Abortion

PrincessLola

PrincessLola wrote: »

I actually don't think its an innocent baby. Its not a baby at all

But in terms of mother's welfare, its probably more traumatic carrying a rapist's 'baby' to term than a 'baby' that has been conceived with consent.

Sorry I didn't explain myself. I wasn't quoting your post because I disagreed with it, rather that it brought up the "except in cases of rape" topic.

I'm pro-choice, and I don't think it's an innocent baby. However I do sympathise with how horrible it must be for someone who does believe it's murder (regardless of whether or not that belief is correct) to have to accept that it's happening all the time. I understand their concern. I don't believe that that concern is enough reason to stop people getting abortions, but I do feel empathy for what it must be like to hold that concern.

As a pro-choicer, I have the luxury of being able to leave pro-lifers to their beliefs.

But I cannot understand how some people who claim abortion to be murder can say "well obviously if it's a case of rape then it's ok". How does murder suddenly become ok? It completely undermines their argument.

coffee_cake

true-or-false wrote: »

But I cannot understand how some people who claim abortion to be murder can say "well obviously if it's a case of rape then it's ok". How does murder suddenly become ok? It completely undermines their argument.

Indeed, those are the pro-punishment ones

philologos

bluewolf wrote: »

The whole point of the argument is that prochoicers think it's all different categories even within "human" and "life"
which is why "be honest it's killing" gets you exactly nowhere

washing your hands can kill human skin cells
human, life
so again, not as simple as "just admit it's killing"

It really is though. A foetus is a human life comprised of sperm and ova which will ultimately be the same life that is born, the same life that progresses through childhood, adolescence, adulthood and death.

Skin cells don't make this development.

I'm just saying, this is what the foetus is, this is what the embryo is. Abortion is the willful killing of an unborn child. Denying this is making excuses. If someone said to be, yes it is killing, and yes it is justified for X, Y and Z reason. I'd find that more honest.

nozzferrahhtoo

philologos wrote: »

It really is though. A foetus is a human life comprised of sperm and ova which will ultimately be the same life that is born, the same life that progresses through childhood, adolescence, adulthood and death.

This is just linguistic trickery and no more. Calling it the same "life" and just declaring it is therefore murder off the back of it. You are the last person around here who gets to declare who you find honest or not given your history about these parts too.

"Life" is everywhere though on this planet and we kill most of it with impunity. So simply being "life" is not enough. You have to define why "human life" is more important than all the other life we are perfectly ok with killing.

What you find however is that when you engage openly in that definition... there is no sensible way of defining that difference that affords a zygote human rights.

To get THERE you have to perform magic or start making up gods which.... oh wait.... that IS exactly what you do do.

Turtwig

philologos wrote: »

It really is though. A foetus is a human life comprised of sperm and ova which will ultimately be the same life that is born, the same life that progresses through childhood, adolescence, adulthood and death.

What is death? Be specific.

philologos

Jernal wrote: »

What is death? Be specific.

The action or fact of dying or being killed; the end of the life of a person or organism.
An instance of a person or an animal dying.

When that process that I described, ends essentially when growth and development comes to a halt.

When push comes to shove, I can't ever argue for abortion-by-choice, simply put because I know that there is something wrong about condemning a human life to death before it is born.

And by the by, life is a general concept, but there are specific instances of life. I am an instance of life, and you are as well. The biology clearly backs this up insofar as children are distinct in terms of DNA to their mother.

philologos

philologos wrote: »

And by the by, life is a general concept, but there are specific instances of life. I am an instance of life, and you are as well. The biology clearly backs this up insofar as children are distinct in terms of DNA to their mother.

So if a clone was born, would you have no qualms killing it?

IzzyWizzy

PrincessLola wrote: »

"taking responsibility for your actions" You'd think all pregnancies were somehow conceived by the mother alone by
the tone of your argument.

Who cares how they are conceived?

