators' accounts been hacked or something, or were there always these dishonest Neanderthals among them? There's another one on another thread calling people baby killers today.)

biko

Run back to the safety and comfort of your university sociology group.
See you next thread




Btw, I don't agree with the Alabama law. It's as bad or worse than Ireland's own draconian abortion laws we just abolished.

volchitsa

biko wrote: »

Run back to the safety and comfort of your university sociology group.
See you next thread

And you can fk off too. Preferably back to Breitbart where your link came from.

Btw, I don't agree with the Alabama law. It's as bad or worse than Ireland's own draconian abortion laws we just abolished.

So? You're complaining about people making assumptions, but you're very quick to do it yourself.
Especially as a way of avoiding the issue.

biko

There were no link, just an image.
The image from breitbart was a clever ruse to make you look at the image source and get all uppity, which you did

volchitsa

biko wrote: »

There were no link, just an image.
The image from breitbart was a clever ruse to make you look at the image source and get all uppity, which you did

Except I only replied in that tone to you after you told me to go back to a university sociology department.

Apart from the fact that I've never set foot in one, being a scientist by training, the irony of you then deciding that I was the one making unwarranted assumptions is massive.

Aren't moderators meant to make some effort not to actively drag everyone else down into the personal abuse gutter? Cos I can give as good as I get you know, and you are really looking for it.

biko

volchitsa wrote: »

Aren't moderators meant to make some effort not to actively drag everyone else down into the personal abuse gutter? Cos I can give as good as I get you know, and you are really looking for it.

Moderators are only moderators in their forums. In other forums they are just regular posters.
Should you think I have personally abused you, I suppose like above when you told me to **** off, then you can use the report button to alert a moderator of this forum to my comments.

volchitsa

biko wrote: »

Moderators are only moderators in their forums. In other forums they are just regular posters.
Should you think I have personally abused you, I suppose like above when you told me to **** off, then you can use the report button to alert a moderator of this forum to my comments.

As I said, I merely replied in kind.

Ken.

Mod- volchitsa and biko thread banned for dragging thread off topic. Take it to PM.

nozzferrahhtoo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It’s still an entirely accurate summation of abortion given that it results in death.

Sure, but by that labile and dilute a definition doctors and chemists are Death Merchants as their work results in the death of billions of Bacteria. Also by profiting off peoples misery one can note!

Anyone producing meat to eat products are Death Merchants.

And the factory here in Aschaffenburg that I can literally see out my window which cuts down trees and produce paper.... also Death Merchants. Even farmers.... chopping up those crops.... Death Merchants.

Dignitas. Death Merchants. People who produce or use pesticides. Death Merchants. Fishermen? Death Merchants.

This is what happens when you create foolish Propaganda terms backed up by incredibly loose definitions. If all that is required to fit the Definition is their product or service results in death....

Antares35

I considered myself to be absolute in my pro-life stance until last year when a personal experience shifted my perspective. I am not ashamed to admit it - we live and learn!

Last year I had a miscarriage at 11 weeks. When I went for a scan, they said the baby had stopped growing at 6.5 weeks. It was what they call a "missed miscarriage". I had no symptoms except the eerie disappearance of pregnancy symptoms such as morning sickness. Although our baby was unplanned, she was never unwanted, so we were devastated. I had the extra trauma of knowing that I had essentially been carrying a dead baby inside for over 3 weeks (and was mildly annoyed at the 3 weeks of G&T's I had needlessly forfeited!). Anyway, I assumed I would be given the option of either a D&C, or drugs to initiate the miscarriage, but I was told to "go away for two weeks and come back". When I asked why they could't help me, I was told that there was a chance my dates could be "off" and the baby might actually only be 6.5 weeks and at that stage, they may not be able to hear a heartbeat. I assured them I knew my dates and that if I wanted to procure an abortion, I could simply get pills online and not pay for a private scan, then present my devastated, broken heart to the emergency clinic for an illegal abortion. Nonetheless they saw fit to treat me like a teenager who does not know her own body, and sent me home to miscarry alone.

I spent a week sitting in work not knowing when it would start. I sat in meetings with the Board worried that at any minute I would have to run from the room. In the end, my poor baby had the good grace to pass on a bank holiday weekend while I was at home. Nothing prepares you for the physical and emotional pain. Nobody tells you what to expect. I would not wish it on anyone.

A week later, I returned for a scan and was told "congratulations, you have successfully evacuated the contents of conception, you can start trying again in a month".

The reason I share this story is because the only reason I was treated this way (as were thousands others) is because of the laws which were in place at the time. The outlying chance that my (already dead) baby might have had a heartbeat (because I might have been lying about my dates to procure an illegal abortion), meant that as an Irish citizen, and as a woman in her 30's, I had to go home to "get on with it" alone. At least I had the support of family and friends and partner. What about a 17 year old girl who does not have the same support system.

It's fine to make strict laws in an ivory tower, but often, no consideration is given to how these laws are going to affect people.

One eyed Jack

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Sure, but by that labile and dilute a definition doctors and chemists are Death Merchants as their work results in the death of billions of Bacteria. Also by profiting off peoples misery one can note!

Anyone producing meat to eat products are Death Merchants.

And the factory here in Aschaffenburg that I can literally see out my window which cuts down trees and produce paper.... also Death Merchants. Even farmers.... chopping up those crops.... Death Merchants.

Dignitas. Death Merchants. People who produce or use pesticides. Death Merchants. Fishermen? Death Merchants.

This is what happens when you create foolish Propaganda terms backed up by incredibly loose definitions. If all that is required to fit the Definition is their product or service results in death....

I think this may be the first time we find ourselves in absolute agreement! You’re right in that they are propaganda terms, and they can be used by anyone to present an alternative perspective. They’re ambiguous certainly, but they’re only foolish because you disagree with the perspective they’re intended to represent.

All of the above are regarded as death merchants by people opposed to what they do - whether the objectors are environmental conservationists, animal welfare rights activists, etc. It’s very similar to the way in which some people will refer to abortion as women’s healthcare in an attempt to put abortion beyond criticism, or people introducing the term “pregnant persons” instead of pregnant women - thereby attempting to put the idea that men can become pregnant too, beyond criticism.

