Why we can't have a rational conversation about abortion

jaffacakesyum

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'?

Yup, it does. Nobody has any right to tell me what to do with my body. I'm done being 'reasonable' with these backward pr1cks - and I know the way I'm talking is going to anger people and say it does nothing for the debate. But the truth is we've been debating and talking and being reasonable and polite with anti-choicers for too long now. It's time to say enough is enough. I want my human rights. And yes I believe it to be a human right.

And for the record, I actually personally probably wouldn't have an abortion but that doesn't matter. I'm pro-choice. Nobody has the right to force a woman to carry a foetus to term for months because of somebodys personal or religious opinion.

wonderfulname

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?

Any stats to back this up? My experience has been that there is a delightfully varied tapestry of people supportive of choice. It's also worth pointing out workers groups tend to be pro choice as the current situation is deemed classist, and that this debate has been raging long enough that the crazy students of yesteryear have grown up, many marrying and having children, and most maintaining the same values they always had.

thebullkf

jaffacakesyum wrote: »

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.

reads like this is the source of your anger ( pardon me if i'm wrong)

Iwasfrozen

jaffacakesyum wrote: »

Yup, it does. Nobody has any right to tell me what to do with my body. I'm done being 'reasonable' with these backward pr1cks - and I know the way I'm talking is going to anger people and say it does nothing for the debate. But the truth is we've been debating and talking and being reasonable and polite with anti-choicers for too long now. It's time to say enough is enough. I want my human rights. And yes I believe it to be a human right.

And for the record, I actually personally probably wouldn't have an abortion but that doesn't matter. I'm pro-choice. Nobody has the right to force a woman to carry a foetus to term for months because of somebodys personal or religious opinion.

I always find it amazing why people immediately talk about rights. Rights are subjective and depend on the willingness of the people in power to grant you those rights. Anyway. The right of the child to life supersedes your right to have an abortion.

An Coilean

eviltwin wrote: »

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.

Those are very valid points and highly charged ones which makes open discussion more dificult.
However I will try to clearly outline my position without getting heated.

The following arguments have to be taken in the context that the unborn child is a human being that has the right to life.

In the case of rape, though it is a traumatic experiance and perfectally understandable why the mother would not want to carry the resulting pregnancy to term, the crime of the father does not nullify the rights of the unborn child.
While it is a terrible situation, the trauma suffered by the mother to me is not sufficient to supercede the right of the child to life. Support and counceling should be provided to help the mother to deal with the trauma suffered but I cannot see abortion as an acceptable solution in this situation.

With regard to the child having a fatal condition, this is an extreamly tough situation, however the argument here is that by permitting abortion in these cases society is making a judgement on the value of life. Even if the child will only survive for a few days after birth, society should not judge that life to be less valid than any other.
You will have to make your own call on if the life of the child, short though it may be has suficient validity to out way the parents understandable desire to not continue with the pregnancy. Personally I can see the merit in both perspectives and am still torn on the issue.

With regard to potential non-fatal risks to the mothers health, again I would look at it as a balance of rights, does the mothers health outweigh the childs right to life? Personally I would say that the right to life takes precidence, but its a judgement call that has to be made. I should note that when it comes to judgement calls on rights, it is a call that society should make, not individuals.

As for the last pont on the means to support a child, again, I don't think that negates the childs right to life and ultimatly if the parents cannot support the child then it falls to the state to do so.


You may think me heartless for my opinions on these issues, and without a doubt the implications of my stance could potentially create heartbreaking individual situations, though in the same way that the state has the responcibility to vindicate life, it also have to responcibility to support families living with the implications of that stance.
Ultimatly my stance stems from life being something I am not willing to compromise on.