The woman gets pregnant, carries the child, gives birth and is the one who almost always brings up or has primary custody of a child resulting from an unplanned pregnancy if the relationship breaks down. What's your point? You're only proving that some women still have the childish and silly notion that men and women can behave in the same way sexually and that the consequences are the same. They are NOT. As a woman, it is YOUR responsibility to make sure you don't become pregnant if you don't want a baby. I'm so glad I was brought up to understand that. It's simple biology. YOU are actually the one 'attributing blame' - you're doing exactly what you're accusing me of. This 'it takes two to make a baby' argument is completely irrelevant to this debate. Comments like yours are only relevant in cases where the woman decides to keep the baby and wants to pursue the father for maintenance.

I can't stand your victim complex and 'we don't create babies on our own, wah wah wah' mentality. If you don't want to get pregnant, you take precautions to make sure you don't. Simple as. Does the fact that the father has NO say in whether or not the mother has an abortion not tell you something? (Don't bother answering that, I'm fairly sure you expect women to be able to have it both ways) This is a WOMAN'S issue, not a man's. It's hilarious that you're criticising people for slutshaming and blaming women and yet your argument boils down to whose 'fault' an unplanned pregnancy is. Childish notions of what's 'fair' or 'not fair' are not helpful.

I think your argument, which primarily boils down to "how can these stupid women get pregnant when contraception is so reliable" is flawed and not taking into account experiences outside of your own personal bubble. Its not always reliable, even the pill can have devastating consequences for the emotional health of some women. Things don't always work out like you expect them to, and telling people to practise abstinence (like they did to teenagers in the USA) DOESN'T WORK.

I have plenty of anecdotal evidence. I'm not telling anyone to practise abstinence. I'm saying there are plenty of contraceptive options available and they really aren't that difficult to use. Are you arguing with that? You really believe that the vast majority of women who have abortions really couldn't have used a reliable method of contraception or two?

The topic of abortion being illegal in Ireland came up one night when we had friends over and the two girls who had had abortions said they would have been more careful if abortion were illegal in England. Sorry you find it so hard to believe, but abortion is NOT always seen as a last resort for desperate women here. It's sometimes (often?) a safety net and a back-up for when your clearly unreliable contraceptive method fails. Obviously nobody WANTS an abortion. Nobody enjoys having an abortion. But our friend who had one last year has continued to use only condoms and openly admits she'll have another abortion if she gets pregnant again. She's not even careful with the condoms. She told me one had come off inside her last time she had sex and when I asked her if she'd taken the morning after pill, she looked at me like I was an idiot and said 'oh, he hadn't come yet, it's fine.' If that's not fairly flippant to you, then I don't know what to tell you.

If you are so pro-choice, than why are you also so ant-abortion? Do you honestly believe that the fetus at conception is a baby?
And what you are doing is slutshaming BTW, deal with it.

I'm not anti-abortion. You just want to believe I am because I don't fit in with your little 'women can do what they like and have no consequences' agenda. Wake up. I couldn't give a flying f*ck what anyone does in their sex life. I just can't understand why being responsible and protecting yourself is so hard. I know plenty of women who regularly sleep with different partners and who have never had an unplanned pregnancy. If you think suggesting that women shouldn't have unprotected sex with casual partners is slutshaming, hey, go ahead and think that.

I understand that the notion that some women aren't devastated by their abortions is difficult for you, but don't blame me for that. I KNOW that a lot of people have this attitude and I'm STILL pro-choice. I'm sorry if you can only justify your pro-choice views by telling yourself otherwise, but the bubble might pop one day.

PrincessLola

bluewolf wrote: »

Indeed, those are the pro-punishment ones

Agree entirely. Pro-lifer's arguments are not at all consistent with the notion that abortion is 'murder' This graph explains it quite well.

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lng58mOenA1qaetmco1_1280.png

Their beliefs are far more consistent with punishing women for willingly having sex, think about it, If you are pro-choice in terms of rape and incest than you can't actually think its murder, you think victims of rape are the 'right' kind of victim.

nozzferrahhtoo

philologos wrote: »

I know that there is something wrong about condemning a human life to death before it is born.