People use ambiguous definitions all the time in an attempt either to put ideas beyond criticism, or to frame concepts in a particular light. People will use the term baby to refer to the foetus or the unborn, and the new term on the block - pre-born. They’re all referring to the same thing, and even then when one has to dig down into the nitty gritty, they find that the person refers to an unwanted pregnancy as a parasite, clump of cells, foetus, anything which lowers it’s conceptual status enough to suggest it is morally permissible to kill it. The other extreme of that of course is to refer to the floating peanut shaped object as a child, which invokes a moral quandary in some people as to whether it is permissible to kill it.

I don’t have any moral quandaries about whether or not it is permissible to end the development of whatever way a person may refer to whatever is developing inside their bodies, I have never sought to prevent any girl or woman from doing so (I don’t refer to pregnant persons as I don’t share the idea that men can become pregnant). I’ll still know what they mean whether they refer to a clump of cells, foetus, the unborn, a wanted baby, an unwanted pregnancy, etc. In all cases where they wish to end the process, the end result is the same (or in most cases is the same anyway, lest someone nitpick and provide exceptional circumstances where an abortion fails or “termination of the pregnancy” means giving birth to a child, which may not have been what the woman expects when she seeks to have an abortion).

I do have an objection to private organisations making over 1Bn in annual revenue from the promotion of their ideology while trying to impress that they are actually helping people who would not be in a position to help themselves. I totally understand that they believe they are helping people, but I disagree that they actually are helping people. Ultimately - they are helping themselves.

I would say the same about any private organisation which gains from other people’s misery under the guise of providing them with “choice”, ignoring the reality of the underlying circumstances which means they found themselves in a position where they were forced into having to make a choice between remaining pregnant, giving birth and being able to raise a child, or having an abortion because they felt their circumstances prevented them from raising a child, or that they were simply incapable raise a child or that they just didn’t want to be pregnant.

I take issue with people who attempt to present abortion as a personal choice that only a pregnant woman can determine for themselves in that particular set of circumstances, because that ignores the reality that abortion isn’t just a personal matter, it has broader context and application in political, medical, social, scientific and legal fields, hence why there is such a furore now over the unconstitutional application of legislation in Alabama (which has yet to become law), but the wider implications of it is that it may cause federal legislation which has applied in the US since Roe v Wade to be overturned, and the effects that would have on organisations like Planned Parenthood’s bottom line - it would mean they would lose their funding for a service which no longer exists, in much the same way as some people level an accusation at people who are opposed to abortion that they don’t care about women or they want to control women or they don’t care about children - it’s simply not possible to care about children who don’t exist, which is one of the potential outcomes of an abortion, and as for not caring about women or wanting to control women - that’s simply a matter of how they’re framing the question, based entirely upon their own propaganda. I wouldn’t call it foolish though as it is undeniably quite an effective tool in the wider discussion of any issue, like what was once referred to as global warming is now climate change and anti-natalists now have a legitimate platform for their idiocy - anyone who chooses to have children must not care about the planet - it presents a moral quandary if you’re an environmentalist who is of the opinion that children are our future, and think that shipping a 15 year old girl around the globe to be fawned over by old men is a good way to promote your ideology. Of course there will be some people who will exploit other people’s misery for their own gain -

Start-up used teen climate activist to raise millions: Swedish paper


Depends upon how one looks at anything really whether it’s either morally and ethically a good thing or a bad thing, and that applies to any issue - from abortion to zooology.

nozzferrahhtoo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

but they’re only foolish because you disagree with the perspective they’re intended to represent.

No I would think it foolish even if I agreed with it. For the reason I laid out. Which is that the definition is so dilute and labile it could apply to anything. Which dilutes both the utility of the phrase in and of itself, and the efficacy of it as a Propaganda move by being a term than can apply to even the most innocuous of practices or businesses.

When our very doctors saving our lives every day, qualify for YOUR definition of "Death Merchant" then your definition does not have a lot of value or punch short of waving the flag of your biases for anyone to see.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

People use ambiguous definitions all the time

Speak for yourself I guess. I endeavour to be quite clear in the language I use, and how I use it for example. If I needed to be ambiguous in order to score points in a discussion, I would likely withdraw from the discussion first rather than look silly.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

People will use the term baby to refer to the foetus or the unborn, and the new term on the block - pre-born. They’re all referring to the same thing

They are and they aren't. Quite a lot of those moves to call one thing by another label is because.... usually just emotively..... the term they choose to use imports emotions or attributes that are not actually there, not warranted, or can not be arrived at by reason.

For example those that want to call a 12 week old fetus a "baby" are often doing so because of the emotions and instincts and narratives we have around the word "baby". Most of which simply do not apply to the fetus.... but if they can smuggle them in simply by the use of the word "baby" then they make people more hesitant to accept something like abortion. For reasons that are contrived, fallacious, and manufactured.

So it is less the "lowering of the conceptual status" as the "artificial elevation of it" that we need to be concerned with because when I call it a fetus I am not adding or subtracting anything that is ACTUALLY there or not there. When they call it a baby.... they do. So we are by no means equally abusing language there. We can pretend everyone is just equally choosing terms that best fits their own agenda and position. Which is partly true. But what is ALSO true is only some of the people doing so are smuggling in narratives and falsehoods and distractions. Others are not. So they are not by any means equal.

Using the word "parasite" however I do agree with you on. Because similar to "baby" having positive narrative connotations people want to smuggle in unwarranted..... "parasite" has negative connotations they are smuggling in. The word "parasite" invokes a distaste and disgust that I think is not warranted any more than the fluffy feelz of "baby" are.

So I would certainly move away from the use of THAT term.... assuming I ever did. I am genuinely not sure I ever have myself, but I do see others using it.

However the simple fact is that....

One eyed Jack wrote: »

enough to suggest it is morally permissible to kill it.

.... we do not actually need to use such linguistic tricks to establish the above at all. No one, least of all yourself, appears to be coming up with any moral or ethical arguments indicting the act of terminating a 12-16 week old fetus. So in the spirit of "innocent until proven guilty" the defence does not need to make a case as the prosecution has failed to make one in the first place. Since there are no moral arguments on offer NOT to do it, I do not need to make counter arguments justifying it or defending it.

