Why we can't have a rational conversation about abortion

drkpower

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Having not met anyone who does not fit it... I can but take your word for it. If you are aware of any good arguments, evidence, data or reasoning which lends any utility at all... or anyone else who is able to espouse same... then by all means get them on a relevant thread to discuss it. I can link to many on here.



Yeah I am aware of what their position actually _is_. I certainly did not mean to suggest otherwise and my apologies if I gave that impression.

It is the reasoning behind.... and support for.... said position that I am saying is lacking. Certainly re-stating a position does not substantiate a position however and laying out what the position actually is certainly does not indicate the position is logical.

The two fundamental logical tenets in the prolife argument are that the foetus is human life and that the right to life should only be extinguished in extraordinary circumstances. Both of those statements are fundamentally logical (although certainly incomplete) statements.

Of course, people will differ as to the value to be attributed to such human life, if any, and they will argue as to the circumstances in which that right can be extinguished.

nozzferrahhtoo

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

It's a bit much to propose that there is no logical argument on the pro-life side.

It is a bit much to propose that I said any such thing.

There may very well be. I am just telling you that _I_ have not yet heard any.

The vast, vast, majority of "arguments" on the subject I have come across amount to nothing more than "Arguments from emotion" where they show you unpleasant pictures and hope to shock you into an anti-abortion position.

However I have seen pictures of heart bypass surgery and they are massively unpleasant to look at too. Should I now be against heart bypass???? Clearly not... yet that is the standard of "argument" these people are affording us.

The only other "arguments" I have heard against abortion are essentially linguistic in nature and usually based on trickery. The now retreated user Philologos for example used to conflate definitions for the word "Human" from diverse contexts in such a way as to try and assign human rights to a zygote. Essentially his _entire_ "argument" on the subject was to point out that the phrase "Human Rights" contains the word "Human" and since the zygote is.... taxonomically speaking... "Human" it therefore gets "Human" rights. That.... and of course.... his propaganda tactic of calling pro choice people "pro death".

nozzferrahhtoo

drkpower wrote: »

The two fundamental logical tenets in the prolife argument are that the foetus is human life and that the right to life should only be extinguished in extraordinary circumstances. Both of those statements are fundamentally logical (although certainly incomplete) statements.

Ah it seems you took the position I just laid out to the other user above. Essentially it would be trying to link the ability to taxonomically identify it as "Human" to the concept of Human Rights and then call this "Logic".

Yes the statements individually are logical but their use together is not. At least not without a HELL of a lot more philosophical work there than I am seeing from people espousing such connections.

Again I am saying that I have not heard any coherent logical arguments from these people. I never once suggested I never heard any logical sentences from them. Individually your statements are fine and I even mostly agree with them both.

If you simply point out that these people occasionally utter a logical sentence then I fear you are entirely missing the point I am actually making.

drkpower

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

what about at 100 weeks?

I know I just argued against it for the purposes of playing devil's advocate, but to take this to its logical conclusion, why does a mother's right to liberty only increase after giving birth?

That is to say, why would we let her baby die if she was an unwilling donor, after birth? Why stop making demands at 40 weeks?

The issues here are difficult, no doubt, and I have yet to hear a position in the abortion debate that does not suffer from inconsistencies or which is not subject to weaknesses such as the one you have demonstrated with the 'unwilling donor' argument.

I wish I had a convincing answer for you! Logically, I am with you. Why force a woman to sustain a foetus in utero when we don't force her to sustain it (by way of an organ transplant) ex utero? The only answer I can give is unsatisfactory, if I am honest. The foetus in utero has a particular and unique vulnerability. Its mothers right to autonomy is an important right also. My own view is that we can vindicate the mothers right by permitting termination up to a certain point. But, frankly, if that right is not exercised within that period, my view is that that right must be extinguished in favour of the foetus (except where there is a maternal risk to life or health). When you have two conflicting rights, sometimes you have to make messy compromises. I appreciate my answer - insofar as I have one - is messy....

Obliq

drkpower wrote: »

The issues here are difficult, no doubt, and I have yet to hear a position in the abortion debate that does not suffer from inconsistencies or which is not subject to weaknesses such as the one you have demonstrated with the 'unwilling donor' argument.