Oh well if you declare you "know" it then it must be true, right? Bull. You are no more condemning a human to life by terminating a zygote than you are by deciding not to have sex in the first place.

philologos wrote: »

And by the by, life is a general concept

Yes. The first true thing you have said. And you simply manipulate that concept... avoiding specific definitions and concepts like a plague... so you can say pretty much anything you want and make it sound like it is based in evidence, science and definitions.

Life IS a general concept and when you change that by making the definitions specific to the subject at hand your entire "argument" falls apart like a sand castle in a tornado.

philologos wrote: »

The biology clearly backs this up insofar as children are distinct in terms of DNA to their mother.

So is the ovum. So is the sperm. So is a tree. So what? "Distinct" is not a magic word that is going to get you where you want to be in this thread.

RaRaRasputin

IzzyWizzy wrote: »

The topic of abortion being illegal in Ireland came up one night when we had friends over and the two girls who had had abortions said they would have been more careful if abortion were illegal in England.

I fully agree with your argument that abortion should only be the last resort because people should be intelligent enough to use contraception (and yeah, let's just put aside the occasional accidents though people did everything they could to prevent it).

However, are you basing your rage here at a total number of 2 people whose cases you witnessed? Doesn't convince me so...

IzzyWizzy

RaRaRasputin wrote: »

I fully agree with your argument that abortion should only be the last resort because people should be intelligent enough to use contraception (and yeah, let's just put aside the occasional accidents though people did everything they could to prevent it).

However, are you basing your rage here at a total number of 2 people whose cases you witnessed? Doesn't convince me so...

Of course not. Far, far more than these two. We just happened to have had a conversation about abortion with these two friends in the last few weeks.

Turtwig

philologos wrote: »

When that process that I described, ends essentially when growth and development comes to a halt.

When push comes to shove, I can't ever argue for abortion-by-choice, simply put because I know that there is something wrong about condemning a human life to death before it is born.

And by the by, life is a general concept, but there are specific instances of life. I am an instance of life, and you are as well. The biology clearly backs this up insofar as children are distinct in terms of DNA to their mother.

We are all condemned to death before we are born. And in your world view we are all condemned to an eternal hell unless we find salvation.

A baby born with no head. Is that alive? In my book it's not but it still exhibits growth and development. Our "corpses" still show signs of growth and development after we are considered dead. Your definition of death seems very inexact and impractical to me. Want to try again?

Life is far from a general concept. We are discussing the potential death, murder (terms you like to use) of innocents so please refrain from generalities and be specific. Children have distinct DNA? Great so does the baby with no head!

up for anything

If I agree with abortion surely then I shouldn't be too bothered if people use it as a contraceptive and I'm not. All this hedging around saying that abortion is fine before so many weeks or in rape cases or if the fetus is severely malformed or not likely to be a viable baby once born is pretty silly. Either agree with abortion or don't. I'm not going to take it upon myself to sit as judge and jury on someone's wish to have an abortion and I'd like it if that was reciprocated.

Stark

Hedging around isn't silly, moral absolutism is. I'm pro-choice but I'm not going to say that aborting a foetus at 39 weeks is okay because it clearly isn't.

philologos

Stark wrote: »

Hedging around isn't silly, moral absolutism is. I'm pro-choice but I'm not going to say that aborting a foetus at 39 weeks is okay.

Moral objectivism is not the same thing as moral absolutism.

Most pro-lifers would understand that in situations where mother or child would both die without intervention that it is better to save one life than to lose two for example.

Moral absolutism - something is right or wrong in any given situation.
Moral objectivism - in any given situation, there is something right and something wrong.

There's clear differences in the latter from the former. I'm subscribe to moral objectivism, not moral absolutism.

Hedging around on severely serious issues isn't just silly, but it is dangerous. When we come to an issue of human life, as a result, it is something we should take with the utmost of seriousness not as a mere matter of choice.

RaRaRasputin

IzzyWizzy wrote: »

Of course not. Far, far more than these two. We just happened to have had a conversation about abortion with these two friends in the last few weeks.

God, you must have a lot of great party conversations when you're out

king_of_inismac

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

We do not even give 10 year olds "The same rights no more or no less" than we do to a mother. They do not have the right to vote or buy and consume alcohol for example. So your statement is ridiculous even off the bat.