I simply have not seen a moral or ethical argument suggesting we should have any moral or ethical concern for a fetus OTHER than people smuggling in the feelz with words like "baby".

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I totally understand that they believe they are helping people, but I disagree that they actually are helping people. Ultimately - they are helping themselves.

Are the two in any way mutually exclusive, even if it were not a "not for profit" organisation we were discussing here? If people require a service I have nothing against a business profiting from providing that service.

If it was to be shown however that they were misleading, cajoling, tricking, forcing, pressuring or bullying people into using one particular service over another.... such as pushing abortion without offering alternatives, or not giving a person all the information they require to make the choice for abortion or against it correctly.... then by all means go for the head!

But merely providing the service and profiting (or not) from it even to the tune of billions. Not a problem for me. Don't see why it would be.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I take issue with people who attempt to present abortion as a personal choice that only a pregnant woman can determine for themselves in that particular set of circumstances, because that ignores the reality that abortion isn’t just a personal matter, it has broader context and application in political, medical, social, scientific and legal fields

Again not mutually exclusive. That the faculty of a particular choice as a whole has wider implications in a society..... does not in any way stop it being nothing more than a personal choice for any particular individual pregnant woman at the time she chooses it.

I seem to recall that one of your poorer arguments against allowing abortion amounted to suggesting that abortion was an attack on the poor because the option to abort means women will not be forced by unwanted pregnancy to better themselves socioeconomically.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

it’s simply not possible to care about children who don’t exist

And yet when I read all the anti abortion posts over the last week that seems to be what a lot of people think they are doing. Ascribing to them everything from having a "voice" to needing a "choice" to being deserving of "rights". All to treat as children, children who do not actually exist.

recedite

Antares35 wrote: »

I considered myself to be absolute in my pro-life stance until last year when a personal experience shifted my perspective...

My commiserations to you, however I don't really understand why having a miscarriage would alter somebody's pro-life stance.
From what you are saying, the developing foetus died of natural causes, sadly. Even if it had been evacuated artificially, that would not have been an issue for somebody with a pro-life stance. There may have been some medical reasons for letting nature take its course.

SusieBlue

recedite wrote: »

My commiserations to you, however I don't really understand why having a miscarriage would alter somebody's pro-life stance.
From what you are saying, the developing foetus died of natural causes, sadly. Even if it had been evacuated artificially, that would not have been an issue for somebody with a pro-life stance. There may have been some medical reasons for letting nature take its course.

It prolonged her suffering unnecessarily. It delayed her grieving process & healing.
Imagine having to go on for weeks knowing your baby is dead inside you & waiting on tenterhooks for the moment your body expels it.
It’s torturous.
No one should have to go through that unless it’s by choice.

Jamiekelly

recedite wrote: »

My commiserations to you, however I don't really understand why having a miscarriage would alter somebody's pro-life stance.
From what you are saying, the developing foetus died of natural causes, sadly. Even if it had been evacuated artificially, that would not have been an issue for somebody with a pro-life stance. There may have been some medical reasons for letting nature take its course.

If you can't understand why the poster would change perspectives after a situation like that then it's because you simply choose not to. You have glossed over the part about being told to go home and get on with it alone and her sitting in a board meeting waiting for it to occur. It's the kind of mental torture of being put in that situation that would change anyones mind. I'm not even a woman and I can barely imagine it. But she was put in that situation. Because of the laws from anti abortion proponents she was not allowed to "artificially evacuate" the dead fetus in private in a medical environment.

recedite

SusieBlue wrote: »

No one should have to go through that unless it’s by choice.

Maybe, but I'm saying if the baby was dead, its just not a pro-life issue, either way. Its a medical issue. Maybe the mothers body will recover quicker without invasive procedures, and allowing the natural production of hormones such as oxytocin.
On the other hand, it would have to happen fairly quickly otherwise sepsis could set in. I think the medics should be best qualified to say which.

One eyed Jack

Jamiekelly wrote: »

If you can't understand why the poster would change perspectives after a situation like that then it's because you simply choose not to. You have glossed over the part about being told to go home and get on with it alone and her sitting in a board meeting waiting for it to occur. It's the kind of mental torture of being put in that situation that would change anyones mind. I'm not even a woman and I can barely imagine it. But she was put in that situation. Because of the laws from anti abortion proponents she was not allowed to "artificially evacuate" the dead fetus in private in a medical environment.

The poster was put in that situation not because of the existence of the law, but because of a complex set of circumstances which it suits your agenda to suggest were as a result of a change in the law which by way of a referendum the Irish people voted to be put into the Constitution by pretty much the same percentage of votes as chose to remove it from the Constitution some 35 years later -

Eighth Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland


The poster was spot-on when they said -

Antares35 wrote: »

It's fine to make strict laws in an ivory tower, but often, no consideration is given to how these laws are going to affect people.

Roe v Wade was the same, and now we’re seeing the consequences of that decision 40 years later, and Alabama legislators and politicians who represent the people of Alabama have decided to change the law.

For what it’s worth by the way, the poster did not once refer to a dead foetus, the term used was dead baby. Had her anecdotal narrative not being so compelling in cementing her pro-choice position, I have no doubt pro-choice posters here would have been all over that shìt determined to have her see the error of her ways, questioning every syllable of her story as they have been seen to do in the many threads there have been on this topic.

nozzferrahhtoo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

For what it’s worth by the way, the poster did not once refer to a dead foetus, the term used was dead baby. Had her anecdotal narrative not being so compelling in cementing her pro-choice position, I have no doubt pro-choice posters here would have been all over that shìt determined to have her see the error of her ways, questioning every syllable of her story as they have been seen to do in the many threads there have been on this topic.

You appear here to be trying to suggest that we only jump on people for calling it a "baby" when it is in fact not a "baby" when it suits our agenda and political leanings. But when she is siding with us..... we let her away with it.

This is a disingenuous distortion.

The actual reality is that THAT use of the word "baby" was not used to import attributes and arguments for her position that were entirely fallacious and manufactured. Just like when someone 3 months pregnant tells me "We are having a baby" there is no reason at that moment to tell her "No sorry, you actually just have a fetus in you right now, it might be a baby later".