Jaxxy

thebullkf wrote: »

reads like this is the source of your anger ( pardon me if i'm wrong)

Oh here we go. Not even a couple of pages in and someone is intimating that a pro-choice individual hates all men. Well done.

thebullkf

Jaxxy wrote: »

Oh here we go. Not even a couple of pages in and someone is intimating that a pro-choice individual hates all men. Well done.

here we go indeed,

Iwasfrozen

An Coilean wrote: »

In the case of rape, though it is a traumatic experiance and perfectally understandable why the mother would not want to carry the resulting pregnancy to term, the crime of the father does not nullify the rights of the unborn child.
While it is a terrible situation, the trauma suffered by the mother to me is not sufficient to supercede the right of the child to life. Support and counceling should be provided to help the mother to deal with the trauma suffered but I cannot see abortion as an acceptable solution in this situation.

As much as I agree with your stance on abortion in general I just cannot agree with your stance on pregnancy caused by rape. If that happened to someone I love I'd probably end up killing the guy. No woman should be expected to carry her rapists baby to full term.

thebullkf

An Coilean wrote: »

Those are very valid points and highly charged ones which makes open discussion more dificult.
However I will try to clearly outline my position without getting heated.

The following arguments have to be taken in the context that the unborn child is a human being that has the right to life.

In the case of rape, though it is a traumatic experiance and perfectally understandable why the mother would not want to carry the resulting pregnancy to term, the crime of the father does not nullify the rights of the unborn child.
While it is a terrible situation, the trauma suffered by the mother to me is not sufficient to supercede the right of the child to life. Support and counceling should be provided to help the mother to deal with the trauma suffered but I cannot see abortion as an acceptable solution in this situation.

With regard to the child having a fatal condition, this is an extreamly tough situation, however the argument here is that by permitting abortion in these cases society is making a judgement on the value of life. Even if the child will only survive for a few days after birth, society should not judge that life to be less valid than any other.
You will have to make your own call on if the life of the child, short though it may be has suficient validity to out way the parents understandable desire to not continue with the pregnancy. Personally I can see the merit in both perspectives and am still torn on the issue.

With regard to potential non-fatal risks to the mothers health, again I would look at it as a balance of rights, does the mothers health outweigh the childs right to life? Personally I would say that the right to life takes precidence, but its a judgement call that has to be made. I should note that when it comes to judgement calls on rights, it is a call that society should make, not individuals.

As for the last pont on the means to support a child, again, I don't think that negates the childs right to life and ultimatly if the parents cannot support the child then it falls to the state to do so.


You may think me heartless for my opinions on these issues, and without a doubt the implications of my stance could potentially create heartbreaking individual situations, though in the same way that the state has the responcibility to vindicate life, it also have to responcibility to support families living with the implications of that stance.
Ultimatly my stance stems from life being something I am not willing to compromise on.

In the bold bit above it definitely should be up to the mother to decide if she wants to abort imo. Imagine the horror of having to carry a physical and biological reminder of such a heinous crime, and for someone to tell you , that you must- no way josé.

I do not agree with abortion as a means of contraception/lifestyle choice though.

PlainP

An Coilean wrote: »

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.

I disagree, the fetus would not survive without the mother therefore it is her right and choice to decide what she wants for the pregnancy.

Phill Ewinn

jaffacakesyum wrote: »

Yup, it does. Nobody has any right to tell me what to do with my body. I'm done being 'reasonable' with these backward pr1cks - and I know the way I'm talking is going to anger people and say it does nothing for the debate. But the truth is we've been debating and talking and being reasonable and polite with anti-choicers for too long now. It's time to say enough is enough. I want my human rights. And yes I believe it to be a human right.

And for the record, I actually personally probably wouldn't have an abortion but that doesn't matter. I'm pro-choice. Nobody has the right to force a woman to carry a foetus to term for months because of somebodys personal or religious opinion.

Attitudes like this may have been fine 1,000 years ago. Thankfully society has moved along from this kind of thinking.

An Coilean

Shenshen wrote: »

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.

An individuals right to their own bodily autonomy is important, and thats why many of the points you noted are not happening.

But where the individuals right to their own body as you put it, comes into direct conflict with anothers right to life, as is the case in the abortation debate, then in my opinion the right to life takes precidence.