I wish I had a convincing answer for you! Logically, I am with you. Why force a woman to sustain a foetus in utero when we don't force her to sustain it (by way of an organ transplant) ex utero? The only answer I can give is unsatisfactory, if I am honest. The foetus in utero has a particular and unique vulnerability. Its mothers right to autonomy is an important right also. My own view is that we can vindicate the mothers right by permitting termination up to a certain point. But, frankly, if that right is not exercised within that period, my view is that that right must be extinguished in favour of the foetus (except where there is a maternal risk to life or health). When you have two conflicting rights, sometimes you have to make messy compromises. I appreciate my answer - insofar as I have one - is messy....

You seem to be turning in ever decreasing circles here. Fact is, other countries seem to manage to come up with laws that recognise women's need for abortion services. You are wasting your time debating messy compromises - no matter what you come up with, short of tying women's legs together (cue ironic laughter from the women at least...) women will take their own moral decisions. Ireland just has to decide whether to continue denying this or not.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/misogyny-behind-state-controls-on-women-s-reproductive-rights-1.1381768

"The UN World Abortion Policies 2013 report shows that Croatia, which allows abortion in seven circumstances including: to save a woman’s life, to preserve her physical and mental health, in cases of rape or incest, because of foetal impairment, for economic and social reasons, and on request, has almost the same abortion rate as Ireland, 4.7 and 4.5 respectively per 1,000 women aged 15 to 44. Austria, which allows abortion in the same circumstances, has an extremely low rate of 1.4."

drkpower

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Ah it seems you took the position I just laid out to the other user above. Essentially it would be trying to link the ability to taxonomically identify it as "Human" to the concept of Human Rights and then call this "Logic".

Yes the statements individually are logical but their use together is not. At least not without a HELL of a lot more philosophical work there than I am seeing from people espousing such connections.

Again I am saying that I have not heard any coherent logical arguments from these people. I never once suggested I never heard any logical sentences from them. Individually your statements are fine and I even mostly agree with them both.

If you simply point out that these people occasionally utter a logical sentence then I fear you are entirely missing the point I am actually making.

I appreciate your point alright. And to a large degree, I agree with it. Rather than just valuing human life, per se, we must get behind that statement and figure out what it is about human life that we value. And then we get into the areas of sentience and consciousness etc...

Perhaps the problem here is that what we as a species/ society have come to value is not always based purely on logic. Lets say that what we value is sentient life (and I appreciate there is more to it than that). If it were that straightforward, why do we put some value in an anencephalic baby, in the sense that very few would propose that it is of no value whatsoever (for instance very few would advocate its destruction during the few short minutes/hours before it dies). Why, for instance, at the other end of life, do we value life that has lost it's sentience where there is a prospect that it might return? If we value that potential for sentience, why do we or should we not value the potential for sentience in an early foetus?

Cody Pomeray

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Ah it seems you took the position I just laid out to the other user above. Essentially it would be trying to link the ability to taxonomically identify it as "Human" to the concept of Human Rights and then call this "Logic".

How do you establish eligibility for "human rights" if not taxonomically please?

nozzferrahhtoo

drkpower wrote: »

Rather than just valuing human life, per se, we must get behind that statement and figure out what it is about human life that we value. And then we get into the areas of sentience and consciousness etc...

Exactly, though I tend to put it _slightly_ different. I would have written the above as:

"Rather than just valuing "Human Rights" we must get behind the meaning of that phrase and figure out exactly what it means, where human rights come from, and what the most valid criteria for assigning them are"

And as you say I have never once even suspected mere taxonomy was the go to basis for assigning them and in fact getting into the area of sentience and consciousness is unavoidable.

The thread is about why we can not discuss the arguments rationally however and to re-iterate my core point I entered the thread with: I feel it is because people use arguments from emotion, linguistic trickery and outright propaganda to outright AVOID having the rational arguments because... I have come to suspect... the "anti" side in this debate do not _actually have_ any to give.