However I see no reason to arbitrarily pick conception as a dividing point between rights and no rights so you will have to adumbrate your thinking on that one for me.

I was referring to the right to life. That right is afforded to children and adults alike.

Secondly, whatever point you choose is arbitrary. For me, the point of conception is the most sensible point to choose. Any other point is EVEN more arbitrary.

Because I believe life starts at conception, I cant honestly support abortion (except when the life of the mother is threathened).

Similarly, for those who believe life starts much later, I understand why they would support access to abortion in Ireland.

Turtwig

king_of_inismac wrote: »

Secondly, whatever point you choose is arbitrary. For me, the point of conception is the most sensible point to choose. Any other point is EVEN more arbitrary.

Let's leave aside for the moment the vagueness of the point of conception.

Take the point you envision to be the point of conception. Freeze that moment. Now imagine it to be replicated over, say, 1,000 times and placed in a container. Essentially 1,000 lives. Now imagine a dog (or cat!) beside that container and set the imaginary room they're in on fire and you have only time to save either the Dog or the container of cells. Which do you pick? If you're truly believe life begins at conception then saving the cells should be a no brainer. If it's giving you some second thoughts then it's likely you don't actually believe human life begins at conception. The point of development at which the dogs life becomes on par or less to the "developing cells" is when you consider the cells to be an actual human life. (Remember dogs probably aren't even self aware!)

I understand why you think the arbitrary point should be chosen at the moment of conception but unfortunately the facts of the matter are that point, that specific point, isn't an exact point. The point at which folks consider it to be human life is even vaguer again. Which is why I think it's better to tackle it not as life issue but a death one. Define when a living human (one that lived a life) is no longer a human and work back from there. Even then it's a stickler, but I think the point of conception is the spherical-chicken-in-a-vacuum like approximation.

PrincessLola

IzzyWizzy wrote: »

Who cares how they are conceived?

The woman gets pregnant, carries the child, gives birth and is the one who almost always brings up or has primary custody of a child resulting from an unplanned pregnancy if the relationship breaks down. What's your point? You're only proving that some women still have the childish and silly notion that men and women can behave in the same way sexually and that the consequences are the same. They are NOT. As a woman, it is YOUR responsibility to make sure you don't become pregnant if you don't want a baby. I'm so glad I was brought up to understand that. It's simple biology. YOU are actually the one 'attributing blame' - you're doing exactly what you're accusing me of. This 'it takes two to make a baby' argument is completely irrelevant to this debate. Comments like yours are only relevant in cases where the woman decides to keep the baby and wants to pursue the father for maintenance.

You are: Pro-choice
Yet think abortion is a bad thing. Why? If its not murder and if the fetus is not a baby then why are you so against it?
You must believe the fetus is not a baby if you are pro-choice?

You're not really pro-choice, I'm guessing. Oh wait I know, you are pro-choice, but feel entitled to judge the f*ck out of women who choose to excercise that choice. Okay then.

I can't stand your victim complex and 'we don't create babies on our own, wah wah wah' mentality.

lol, is 'victim complex' your choice derailing word of the day?
Seriously though, I know women are the ones that deal with the consequences (hence why I am pro-choice) I was just explainng that you were going down the whole 'don't open your legs if you don't wanna get pregnant you dumb slut' road, which is also the road of dumb f*ckery, just sayin'.

If you don't want to get pregnant, you take precautions to make sure you don't. Simple as.

Except it is not always that simple. I know you like saying these words because they sound snappy to you, and they make sense if you don't think about it to hard, but women are going to have accidental pregnancies, they always have and they always will. Sh*t happens.

(Don't bother answering that, I'm fairly sure you expect women to be able to have it both ways)

lol I was expecting something like this. Soooo precious.

I have plenty of anecdotal evidence.

Anecdotal evidence you say? :pac:
We all know thats the best kind of evidence.

I'm not telling anyone to practise abstinence. I'm saying there are plenty of contraceptive options available and they really aren't that difficult to use.