It has nothing to do with whether her stance is agreeable to me or not while using the term "baby". It has everything to do with whether a person has contrived to use the term "baby" in a dishonest and misleading fashion. Or if they have used the word "baby" in a way that distorts the discourse or floats red herrings into the debate.

And when people do that, you can expect me to take issue with it for one. Regardless.... or irregardless since I know you love the word so much.... of whether they are pro choice or anti choice in the abortion debate.

However if the person above was in a lot of pain having lost this pregnancy, and it was apparent that most or all of that pain was coming from the "baby" narrative..... then I would very much move to work through her misuse of that term with her and try to divest her of the narratives.... narratives that are entirely false..... that are actually causing her pain. And as I said to you and a few others last year, this is actually a common move in counselling after a miscarriage and I provided links at the time related to how that counselling distinguishes between "loss of a baby" and "loss of a pregnancy".

But this shows the harm of the anti choice rhetoric with nery a concern for actual women and their suffering. So intent are they on convincing all and sundry that it is a "baby" from even the earliest stages.... people like her are left going around believing that. As if suffering from the impending loss of a pregnancy was not enough, they are convinced they have a "dead baby inside them" which must be an AWFUL misapprehension to be under. As awful as the people so intent to push that misapprehension on as many people as possible.

Antares35

recedite wrote: »

My commiserations to you, however I don't really understand why having a miscarriage would alter somebody's pro-life stance.
From what you are saying, the developing foetus died of natural causes, sadly. Even if it had been evacuated artificially, that would not have been an issue for somebody with a pro-life stance. There may have been some medical reasons for letting nature take its course.

The reason was that the baby measured 6.5 weeks at which stage a heartbeat may or may not be detected. Therefore from their perspective, to carry out D&C or give pills to bring on contractions could be abortion of a healthy fetus i.e. the reason I was left with a dead baby inside me was directly because of the laws which were in place at the time.

ohnonotgmail

recedite wrote: »

Maybe, but I'm saying if the baby was dead, its just not a pro-life issue, either way. Its a medical issue. Maybe the mothers body will recover quicker without invasive procedures, and allowing the natural production of hormones such as oxytocin.
On the other hand, it would have to happen fairly quickly otherwise sepsis could set in. I think the medics should be best qualified to say which.

except the laws at the time meant the medics were not allowed to act according what was best medically. Their training and knowledge was irrelevant, the constitution decided how they should respond. thankfully that is no longer the case.

One eyed Jack

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

You appear here to be trying to suggest that we only jump on people for calling it a "baby" when it is in fact not a "baby" when it suits our agenda and political leanings. But when she is siding with us..... we let her away with it.

This is a disingenuous distortion.

The actual reality is that THAT use of the word "baby" was not used to import attributes and arguments for her position that were entirely fallacious and manufactured. Just like when someone 3 months pregnant tells me "We are having a baby" there is no reason at that moment to tell her "No sorry, you actually just have a fetus in you right now, it might be a baby later".

It has nothing to do with whether her stance is agreeable to me or not while using the term "baby". It has everything to do with whether a person has contrived to use the term "baby" in a dishonest and misleading fashion. Or if they have used the word "baby" in a way that distorts the discourse or floats red herrings into the debate.

And when people do that, you can expect me to take issue with it for one.

What's this "we" business when I didn't accuse you of doing anything? I said that had her anecdotal narrative not being so compelling in cementing her pro-choice position, I have no doubt pro-choice posters here would have been all over that shìt determined to have her see the error of her ways, questioning every syllable of her story as they have been seen to do in the many threads there have been on this topic.

Given you have often strived to point out that you do not identify yourself as pro-choice, then why would you think I would include you in the set of people I was referring to in that statement? You have pointed out that you see no reason why we should afford any moral or ethical concern for the foetus somewhere between the 12th and 16th week of gestation - your position is so limited that I wouldn't suggest you were pro-choice either, as you would seek to limit a woman's freedom to choose for herself what she would wish to do in those circumstances. Your position is predicated upon sentience, but sentience is already regarded under the terms of viability of the foetus, where no time limits are imposed. This gives the medical team the flexibility to make decisions which they believe will lead to the best outcomes possible. It is they too who will have to live with the consequences of their decisions. I wouldn't refer to you as a "forced birther" for your position either, as one poster who clearly hadn't given that term a lot of thought did earlier with reference to anyone who would force a woman to give birth against her will.

My statement wasn't the least bit disingenuous, but rather a statement based upon observation of how posters who have shared their experiences of pregnancy, abortion, miscarriage, giving birth, and their treatment in hospital by medical teams charged with their care - how they have been pounced upon rather quickly and by a barrage of posters determined to discredit their experiences.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Regardless.... or irregardless since I know you love the word so much.... of whether they are pro choice or anti choice in the abortion debate.

Speaking of red herrings and disingenuous statements, that's a rather curious accusation you appear to have dredged up from the bowels of your imagination seeing as I have never used the word irregardless, nor have I ever corrected anyone on their use of the term, so how you could determine I love a word so much that I have never used nor sought to correct anyone who uses it, is just curious.

It does however provide evidence that contrary to your often asserted statement that you don't choose what you believe, but rather you base your opinion on evidence, data and reason - the opposite is of course the reality.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

However if the person above was in a lot of pain having lost this pregnancy, and it was apparent that most or all of that pain was coming from the "baby" narrative..... then I would very much move to work through her misuse of that term with her and try to divest her of the narratives.... narratives that are entirely false..... that are actually causing her pain. And as I said to you and a few others last year, this is actually a common move in counselling after a miscarriage and I provided links at the time related to how that counselling distinguishes between "loss of a baby" and "loss of a pregnancy".

That just sounds like a long winded way of saying you'll make everything all about yourself. It's a common move among counsellors who make things all about themselves, as opposed to extending compassion and understanding to their patients and attempting to see their patients perspective rather than attempting to substitute it with their own, as you would try and do. If that's what you consider helpful then who is anyone to disagree? In those circumstances it's easier for them to agree with you to have you quit badgering them.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

But this shows the harm of the anti choice rhetoric with nery a concern for actual women and their suffering. So intent are they on convincing all and sundry that it is a "baby" from even the earliest stages.... people like her are left going around believing that. As if suffering from the impending loss of a pregnancy was not enough, they are convinced they have a "dead baby inside them" which must be an AWFUL misapprehension to be under. As awful as the people so intent to push that misapprehension on as many people as possible.