They may do as I said in post #363 above. But if they do they have not let _me_ know them and have been sitting tight on them for quite some time now.

drkpower

Obliq wrote: »

You seem to be turning in ever decreasing circles here. Fact is, other countries seem to manage to come up with laws that recognise women's need for abortion services. You are wasting your time debating messy compromises - no matter what you come up with, short of tying women's legs together (cue ironic laughter from the women at least...) women will take their own moral decisions. Ireland just has to decide whether to continue denying this or not.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/misogyny-behind-state-controls-on-women-s-reproductive-rights-1.1381768

"The UN World Abortion Policies 2013 report shows that Croatia, which allows abortion in seven circumstances including: to save a woman’s life, to preserve her physical and mental health, in cases of rape or incest, because of foetal impairment, for economic and social reasons, and on request, has almost the same abortion rate as Ireland, 4.7 and 4.5 respectively per 1,000 women aged 15 to 44. Austria, which allows abortion in the same circumstances, has an extremely low rate of 1.4."

I wouldn't say it's a waste of time. I'm not trying to change yours or anyone else's view. I am just exploring the issues for my own benefit as much as anyone else's.

If I have a point, it is that every solution to the abortion issue suffers from internal inconsistencies, logical or otherwise (some worse than others). What really grinds my gears is that many come to the debate with a completely unfounded sense of certainty as to what the solution is. If people on all sides recognise that there is no solution that stands up fully to logical scrutiny, perhaps then we might get some progress (or perhaps not).

Fundamentally I think we both favour broadly the same kind of outcome.

Obliq

drkpower wrote: »

I wouldn't say it's a waste of time. I'm not trying to change yours or anyone else's view. I am just exploring the issues for my own benefit as much as anyone else's.

If I have a point, it is that every solution to the abortion issue suffers from internal inconsistencies, logical or otherwise (some worse than others). What really grinds my gears is that many come to the debate with a completely unfounded sense of certainty as to what the solution is. If people on all sides recognise that there is no solution that stands up fully to logical scrutiny, perhaps then we might get some progress (or perhaps not).

Fundamentally I think we both favour broadly the same kind of outcome.

Thank you. It helps to know this, as it's quite an excruciating thing (as a woman) to watch the dissection of the "right to life of a foetus v woman" issue as if women's personal needs and moral decisions can be boxed up and packed off to the legislators. Gotta say I'm with nozz on this. I see no equivalently logical reasoning from the pro-life camp. That's why I think you're wasting your time except as an intellectual exercise! Cheers for the answer - thought there was a problem with my server for a while there....

Cody Pomeray

Obliq wrote: »

Thank you. It helps to know this, as it's quite an excruciating thing (as a woman) to watch the dissection of the "right to life of a foetus v woman" issue as if women's personal needs and moral decisions can be boxed up and packed off to the legislators.

Why "as a woman"?

Obliq

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Why "as a woman"?

Because clearly, it is not men's mental health/life status versus embryo/morals/decision making/rights to abortion that are being discussed.

Indeed the first sentence in the link I provided above should tell you. "The current abortion debate exposes deep-rooted misogynistic and sexist attitudes to Irish women’s reproductive health and rights".

That's not to say women only can discuss this - you will never find me saying anything of the sort - but the emotional impact of these discussions on women, even the discussions in which unbiased calculations weigh up the relative importance of woman v foetus have an impact on us that men are not so affected by.

I say this as a veteran in challenging debate about the issue, but it still affects me on a personal level too. I burn out sometimes because in Ireland, the fight for women's reproductive choice has been a lifelong battle for me and it is depressing that it continues to be such a battle as my young niece comes up into the realisation that all the equality she has grown to feel means very little where it comes to her choices in her own country.

That's the why.

Cody Pomeray

Obliq wrote: »

Because clearly, it is not men's mental health/life status versus embryo/morals/decision making/rights to abortion that are being discussed.

No, that's true. This topic does not relates in any material part to the male reproductive tract.

But if anything, this topic can be classified as partially being a mothers' issue, or more correctly, a pregnancy issue. It is not a "woman's" issue unless you take the opinion that women are inevitabe maternity machines, or that maternity is a necessary feature of womanhood.

This is important because womens' groups have assumed a sort of media monopoly over the maternal uterus, which I find just as strange as irritating as anyone else trying to claim speaking rights on behalf of pregnant women.

kennryyr

Just my two cents on the issue. The fact that the government can decide on what you can and can't do with your body is incredible to me in this day and age. I fully support the pro-choice camp.