As a side note, in many countries people don't have the right to deside if they want to become organ doners or not, when you die the state will take and use your organs to help others if it needs to, but that is a topic for another thread.

Foxhound38

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?

No idea - I often wonder why most people at the Youth Defence stalls tend to be middle-aged men

thebullkf

Rationalaity is difficult due to the nature of the act itself. On one hand i support the mothers choice, on the other i wuestion myself - why should a serial aborter decide to abort just because she doesn't want a baby... that imo is just wrong- if you don't want kids take the necessary steps to prevent such a situation, i understand a 'one time thing' whereby a one nuight stand etc may result in unplanned pregnancy but stupidity and laziness (in such a case not all cases!) should not over ride the right to life of a baby.

What would the folks on here think about a limit on the amount of abortions one can have as a part solution?

listermint

thebullkf wrote: »

Rationalaity is difficult due to the nature of the act itself. On one hand i support the mothers choice, on the other i wuestion myself - why should a serial aborter decide to abort just because she doesn't want a baby... that imo is just wrong- if you don't want kids take the necessary steps to prevent such a situation, i understand a 'one time thing' whereby a one nuight stand etc may result in unplanned pregnancy but stupidity and laziness (in such a case not all cases!) should not over ride the right to life of a baby.

What would the folks on here think about a limit on the amount of abortions one can have as a part solution?

Serial abortioners.....



Is your post for real ?

jaffacakesyum

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

As much as I agree with your stance on abortion in general I just cannot agree with your stance on pregnancy caused by rape. If that happened to someone I love I'd probably end up killing the guy. No woman should be expected to carry her rapists baby to full term.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I always find it amazing why people immediately talk about rights. Rights are subjective and depend on the willingness of the people in power to grant you those rights. Anyway. The right of the child to life supersedes your right to have an abortion.

LOL - what happened to the rights of the child?

"It's murder!!" um...but murders ok in certain circumstance like rape yknow :rolleyes:

An Coilean

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

As much as I agree with your stance on abortion in general I just cannot agree with your stance on pregnancy caused by rape. If that happened to someone I love I'd probably end up killing the guy. No woman should be expected to carry her rapists baby to full term.

I can understand that and I was of the same opinion too, it took me an awful long time to change my mind on that one, but believing as I do that the unborn child has a right to life then I had to accept that as unsetteling and tragic as it might be, the crime of the father does not negate that right.

I fully accept that people have differing opinions on this and understand prefectly why, and I can't say that if faced with this situation for real that I would not change my opinion, then again that partially the reason that society as a whole rather than individuals should make the judgement.

Nodin

thebullkf wrote: »

Rationalaity is difficult due to the nature of the act itself. On one hand i support the mothers choice, on the other i wuestion myself - why should a serial aborter decide to abort just because she doesn't want a baby... that imo is just wrong- if you don't want kids take the necessary steps to prevent such a situation, i understand a 'one time thing' whereby a one nuight stand etc may result in unplanned pregnancy but stupidity and laziness (in such a case not all cases!) should not over ride the right to life of a baby.

Which is essentially saying that because a minority might abuse something, it should be denied to all. Not the best approach to take.

Staff Infection

Ya see both sides of the debate keep saying "the majority of people agree with our stance" etc etc so I'd love to see a multiple choice referendum to actually find out once and for all what people want. It could be on a scale such as say

1. No Abortions ever
2. Abortions if the mothers life is at risk
3. Abortions in cases where the foetus will die at birth (fatal foetal abnormalities)
4. Abortions in cases of incest
5. Abortions in cases of rape
6. Combinations of the above so maybe options 2 and 3 together
7. Likewise other combinations of the above options
8. Abortion on demand

This way at least we'd have whatever the majority decides rather than both groups claiming to represent the majority. I'd also like to do the same around a right to death referendum for terminally ill people with regressive painful diseases but that's for another day.

thebullkf

listermint wrote: »

Serial abortioners.....