You appear to be suggesting that people are incapable of thinking for themselves, that they need people like yourself to correct their wrongthink. In this case however, it is your own beliefs and opinions which run contrary to the prevailing orthodoxy, not unlike some people who invoke the "no true scotsman" fallacy to condemn women opposed to abortion policies as misogynists and suggest they could not possibly be feminists. An awful misapprehension to be under -


The Feminist Case Against Abortion: the pro-life roots of the women’s movement


It wouldn't be the first time though that pro-choice lobbyists have bullied and taken advantage of young women who found themselves in vulnerable circumstances to advance their political aims, just ask Norma McCorvey -

McCorvey would later assert that she had been the "pawn" of two young and ambitious lawyers (Weddington and Coffee) who were looking for a plaintiff with whom they could challenge the Texas state law prohibiting abortion.

recedite

Antares35 wrote: »

The reason was that the baby measured 6.5 weeks at which stage a heartbeat may or may not be detected. Therefore from their perspective, to carry out D&C or give pills to bring on contractions could be abortion of a healthy fetus i.e. the reason I was left with a dead baby inside me was directly because of the laws which were in place at the time.

It was because the hospital was unable to determine whether the baby was alive or dead.

You were sure it was dead, and it turned out that you were correct.
Fair play to you for knowing more than the obstetricians, but it would be wrong to change the rules on the basis of something like this.


As it turns out, we did change the rules, but that happened because enough people don't care whether it was alive or dead. So a situation like the one you found yourself in did not really come into it.

ohnonotgmail

recedite wrote: »

It was because the hospital was unable to determine whether the baby was alive or dead.

You were sure it was dead, and it turned out that you were correct.
Fair play to you for knowing more than the obstetricians, but it would be wrong to change the rules on the basis of something like this.


As it turns out, we did change the rules, but that happened because enough people don't care whether it was alive or dead. So a situation like the one you found yourself in did not really come into it.

the rules were changed because we cared more about a living woman than a foetus. And she did know more than the doctors. She knew how long she was pregnant by the application of basic maths.

Christy42

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

the rules were changed because we cared more about a living woman than a foetus. And she did know more than the doctors. She knew how long she was pregnant by the application of basic maths.

Generally I feel that doctors know more about their patient than the patient does. However, I see no reason to disbelieve a patient about how long they have been pregnant. As you basic maths can figure it out and the patient has more info than the doctor.

Plumbthedepths

recedite wrote:

As it turns out, we did change the rules, but that happened because enough people don't care whether it was alive or dead. So a situation like the one you found yourself in did not really come into it.

No,enough people had the empathy and compassion to allow a woman full rights over her own body and health. Actually more than enough 1.4 + million people.

nozzferrahhtoo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

What's this "we" business when I didn't accuse you of doing anything?

It would be nice if you would at least try to keep up with the conversation as the "we" was directly contextual based on the text from you I even quite helpfully quoted for you. To remind you you wrote "I have no doubt pro-choice posters here would have been all over that shìt" and the "we".... quite obviously despite your pretence..... was contextually based on that and placing myself directly within the group YOU decided to wholly misrepresent.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I said that had her anecdotal narrative not being so compelling in cementing her pro-choice position, I have no doubt pro-choice posters here would have been all over that shìt determined to have her see the error of her ways, questioning every syllable of her story as they have been seen to do in the many threads there have been on this topic.

And despite your lack of doubt you were, are, and remain entirely wrong in this regard because as I said when "we" question the misuse of terms we tend to only do it when there was a particular type of misuse. A type that has NOTHING whatsoever to do with whether their use of it cements a pro choice or anti choice position on the issue. That is why, despite your protests in this post, your statement was MOST disingenuous.

No the ACTUAL trigger condition for whether we question peoples use of terms is whether the use of term smuggles in a misleading emotive red herring designed to paper over a lack of actual reasoning, or to act in lieu of an actual argument on the topic/subject.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Given you have often strived to point out that you do not identify yourself as pro-choice

When exactly have I done that????? Can you offer some citations, quotes, context, or material in that regard? I have no recollection of ever having distanced myself from that term at all. I fear you may be mixing me up with someone else entirely. In fact it took me all of five seconds on the search function to find many posts, like this one, where I happily identified myself in this way.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

your position is so limited that I wouldn't suggest you were pro-choice either, as you would seek to limit a woman's freedom to choose for herself what she would wish to do in those circumstances.

That is a linguistic error you have made a few times in the past. I corrected you then and you ran away from the discussion only to show up here again making the same error without any attempt to correct it.

The Pro Choice position is one of offering women a choice that we otherwise were not. That the choice, like pretty much any choice, has constraints does not in any way, least of all linguistically, suggest that a choice is not being offered. So your personal subjective and entirely individual definition of what it means to be "pro choice" is simply a false one and not one that any but a SINGLE person I can think of has ever used or identified with.

Being pro-choice on abortion does not mean, and to my knowledge never has meant, being pro any choice without any limitations. And until this week in fact you were the only poster on this site I was ever aware of who was going around promoting the right to terminate the child right up until term. So your personal definition of what it means to be "pro choice" would mean that pretty much every single person who uses and identifies by that term actually does not qualify for it at all.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Your position is predicated upon sentience, but sentience is already regarded under the terms of viability of the foetus

You are being over simplistic in describing my own positions to me, and thus misrepresenting and distorting them as is your wont and MO. However it is not my position on abortion per se that is predicated on sentience but my ENTIRE concept of morality, ethics and rights. My position on abortion therefore is not predicated upon my position on sentience but is a consequence of one of many things.