I feel this "right to life" of the feotus would be a bit insulting to women (in my opinion). How can a feotus which has never been alive, never existed outside of it's mother, never would have been able to exist without the mother have more of a right to live then the fully breathing, alive mother. It baffles me.

She is the one paying her taxes and going about her business, it is her who will have to carry the child for months, surely her right to choose what to do supercedes the "right to live" of a feotus that is not alive.

Obliq

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

No, that's true. This topic does not relates in any material part to the male reproductive tract.

But if anything, this topic can be classified as partially being a mothers' issue, or more correctly, a pregnancy issue. It is not a "woman's" issue unless you take the opinion that women are inevitabe maternity machines, or that maternity is a necessary feature of womanhood.

This is important because womens' groups have assumed a sort of media monopoly over the maternal uterus, which I find just as strange as irritating as anyone else trying to claim speaking rights on behalf of pregnant women.

Ha! That's the best laugh I've had all day....do you think women (actually, lets just say females, as you seem to have a distracting opinion about "women's groups") - females wish to wait till they are pregnant (either unwanted or in difficulties) before their rights can become an issue for them? That's some seriously muddled thinking mate.

As a mother of 2, who has never had an abortion but has experienced rape, would this qualify me to speak on behalf of pregnant females? Cut out the 2 kids, does that disqualify me? I don't disqualify men, never mind restrict the discussion to card-carrying pregnant women.

"media monopoly over the maternal uterus" - lol muchly. Can't get much more derailing than that :rolleyes:

Cody Pomeray

Obliq wrote: »

Ha! That's the best laugh I've had all day....do you think women (actually, lets just say females, as you seem to have a distracting opinion about "women's groups") - females wish to wait till they are pregnant (either unwanted or in difficulties) before their rights can become an issue for them?

No, you're confusing two issues.

You're confusing what this is - a pregnancy issue - with women's issues more generally.

Pregnancy is not an inevitable characteristic of womanhood.

Womanhood is a necessary aspect of pregnancy, but so are lots of other characteristics - not least membership of the human race more widely.

As a mother of 2, who has never had an abortion but has experienced rape, would this qualify me to speak on behalf of pregnant females?

Absolutely not. I don't know where you think your right to be the spokesman for pregnant women came from.

Obliq

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

No, you're confusing two issues.

You're confusing what this is - a pregnancy issue - with women's issues more generally.

Pregnancy is not an inevitable characteristic of womanhood.

Womanhood is a necessary aspect of pregnancy, but so are lots of other characteristics - not least membership of the human race more widely.

Absolutely not. I don't know where you think your right to be the spokesman for pregnant women came from.

The?

Whether intending to have children or not, the particular relevance this issue has for females is that it can only happen to us, yes? And even females who don't plan to have any children can see it as a bad thing that other females have a lack of reproductive choice here, yes?

Now, I can actually spell this out for you in even simpler language if you need. I have children, I'm good at that.

OR....could it be that I'm confused? sighs:o Perhaps I should just shuffle off to the kitchen, fix my hair and look at kittens playing

jaja321

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

No, you're confusing two issues.

You're confusing what this is - a pregnancy issue - with women's issues more generally.

Pregnancy is not an inevitable characteristic of womanhood.

Womanhood is a necessary aspect of pregnancy, but so are lots of other characteristics - not least membership of the human race more widely.

Absolutely not. I don't know where you think your right to be the spokesman for pregnant women came from.

Do you know what reproductive rights are?

Obliq

jaja321 wrote: »

Do you know what reproductive rights are?

Ah! Yes, that could be the problem. Well spotted

Cody Pomeray

Obliq wrote: »

The?
Whether intending to have children or not, the particular relevance this issue has for females is that it can only happen to us, yes?

Yes, in the same way that children can only be born to human beings and those with fertile reproductive tracts and other characteristics.

The problem is that you're singling out one characteristic for special importance - i.e. making this into a women's issue, when it is a pregnancy issue.

Being a pregnancy issue, it usually involves fathers as well as mothers.

I just find the notion of abortion as a 'women's issue' really dumb, it implies that menopausal busybodies like Nell McCafferty have a greater attachment to the matter than, say, Savita Halapanavar's husband.

So can we please quit it with the gender focus?

This is about mothers (or women who are pregnant), and also fathers.

