Why we can't have a rational conversation about abortion

Foxhound38

http://www.broadsheet.ie/2013/05/03/where-is-your-decency/

So it seems the pro-life campaign wheeled out Berry Keily (their so-called medical advisor) to lecture a woman who lost her baby to anencephaly (a foetal abnormality, no chance of survival outside the womb) about how she was wrong to take the boat to end it humanely rather than carry it to term knowing it had no chance and would be in extreme pain. So far, so predictable from the religious extremists. But then she said something that absolutely floored me:

Well can I ask you? No but what about then the people in a situation like this who would argue for post-birth abortion, that if the baby is born alive and does live for a while but the mother finds this very difficult to deal with. Should that mother have the right to have her baby killed even though it’s still living?

What? Did she really bring the debate this low? The interview stopped very soon after she said this, and thankfully so because I doubt it's possible to have a meaningfull conversation about this topic with someone who would talk such nonsense.

Why can't we have a rational conversation about this in this country?

jaffacakesyum

Because people are idiotic judgemental pr1cks who can't mind their own business and want to dictate to others how they should live their life, what they can and can't do to their own body, what deity they should believe in, who they should be allowed to marry and always be told by the men in government whats what.

I fúcking hate people sometimes.

marienbad

Because one side have the answer and work back from that.

wolfpawnat

Because many of the more extreme on both sides are not willing to even consider listening to the other. Even if they disagree with it, listening to the other side and attempting to have a rational argument about it with them seems beyond some people.

FamousSeamus

This debate can never be rational, my mother is a strong anti-abortionist and whenever the debate comes up speaking science or medical facts doesn't mean anything its always "murder murder murder"!!

Also anti abortionists also yell louder and refuse to listen to the other side and always resort to the same arguments (my mother has often used the one you quoted above). Sadly the only way is to keep educating and removing religion from politics and education, only then can this topic be discussed rationally.

An Coilean

Why cant we have a rational debate? Apparently because the other side refuses to agree with your position and as such they are irrational, unreasonable 'idiotic judgemental pr1cks' etc etc..

:rolleyes:

Because people are idiotic judgemental pr1cks who can't mind their own business and want to dictate to others how they should live their life, what they can and can't do to their own body.

Some people are of the opinion that it is not just a question of what someone wants to do with their own body. That the unborn child has a right to life that supersedes the mothers right to choice. Does that really make them 'idiotic judgemental pr1cks who can't mind their own business'?

Shenshen

An Coilean wrote: »

Some people are of the opinion that it is not just a question of what someone wants to do with their own body. That the unborn child has a right to life that supersedes the mothers right to choice. Does that really make them 'idiotic judgemental pr1cks who can't mind their own business'?

Well, considering that there is no person alive and breathing today whose right to live supersedes another person's right to determine what happens to their own bodies, where would unborn children get this right from?

Valetta

Shenshen wrote: »

Well, considering that there is no person alive and breathing today whose right to live supersedes another person's right to determine what happens to their own bodies, where would unborn children get this right from?

Some of us choose to give them that right.

FatherLen

because the 'pro-life' side think the 'pro-choice' side are baby murdering monsters and the 'pro-choice' side think the 'pro-life' side are bible bashing red necks.

these are not the right ingredients to a rational debate

Gulliver

An Coilean wrote: »

Why cant we have a rational debate? Apparently because the other side refuses to agree with your position and as such they are irrational, unreasonable 'idiotic judgemental pr1cks' etc etc..

:rolleyes:



Some people are of the opinion that it is not just a question of what someone wants to do with their own body. That the unborn child has a right to life that supersedes the mothers right to choice. Does that really make them 'idiotic judgemental pr1cks who can't mind their own business'?

Ok, say we run with the thought that right to life supersedes the right to choose. However, what if the mother's life was in danger due to the pregnancy? If both lives are equal, then it comes back to choice. Mother or child? A person you've spent x amount of time with or a person you haven't met yet. A choice I hope none of us ever have to make.