However the entire debate of abortion when it occurs usually comes down to the whether a person speaking believes there is any reason to hold moral or ethical concern for a fetus. So yes when the topic comes up and someone wishes to argue we should have such concern, I tend to ask them what they are hanging that concern off. And they, much like yourself, tend not to have an answer for that. It tends to be "Just coz the feelz" they get from something like a heart beat or a tongue motion.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Speaking of red herrings

I recall having a discussion with you about it but alas it requires I link to something I have been told in no uncertain terms ever to link to so if anyone reading wants the substantiation of this claim they are free to contact me separately, lest they think your poor attempt to discredit my history of use of arguments, evidence, data and reasoning holds any substance whatsoever here. Especially given how just above you suggested I said something I never did.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That just sounds like a long winded way of saying you'll make everything all about yourself. It's a common move among counsellors who make things all about themselves, as opposed to extending compassion and understanding to their patients and attempting to see their patients perspective rather than attempting to substitute it with their own, as you would try and do. If that's what you consider helpful then who is anyone to disagree? In those circumstances it's easier for them to agree with you to have you quit badgering them.

Which shows you know very little about psychotherapy and similar fields at all to be honest. Especially if you think ANY of the techniques used to deal with false narratives in anyway can be described as "badgering". Nor does doing so require NOT seeing it from the patients perspective either. You act, imagine and pretend that somehow the two are mutually exclusive and if you do one you can not be doing the other. This too is a false narrative based on ignorance of the practices.

You simply do not know what goes on there at all, to say the least.

But no it is nothing to do with "making it about ourselves" and everything to do with identifying, as I just said, that if pain is being sourced from a false narrative that is not based in reality then it is very beneficial to tease out that false narrative and compare it to the actual reality. To inform the person in question on the differences between concepts like "Loss of a baby" and "Loss of a pregnancy" and the implications of each and then to allow the patient on their own to tease out those implications and find solace in divesting themselves of, not being divested of, the false narratives that were creating unwarranted pain in them.

If you have better approaches to treating women in such pain then by all means contact the industry and forward your proposals. But I am seeing nothing coming from you. It is so easy to tut tut and rubbish practices you know nothing about, without having to suggest any actual alternative. You did the same thing when we were discussing evaluating the success measures of rearing children for example. You moaned a lot about the measures used, but never once suggested alternatives of note.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You appear to be suggesting that people are incapable of thinking for themselves, that they need people like yourself to correct their wrongthink.

I do always love how like above when you tell me what my position "Sounds" like or here when you tell me how my position "appears" you then proceed each and EVERY Time to summarise my position in a way that is entirely different to anything I actually said. It is real William Craig Lane stuff there.

However I do think we ALL, each and every one of us, have errors, falsehoods, false narratives and confusions in our minds and it is through discussion as a species as a whole that we each as individuals uncover that. So it is not that "they" have "wrongthink" and they need "people like me" to correct it. WE ALL have wrong think and we all need each other to correct that.

And yes, if a person is suffering from pain because the attributes implied by the word "baby" are being applied to an entity that does not actually have those elements then such an individual does benefit from having those errors teased out and discussed. And I notice that when declaring by fiat my position is "contrary to the prevailing orthodoxy" you do not actually say which opinion, which orthodoxy, and how the two are at odds. As usual when you try to undermine my positions you contrive to be as vague as possible while doing so by hiding behind sweeping statements that lack actual substance or specifics.

Such as.........

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It wouldn't be the first time though that pro-choice lobbyists have bullied and taken advantage of young women

..... this nonsense here. If you see someone bullying or taking advantage of anyone by all means take it up with THEM. If you want to accuse me of it, or tarnish me by proxy of merely mentioning me in the same breath as them in the hope some of the slime rubs off in the eyes of anyone reading your post..... then I request specifics. Have I bullied anyone? Have I taken Advantage of anyone?

I think you will find the answer to both is a strong and resounding "no" and you just have a record to play and hope I am merely indicted by proxy to it.

Antares35

recedite wrote: »

It was because the hospital was unable to determine whether the baby was alive or dead.

You were sure it was dead, and it turned out that you were correct.
Fair play to you for knowing more than the obstetricians, but it would be wrong to change the rules on the basis of something like this.


As it turns out, we did change the rules, but that happened because enough people don't care whether it was alive or dead. So a situation like the one you found yourself in did not really come into it.

I have not suggested that the "rules" (or,more correctly, laws) were changed because of situations like mine. I said that my experience was a direct result of the laws that were in place at the time. That is a statement of fact.

nozzferrahhtoo

recedite wrote: »

As it turns out, we did change the rules, but that happened because enough people don't care whether it was alive or dead. So a situation like the one you found yourself in did not really come into it.

In fairness it is not that we do not "care" if it is alive or dead. The result of the vote which clearly did not go your way by a large margin was because you and the other anti choice campaigners could not come forth with an argument as to why it's being alive or dead was morally or ethically relevant to affording abortion as a choice to Irish Women.

One eyed Jack

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

The Pro Choice position is one of offering women a choice that we otherwise were not. That the choice, like pretty much any choice, has constraints does not in any way, least of all linguistically, suggest that a choice is not being offered. So your personal subjective and entirely individual definition of what it means to be "pro choice" is simply a false one and not one that any but a SINGLE person I can think of has ever used or identified with.

Being pro-choice on abortion does not mean, and to my knowledge never has meant, being pro any choice without any limitations. And until this week in fact you were the only poster on this site I was ever aware of who was going around promoting the right to terminate the child right up until term. So your personal definition of what it means to be "pro choice" would mean that pretty much every single person who uses and identifies by that term actually does not qualify for it at all.

That's not what it would mean at all. It would mean that they would have to be more specific than just identifying themselves as pro-choice, because as it turns out, the label encompasses a greater spectrum of positions than just how you would define the term. This is why how anyone else but the pregnant woman themselves defines the term, is meaningless. The choice of whether or not to continue her pregnancy has always been, and ultimately will always be a choice she makes for herself. She doesn't need you or I or anyone else offering her a choice as to when she is permitted to end her pregnancy. She can do that herself at any time. That's what choice means as it pertains to individuals choosing for themselves what is in their own best interests according to their moral and ethical concerns. Your moral and ethical concerns, my moral and ethical concerns, anyone else's moral and ethical concerns, are irrelevant to a woman in that position, unless she asks for our input.