It is not a wider 'women's issue'.

Perhaps I should just shuffle off to the kitchen, fix my hair and look at kittens playing

You're playing to the crowd here. It would probably suit you down to the ground if I were a misogynist or pro-life, but in fact I'm neither.

I just don't like to see the thread hijacked with people coming out with self-important "as a woman..." statements on this important topic.

Czarcasm

Obliq wrote: »

Perhaps I should just shuffle off to the kitchen, fix my hair and look at kittens playing

And when you're done there- back in the bedroom with you! <_<


/sarcasm!

Obliq

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

I just don't like to see the thread hijacked with people coming out with self-important "as a woman..." statements on this important topic.

*splutters with mirth over your entire comment*

But that's me told ^^^. I shall henceforth sling my hook and bow down in the face of such wisdom as yours.

Will be back for intelligent discussion when you're doing your homework sonny

Czarcasm

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Yes, in the same way that children can only be born to human beings and those with fertile reproductive tracts and other characteristics.

The problem is that you're singling out one characteristic for special importance - i.e. making this into a women's issue, when it is a pregnancy issue.

Being a pregnancy issue, it usually involves fathers as well as mothers.

I just find the notion of abortion as a 'women's issue' really dumb, it implies that menopausal busybodies like Nell McCafferty have a greater attachment to the matter than, say, Savita Halapanavar's husband.

So can we please quit it with the gender focus?

This is about mothers (or women who are pregnant), and also fathers.

It is not a wider 'women's issue'.

You're playing to the crowd here. It would probably suit you down to the ground if I were a misogynist or pro-life, but in fact I'm neither.

I just don't like to see the thread hijacked with people coming out with self-important "as a woman..." statements on this important topic.

You might have a point Cody if men could actually get pregnant. Men are at no risk of ever getting pregnant and so will never face the decision on whether to either get pregnant, or find themselves pregnant through no fault of their own, nor face the decision to terminate said pregnancy.

Cody Pomeray

Obliq wrote: »

*splutters with mirth over your entire comment*

But that's me told ^^^. I shall henceforth sling my hook and bow down in the face of such wisdom as yours.

Will be back for intelligent discussion when you're doing your homework sonny

No intention to engage then?

You believe that "as a woman" Nell McCafferty has some sort of natural dominion on the abortion issue that, say,Praveen Halapanavar does not?

Nodin

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Y

Being a pregnancy issue, it usually involves fathers as well as mothers.
......

Given the fact that the physical consequences lie 100% with the mother, dragging the father into it is a bit much, tbh.

Cody Pomeray

Czarcasm wrote: »

You might have a point Cody if men could actually get pregnant. Men are at no risk of ever getting pregnant and so will never face the decision on whether to either get pregnant, or find themselves pregnant through no fault of their own, nor face the decision to terminate said pregnancy.

Same with plenty of women. Indeed, for some women, it is a statistical impossibility.

It is just wrong to frame this as a women's issue, which I think unfairly sidelines fathers, whilst including women who will never get pregnant.

When you have a father dealing with a death in his family due to a fatal foetal abnormality, try a rake of menopausal old women telling him this is a 'women's issue'.

Nodin

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

No intention to engage then?

You believe that "as a woman" Nell McCafferty has some sort of natural dominion on the abortion issue that, say,Praveen Halapanavar does not?

I think you need to make your peace with Nell. Its eating you up.

Cody Pomeray

Hilarious

Nodin wrote: »

Given the fact that the physical consequences lie 100% with the mother, dragging the father into it is a bit much, tbh.

Many fathers of children with fatal foetal abnormalities would love for them and their partners not to be 'dragged into it' too.

But they deserve more of a say in this than plenty of women.

Sarky

Well isn't this nice? A page or two of rational discussion! Nobody using cheap emotive tactics, nobody taking one side and refusing to budge, nobody ignoring points just to repeat the same old crap again...

Please, keep going. This is interesting stuff that usually gets drowned out by nutters.

Delirium

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Hilarious


Many fathers of children with fatal foetal abnormalities would love for them and their partners not to be 'dragged into it' too.

But they deserve more of a say in this than plenty of women.

If you're going to use a "weighting" system for whose opinion matters more you're going to have to live with whatever pregnant women/mothers say.