(I'm neither pro or anti abortion, I'm of the opinion that the act of abortion should not be taken lightly - it should only be used in dire circumstances - such as anencephaly, sepsis, rape etc. It should not be a tool for people too lazy/stupid/insert other quantifier here to use protection)

Timmyctc

because religion /thread

An Coilean

Shenshen wrote: »

Well, considering that there is no person alive and breathing today whose right to live supersedes another person's right to determine what happens to their own bodies, where would unborn children get this right from?

Not really sure how that would be relevant, if you consider an unborn child to be a human being that has the right to life, then the mother can no more choose to end that life than they can after the child is born. Some people don't consider an unborn child to be a human being with the right to life, but believing that it is is hardly all that irrational is it?

Iwasfrozen

Timmyctc wrote: »

because religion /thread

Because it has nothing to do with religion, thread.

wolfpawnat

super_furry wrote: »

One side use their own judgement and conscience to guide them. One side use a 2,000 old book written by hundreds of people and interpreted by sexless men who will never father children anyway.

Timmyctc wrote: »

because religion /thread

Perhaps because many on both sides assume religion when many of the pro-lifers wouldn't have seen the inside of a church since the came to exist on this planet I can list many of my friends that are pro-life that a church would burst into flames around them and O Fortuna would resound off the walls were they to walk in. Assumptions do neither side any good!

eviltwin

Because there is no middle ground. If you believe in all women having the right to an abortion limited abortion won't be enough, if you believe all babies should have the right to life no matter what then any access will be too much.

An Coilean

Gulliver wrote: »

Ok, say we run with the thought that right to life supersedes the right to choose. However, what if the mother's life was in danger due to the pregnancy? If both lives are equal, then it comes back to choice. Mother or child? A person you've spent x amount of time with or a person you haven't met yet. A choice I hope none of us ever have to make.

(I'm neither pro or anti abortion, I'm of the opinion that the act of abortion should not be taken lightly - it should only be used in dire circumstances - such as anencephaly, sepsis, rape etc. It should not be a tool for people too lazy/stupid/insert other quantifier here to use protection)

Of course, but thats the point, its not just an issue of choice for the mother, its a balance of rights.
In cases where the mothers life is not at risk then I would consider that the balance of rights means that the childs right to life supercedes the mothers right to choose.
In a case where the mothers life is at risk then you are in much more dificult waters but again it should be seen as a balance of rights, not simply as a choice a woman makes about her body, there is more than one party involved.

An Coilean

eviltwin wrote: »

Because there is no middle ground. If you believe in all women having the right to an abortion limited abortion won't be enough, if you believe all babies should have the right to life no matter what then any access will be too much.

Well no, the unborn baby is not the only one with a right to life, the mother has too and in cases where the mothers life is at risk as a result of the pregnancy then it may be necessary to terminate the pregnancy to save the mother.
In such a case the mothers life is given precidence over the unborn childs because the probability is that if you try to save the baby there is a stronger posibility of both parties dying than if you try to save the mother.

NIMAN

Is it possible to be somewhere in the middle? Not pro or anti?

I think that there are obviously cases where abortion are necessary and justified, but I am also uncomfortable with the idea of an abortion simply because someone was stupid and had a one-night stand and doesn't want to be pregnant.

eviltwin

An Coilean wrote: »

Well no, the unborn baby is not the only one with a right to life, the mother has too and in cases where the mothers life is at risk as a result of the pregnancy then it may be necessary to terminate the pregnancy to save the mother.
In such a case the mothers life is given precidence over the unborn childs because the probability is that if you try to save the baby there is a stronger posibility of both parties dying than if you try to save the mother.

The pro life side say they are okay with abortion when a mothers life is at risk, its when you get into a woman wanting an abortion through choice they object even if that choice is because she was raped, her child might have a fatal condition, her health might suffer, she might not have the emotional, financial or practical support to have a child etc.

An Coilean

NIMAN wrote: »

Is it possible to be somewhere in the middle? Not pro or anti?

I think that there are obviously cases where abortion are necessary and justified, but I am also uncomfortable with the idea of an abortion simply because someone was stupid and had a one-night stand and doesn't want to be pregnant.

Yes it is possible to believe that in certain circumstances abortion is justified without believeing that it is acceptable in all cases.