Since we're referring to legislation in the US in this thread, I am surprised you're not aware of the fact that there are currently a number of States in the US which place no restrictions on abortion -

Abortion Restrictions in States


This is why Planned Parenthood have also decided to drop the term "pro-choice" - the language you use is simply outdated -


Why Planned Parenthood Is Ditching The "Pro-Choice" Label, According to Cecile Richards

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

However the entire debate of abortion when it occurs usually comes down to the whether a person speaking believes there is any reason to hold moral or ethical concern for a fetus. So yes when the topic comes up and someone wishes to argue we should have such concern, I tend to ask them what they are hanging that concern off. And they, much like yourself, tend not to have an answer for that. It tends to be "Just coz the feelz" they get from something like a heart beat or a tongue motion.

In the paragraph above you mentioned that up to last week I was the only poster you were ever aware of who was going around promoting the right to terminate the child right up until term. Now you're back to referring to the foetus. Lets get our definitions straight first of all -


Foetus -

the developing young in the uterus, specifically the unborn offspring in the postembryonic period, which in humans is from the third month after fertilization until birth.

Child -

n. 1) a person's natural offspring. 2) a person 14 years and under. A "child" should be distinguished from a "minor" who is anyone under 18 in almost all states.


Killing children is a completely different discussion.

The answer to what I hang my concern off has always been that they are human. It would be dishonest of you to imply I have never had an answer for that when that is the answer I have always given you.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

..... this nonsense here. If you see someone bullying or taking advantage of anyone by all means take it up with THEM. If you want to accuse me of it, or tarnish me by proxy of merely mentioning me in the same breath as them in the hope some of the slime rubs off in the eyes of anyone reading your post..... then I request specifics. Have I bullied anyone? Have I taken Advantage of anyone?

I think you will find the answer to both is a strong and resounding "no" and you just have a record to play and hope I am merely indicted by proxy to it.

I don't want to accuse you of it, nor have I sought to tarnish you by proxy, nor did I even mention you when I made my original statement. You associated yourself with that statement. It was your own guilty mind doing all the legwork there for something you simply cannot hold me responsible for.

recedite

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

In fairness it is not that we do not "care" if it is alive or dead.
The result of the vote which clearly did not go your way by a large margin was because you and the other anti choice campaigners could not come forth with an argument as to why it's being alive or dead was morally or ethically relevant to affording abortion as a choice to Irish Women.

Both of those mean the same thing.

You can't refute a statement by rephrasing it, and then presenting that as a counter argument. That's a logic fail, can you not see that?

pinkyeye

This is After Hours lads, what's with the constant long winded multi-quotes??

Fcuk off and find your place in politics. No-one is reading the year long quotes.

Boring.

Timberrrrrrrr

pinkyeye wrote: »

This is After Hours lads, what's with the constant long winded multi-quotes??

Fcuk off and find your place in politics. No-one is reading the year long quotes.

Boring.

Speak for yourself.

nozzferrahhtoo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That's not what it would mean at all. It would mean that they would have to be more specific than just identifying themselves as pro-choice, because as it turns out, the label encompasses a greater spectrum of positions than just how you would define the term.

But it is not about just how I define the term now is it. It is about how the majority of people using the term are defining themselves by it. Especially in the context of a referendum that unifies the society in question to vote on a single issue.

I mean I am happy to conceed, and in fact I do not conceed it given I never indicated otherwise, that there are people who have varying understandings of the term. But when an understanding of the term is coming from one person and one person only, and that person is claiming someone else does not fit the term when in fact that someone else identifies openly with the term in question........ then this becomes a point of relevance.

And that is what is happening both here and the last time you trotted this nonsense redefinition out. It is you and you alone posturing this definition. I have literally for all my work on the subject of abortion here and abroad not met anyone other than you using it. And not only are you using it but you are presuming to use it to tell me MY use of the term is wrong.

I notice too that when asked to cite where I said I was not pro choice or as you put it I "often strived to point out that you do not identify yourself as pro-choice" you returned with not a SINGLE example of this "often" either. In fact you contrived to only start responding to my post from a sentence soon AFTER I asked you for this citation and you ignored both it and everything before it in my post.

Telling. More of your words put into my mouth that you later can not defend.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

She doesn't need you or I or anyone else offering her a choice as to when she is permitted to end her pregnancy. She can do that herself at any time.

Of course she can if she wants to do it illegally or without the help of local medical professionals. She can choose to break the law all she wants. As can you at any time of the day.

But again this is not what "pro choice" means by the people using the term or in the context of a thread discussing actual laws on the subject of abortion. As usual with you, you are forced to manufacture a point by entirely ignoring the context of the thread topic and the subject at hand.

My position as a "pro choice" campaigner, a term I use happily and never despite your claims have I distanced myself from.... is about the choices we as a society offer such women in our laws and in our medical institutions. Just like when I say I campaign to give people a right to die..... it is contextually a nonsense were you to come back and say "Sure anyone can do that at any time if they choose, they could just fling themselves off the side of the nearest Mountain shure" as if you are saying anything at all.

So no "pro choice" is not about the context of the woman as you are pretending here, but the context of the choice we as a society are affording women in a thread topic specifically about changes to abortion LAW.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Since we're referring to legislation in the US in this thread, I am surprised you're not aware of the fact that there are currently a number of States in the US which place no restrictions on abortion

How am I not aware of it when I point this out in many posts on many threads on the subject? You do realise me not mentioning something that I do not find relevant does not mean I am not aware of it? Actually I make the point on many threads for example that the time period when most women (over 96%) actually seek choice based abortion tends to remain constant regardless of the legality or illegality of their jurisdiction, and regardless of the cut off periods if any the jurisdiction has.

Legal, illegal, early cut off, late cut off..... the figures show the vast majority by far of women get their abortion in or before week 12 and almost all of them by week 16.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

This is why Planned Parenthood have also decided to drop the term "pro-choice" - the language you use is simply outdated

Except it isn't and many people identify with it here. Further even if it was outdated in another jurisdiction completely different to our own, that would not even manage to make it out dated here.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

In the paragraph above you mentioned that up to last week I was the only poster you were ever aware of who was going around promoting the right to terminate the child right up until term. Now you're back to referring to the foetus. Lets get our definitions straight first of all

My definitions are not at fault there. I used both terms entirely correctly thanks. And I stand by what I said. Up until this month following some recent posts on the A&A forum you were the only boards poster I was aware of who thought the woman could terminate the child right up until Term.