Yeah stupid wimminz can't use contraception. Seriously, what you are actually saying is "lolz dumb bitches only care about their weight so they don't go on the pill, why can't they practice abstinence and close their legs for once!11"

But our friend who had one last year has continued to use only condoms and openly admits she'll have another abortion if she gets pregnant again. She's not even careful with the condoms. She told me one had come off inside her last time she had sex and when I asked her if she'd taken the morning after pill, she looked at me like I was an idiot and said 'oh, he hadn't come yet, it's fine.' If that's not fairly flippant to you, then I don't know what to tell you.

Flippant? No, that story is emotionally charged and questionable and full of 'she said' like all anecdotal evidence stories.
Also: "shes not even careful with condoms"? where did you get that from? Because it slipped off? What is this logic?

I'm not anti-abortion. You just want to believe I am because I don't fit in with your little 'women can do what they like and have no consequences' agenda. Wake up.

Actually now that you mention it..

Yes, women can do what they f*cking want with their own bodies, THATS WHAT PRO-CHOICE IS IN CASE YOU'VE MISSED THE MEMO.

And the vast majority do not behave like the people in your 'stories' , I don't think you are pro-choice, you are pro-choice but love to judge the f*ck out of women who excercise that choice. Except it is in actual fact none of your business what these women do with their bodies, I think you just like being judgemental?

nozzferrahhtoo

king_of_inismac wrote: »

I was referring to the right to life. That right is afforded to children and adults alike.

Nice back pedal, that is clearly not what you said the first time, but let us run with it anyway.

king_of_inismac wrote: »

whatever point you choose is arbitrary. For me, the point of conception is the most sensible point to choose. Any other point is EVEN more arbitrary.

Quite the contrary. Some points can be argued with philosophical and moral points. Which makes them a lot less arbitrary that picking some point in time that sounds good or is easy. For example if the best argument you can come up with for using conception as the cut off point is "It makes sense to me" then you have not made any argument at all.

In fact it is quite easy to show you how your conception cut off does not work.

First for something to “Begin” we need someone to actually start at your conception point in time. What has begun exactly? The cells that produced the sperm and egg were alive. The sperm and egg were alive. So what is added at conception exactly that was not there before?

Sometimes however after conception the cell splits into twins. If life began only at conception then what has happened here? Has one life become two half lives? I would love to see you tell a room full of twins they are only half alive. Has a new life popped up AFTER conception? Not good for your arbitrarily and poorly informed decision to use conception as your cut off huh.

Why are there not more twins then if this happens so often? Often one twin reabsorbs the other. What happened here? Did half alive twins become one? Did one murder the other? Is one life suddenly dead, or if you are religious was one cast into eternal limbo as an un-baptised soul?

Clearly this arithmetic of souls/lives makes NO sense and nor does your “life begins at conception” idea.

Even then it gets worse because at conception all you have is a unique strand of DNA. The world is full of unique DNA in every person, animal or plant you look at. What makes one strand of DNA more important than another? To ground your wish to protect one strand of DNA with rights over countless millions of others you need to make further arguments and none of those arguments, to my knowledge, have yet coherently grounded the right to life anywhere near conception.

philologos

PrincessLola: Do we really need that kind of nonsense or can we just discuss this in a reasonable manner?

Do you not see at all why people might have serious concerns about people destroying human life as a matter of choice?

nozzferrahhtoo

philologos wrote: »

Do you not see at all why people might have serious concerns about people destroying human life as a matter of choice?

Pro choice people have a problem with destroying human life too. You seem to love pretending it is otherwise.

The issue here is not about whether people have an issue with destroying human life... and you well know it.

The issue IS that what we are defining as "human life" is vastly different to what you are defining it as. A zygote to us is no more "human life" than a blueprint for a table actually is a table.

OldNotWIse

Medusa22 wrote: »

There is no alternative to your argument then, you must be admitting that terminations are acceptable in those situations?

I believe that abortions are acceptable (but not ideal) in a situation where a woman has been raped, or indeed a minor who has become pregnant, hopefully before the ten week mark. Is that ok with you?