Is your post for real ?

no its imaginary. got anything constructive to add?

thebullkf

Nodin wrote: »

Which is essentially saying that because a minority might abuse something, it should be denied to all. Not the best approach to take.

not really Nodin, in fact not at all- your summary is too simplistic. This is human life. Not something trivial.

StudentDad

thebullkf wrote: »

here we go indeed,

Why can't we have a rational debate on abortion?

For many, reason does not come into it. It's a personal belief. It's tied to personal and religious identity. To cede ground on a belief such as abortion is to accept that not everyone shares the same worldview. To accept the practice of abortion is to recognise that individuals are free to act in a manner that does not fit their own worldview. To recognise another individuals right to determine their own mores, places religious belief on the same level as everyone else. No more important than anyone elses. The problem is that we have a belief in god that is defined by man, imposed on society. More and more people are questioning the validity of irrational religious mores and saying this does not apply to me.

SD

kylith

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I always find it amazing why people immediately talk about rights. Rights are subjective and depend on the willingness of the people in power to grant you those rights. Anyway. The right of the child to life supersedes your right to have an abortion.

So, the right of something with no brain or nervous system and which may not, even under the best circumstances, ever achieve a state where it can exist independently (~40% of conceptions end in spontaneous abortion) is greater than my right to decide what happens to my own body?

I respectfully disagree. A person's right to bodily integrity is paramount.

thebullkf

StudentDad wrote: »

Why can't we have a rational debate on abortion?

For many, reason does not come into it. It's a personal belief. It's tied to personal and religious identity. To cede ground on a belief such as abortion is to accept that not everyone shares the same worldview. To accept the practice of abortion is to recognise that individuals are free to act in a manner that does not fit their own worldview. To recognise another individuals right to determine their own mores, places religious belief on the same level as everyone else. No more important than anyone elses. The problem is that we have a belief in god that is defined by man, imposed on society. More and more people are questioning the validity of irrational religious mores and saying this does not apply to me.

SD

i have absolutely no idea how that relates to my quote. tbh.

FTR - i am not religious- i respect peoples rights- i respect all life forms.

Phill Ewinn

Nodin wrote: »

Which is essentially saying that because a minority might abuse something, it should be denied to all. Not the best approach to take.

Many people abusing UKs abortion laws. Making a nice few quid doing it too. Theres no evidence the 4,000 terminations of Irish unborn fetouses are all legitimate or warranted.

Iwasfrozen

jaffacakesyum wrote: »

LOL - what happened to the rights of the child?

"It's murder!!" um...but murders ok in certain circumstance like rape yknow :rolleyes:

Yes, while I do believe it's wrong to kill unborn children you have to be compassionate. This is an emotional subject.

Nodin

thebullkf wrote: »

not really Nodin, in fact not at all- your summary is too simplistic. This is human life. Not something trivial.

The fact is that many things - from use of automotive transport to access to cultlery - leaves open the risk of abuse, with fatal consequences. If its fair enough to let that happen, then why not abortion?

thebullkf

kylith wrote: »

So, the right of something with no brain or nervous system and which may not, even under the best circumstances, ever achieve a state where it can exist independently (~40% of conceptions end in spontaneous abortion) is greater than my right to my own body?

I respectfully disagree. A person's right to bodily integrity is paramount.

interesting stats kylith can you share a link?

in response to your last line ( genuine question) do you think your right supercedes that of an actual life- eg 6-9mths foetus?

Is it the line between whats a life form and whats not (with yourself i mean) or do you think a right to bodily integrity supercedes all other rights in realtion to that body.

jhegarty

jaffacakesyum wrote: »

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.

Well that's defiantly how to start a mature debate. :rolleyes:

Nodin

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Many people abusing UKs abortion laws. Making a nice few quid doing it too. Theres no evidence the 4,000 terminations of Irish unborn fetouses are all legitimate or warranted.

Would you care to make a stab at how many are or aren't? And do please explain what you classify as being "legitamate" and "warranted".