I conversed with you quite a few times on this and asked you (without any coherent answer as I recall) why mere position dictates rights. I specifically even remember using a play on the "Pass go collect 200 dollars" cliche to ask you this question when I asked how rights are attained on the way down the birth canal, like a Sneetch getting a star passing through the Star On Machine of McMonkey McBean. As I recall the only coherent answer I got from you was something about you imagining Mary Robinson was on your side. Nothing more.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The answer to what I hang my concern off has always been that they are human.

Which they are from conception. Yet for a time you were advocating abortion until term. So clearly your concerns are hung off more than their taxonomy here.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I don't want to accuse you of it, nor have I sought to tarnish you by proxy, nor did I even mention you when I made my original statement. You associated yourself with that statement. It was your own guilty mind doing all the legwork there for something you simply cannot hold me responsible for.

Nope you are replying to only half of what I said there in order to distort it. While also ignoring the "IF". What I DID say, contrary to your new version of it, is you are playing a record that is nothing to do with anything I actually wrote and if you find someone doing those things go and take it up with them rather than play the record at me as filler in place of actually responding to me.

I then went on to ADD to that bit you have ignored that indeed "If you want to accuse me of it, or tarnish me by proxy of merely mentioning me in the same breath as them in the hope some of the slime rubs off in the eyes of anyone reading your post..... then I request specifics."

So it is less my guilty mind in play here so much as you struggling with a simple If-then structure in language.

nozzferrahhtoo

recedite wrote: »

Both of those mean the same thing.

To you maybe, but when I or anyone I have been talking to says the same thing we do not mean the same thing and we can be very clear when asked on the difference. So I will do that for you now.

I do care when things are alive or not. Personally. Emotionally. But that does not mean it always informs my moral or ethical conclusions. Nor, for much of the time, should it.

For example I care about the well being of living cows. So their being alive is relevant. It informs my position as a meat eater not a jot however. It is not that I care the cow is alive or not, it is that I do not find this morally relevant in that context.

So what I care about, and what I find morally relevant, are not always the same thing.

recedite wrote: »

You can't refute a statement by rephrasing it, and then presenting that as a counter argument. That's a logic fail, can you not see that?

If and when I do that, you can pull me up on it. I did not do so here, so there was no logic fail. Can you not see that?

recedite

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

For example I care about the well being of living cows. So their being alive is relevant. It informs my position as a meat eater not a jot however. It is not that I care the cow is alive or not, it is that I do not find this morally relevant in that context.

Interesting.
So just a wild question here, out of the blue...
Would you eat a foetus? (assuming it was nicely cooked and presented of course- or maybe in a burger)
Logically, if I'm understanding you correctly, there's little or no ethical difference between killing a cabbage, a cow or a foetus.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

pinkyeye wrote: »

This is After Hours lads, what's with the constant long winded multi-quotes??

Fcuk off and find your place in politics. No-one is reading the year long quotes.

Boring.

The multiquote wars. I just scroll past quickly. None of those involved are ever going to change their mind - hence the long-winded treatises - so I’m not sure what the point is. Obduracy is a beeyatch. Some random passers-by might read their posts but I suspect many find them off-putting. They ruin what could be interesting threads on the topic.

pinkyeye

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

The multiquote wars. I just scroll past quickly. None of those involved are ever going to change their mind - hence the long-winded treatises - so I’m not sure what the point is. Obduracy is a beeyatch. Some random passers-by might read their posts but I suspect many find them off-putting. They ruin what could be interesting threads on the topic.

You put it much better than me.

nozzferrahhtoo

recedite wrote: »

Would you eat a foetus? (assuming it was nicely cooked and presented of course- or maybe in a burger)
Logically, if I'm understanding you correctly, there's little or no ethical difference between killing a cabbage, a cow or a foetus.

Actually I would say there is a large ethical difference in that the fetus is not at all a sentient agent while the cow is. So while I am ok with the ethics of killing animals for food..... I would still see the killing of a cow as MORE ethically problematic relative to the death of a fetus at, say, 12 weeks gestation.

As for whether I would eat one, given their size there is not much point is there? It would be like putting a single caviar egg on a sandwich for me. But if you want to know would I have moral objections to it? No I would not. Actually I have had human placenta in the past as a dietary indulgence of note. But I tend not to eat human food products in general due to the usual medical concerns over eating members of your own species.

recedite

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

It would be like putting a single caviar egg on a sandwich for me.

You must be a big lad!
But thanks for your honest answer anyway.
I am reminded of Jonathan Swift's "modest proposal".

Swift has his proposer further degrade the Irish by using language ordinarily reserved for animals. Lewis argues that the speaker uses "the vocabulary of animal husbandry" to describe the Irish. Once the children have been commodified, Swift's rhetoric can easily turn "people into animals, then meat, and from meat, logically, into tonnage worth a price per pound".

It could only work if tiny Lilliputians were eating the foetuses of their beefy rivals, the Blefuscians.

Grayson

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Actually I would say there is a large ethical difference in that the fetus is not at all a sentient agent while the cow is. So while I am ok with the ethics of killing animals for food..... I would still see the killing of a cow as MORE ethically problematic relative to the death of a fetus at, say, 12 weeks gestation.

As for whether I would eat one, given their size there is not much point is there? It would be like putting a single caviar egg on a sandwich for me. But if you want to know would I have moral objections to it? No I would not. Actually I have had human placenta in the past as a dietary indulgence of note. But I tend not to eat human food products in general due to the usual medical concerns over eating members of your own species.

I wouldn't eat it but it's the same reason i wouldn't eat a leg that was amputated from a person. It's human tissue. It's not an inbuilt bias. And the amputated leg isn't sentient. It's really just protein.

I remember seeing something about people spreading manure. they were fine using cow manure in their gardens, but the idea of manure from humans is just icky. The same goes for human breast milk. there's loads who would drink cows milk who would think human milk is icky.

It's nothing to do with the facts and composition of the substance, it's just an inbuilt bias most people have.