Nodin

Foxhound38 wrote: »

http://www.broadsheet.ie/2013/05/03/where-is-your-decency/

So it seems the pro-life campaign wheeled out Berry Keily (their so-called medical advisor) to lecture a woman who lost her baby to anencephaly (a foetal abnormality, no chance of survival outside the womb) about how she was wrong to take the boat to end it humanely rather than carry it to term knowing it had no chance and would be in extreme pain. So far, so predictable from the religious extremists. But then she said something that absolutely floored me:


What? Did she really bring the debate this low? The interview stopped very soon after she said this, and thankfully so because I doubt it's possible to have a meaningfull conversation about this topic with someone who would talk such nonsense.

Why can't we have a rational conversation about this in this country?

....jaysus knows. For a long time I never thought that terminating an unviable preganancy was considered abortion, because it was unviable......

OCorcrainn

One thing that I have noticed is that it is mostly single, 'educated', middle and upper class young women and students with no children that vehemently support abortion. Why is that?

strobe

Foxhound38 wrote: »

Why can't we have a rational conversation about this in this country?

Because very unhelpful people keep holding up the opinions of the crazies on 'the other side' and saying 'see, see! The other side are crazies!! '

I'd say that's right up there as a reason

"The anti-choicers want to chain women to radiators and force them to carry the babies of their rapist uncles!

"The baby killers want to slit babies throats as they are being born! "

Fukk off.

Gulliver

NIMAN wrote: »

Is it possible to be somewhere in the middle? Not pro or anti?

I think that there are obviously cases where abortion are necessary and justified, but I am also uncomfortable with the idea of an abortion simply because someone was stupid and had a one-night stand and doesn't want to be pregnant.

I feel I fall into the middle. There are times when it may be necessary for whatever reason. However, I've never been faced with such a momentous decision regarding another being's life and I hope I never will. Who can accurately judge how they will act if faced with that choice?

eviltwin

OCorcrainn wrote: »

One thing that I have noticed is that it mostly single, 'educated', middle and upper class women with no children that vehemently support abortion. Why is that?

Maybe they are just more vocal about it. I'm a working class mother and I would be very much pro choice in all circumstances. Most of my peers who are working class parents would feel the same.

Shenshen

An Coilean wrote: »

Not really sure how that would be relevant, if you consider an unborn child to be a human being that has the right to life, then the mother can no more choose to end that life than they can after the child is born. Some people don't consider an unborn child to be a human being with the right to life, but believing that it is is hardly all that irrational is it?

How it would be relevant? If you regard the right to life of one person as higher than the right to bodily autonomy of another, that would in consequence mean that everybody everywhere needs to provide their body or parts thereof if they are required to safe someone's life.
People would no longer be able to decide if they want to give blood or not, or if they want to become an organ donor or not, it would need to be mandatory.

Personally, I would value the individual's right to their own body higher than that.

OCorcrainn

eviltwin wrote: »

Maybe they are just more vocal about it. I'm a working class mother and I would be very much pro choice in all circumstances. Most of my peers who are working class parents would feel the same.

I'm not denying there are people of a working class background and parents who support it but they seem to be in the minority.

Shenshen

OCorcrainn wrote: »

One thing that I have noticed is that it is mostly single, 'educated', middle and upper class young women and students with no children that vehemently support abortion. Why is that?

I wouldn't know... I'm a middle aged and married woman.

eviltwin

OCorcrainn wrote: »

I'm not denying there are people of a working class background and parents who support it but they seem to be in the minority.

How do you know their personal details? Are you talking about the people who represent the various groups? Its hard to be involved in groups of any kind when you have kids at home, parents often don't have time to be involved in anything outside their local community that doesn't take place during school hours.

Nodin

OCorcrainn wrote: »

One thing that I have noticed is that it is mostly single, 'educated', middle and upper class young women and students with no children that vehemently support abortion. Why is that?

.....I support choice and I'm a 43 year old working class man.

OCorcrainn

eviltwin wrote: »

How do you know their personal details? Are you talking about the people who represent the various groups? Its hard to be involved in groups of any kind when you have kids at home, parents often don't have time to be involved in anything outside their local community that doesn't take place during school hours.

I am very active and involved with my community and in politics where I am from but I am also a third level student. It just something that I can't help but noticing from my interactions.