OldNotWIse

JupiterKid wrote: »

It's amazing and a tad depressing that in the year 2012 this debate is still raging and abortion remains illegal in this country.

I dont find it depressing at all that it is still illegal in this country. Cue onslaught :rolleyes:

OldNotWIse

bluewolf wrote: »

The whole point of the argument is that prochoicers think it's all different categories even within "human" and "life"
which is why "be honest it's killing" gets you exactly nowhere

washing your hands can kill human skin cells
human, life
so again, not as simple as "just admit it's killing"

I think we all know the difference between washing one's hands and having a fetus killed in utero. Otherwise we'd all have OCD washing our hands every hour lest we have an unwanted baby in 9 months.

coffee_cake

OldNotWIse wrote: »

I believe that abortions are acceptable (but not ideal) in a situation where a woman has been raped, or indeed a minor who has become pregnant, hopefully before the ten week mark. Is that ok with you?

Why rape? surely it's still the same baby as it would be from non rape?

OldNotWIse wrote: »

I think we all know the difference between washing one's hands and having a fetus killed in utero. Otherwise we'd all have OCD washing our hands every hour lest we have an unwanted baby in 9 months.

Are you deliberately being obtuse?

nozzferrahhtoo

OldNotWIse wrote: »

I believe that abortions are acceptable (but not ideal) in a situation where a woman has been raped

I have steeped myself for a long time in arguments from many sides of this debate and this one has always been the most baffling to me in general (not specific to you in other words).

Many anti abortion campaigners say it is morally wrong to kill a child in the womb at any stage. But then many of them give rape as an exception.

Either the fetus has rights, or it does not. If it does (I do not think it does as you know) then why should it lose those rights because of a crime someone else that is not the fetus performed on someone else who is also not the fetus?

I am struggling to think of another scenario where X is punished because Y committed a crime on Z.

Even as a pro-choice debater therefore I never, ever, use the rape argument to support my position and I can not understand why many anti abortion speakers grant it as an exception to their own case.

OldNotWIse wrote: »

I assume your post is directed at me (it's hard to know if you dont use the quote button)

On a side not if you go back you will see that you did not use the quote function correctly yourself. Had the user hit quote on your post it would have resulted in a mess. So it was best they did not.

Perhaps, and I mean this in the nicest way and not to rile you up or anything, before we talk about people using the quote button you might consider starting to use the "preview post" button?

OldNotWIse

true-or-false wrote: »

Sorry I didn't explain myself. I wasn't quoting your post because I disagreed with it, rather that it brought up the "except in cases of rape" topic.

I'm pro-choice, and I don't think it's an innocent baby. However I do sympathise with how horrible it must be for someone who does believe it's murder (regardless of whether or not that belief is correct) to have to accept that it's happening all the time. I understand their concern. I don't believe that that concern is enough reason to stop people getting abortions, but I do feel empathy for what it must be like to hold that concern.

As a pro-choicer, I have the luxury of being able to leave pro-lifers to their beliefs.

But I cannot understand how some people who claim abortion to be murder can say "well obviously if it's a case of rape then it's ok". How does murder suddenly become ok? It completely undermines their argument.

I dont agree. I do not like the idea of aboritons full stop, however my stance has always been that for rape victims, it is acceptable but not ideal. For a start, if it were reserved solely for rape victims, there would be hundreds of thousands less every year. There is also the issue to consider that rape is a violation against a woman's body. Forcing her to carry her rapsts child is a further violation. This cannot be viewed in the same light as a woman who has had consensual sex and became pregnant as a result. And no before you all start baying, it is not about "punishment" (who would that serve???). Saying that someone's argument is "weak" because they refuse to be "black and white" about a certain topic IS weak. Nothing in life is so simple that we can say "Oh A is always wrong, B is always right". There are always caveats, exceptions, and allowing for these does not make your argument flawed, it simpy reflects the fact that you are living in the real world, and are aware that it is,sadly, far far far from ideal.

OldNotWIse

bluewolf wrote: »

Why rape? surely it's still the same baby as it would be from non rape?



Are you deliberately being obtuse?

Answer to question 1: see post 1380

Answe to question 2: no