Why we can't have a rational conversation about abortion

Lord TSC

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

One side of a two sided story in fairness. Life changing vs life ending.

Of course. Every pregnancy should be taken as individual, which is what pro-choice people allow. Unlike the extremist pro-lifers who don't see any story as being more than one sided.

Listen, I realise there's plenty of sane and rational pro-lifers out there who do allow for exceptions. But my point was that there's really not an equivalent extremist for the pro-choice side when compared to the pro-lifers. There's no pro-choicers going round forcing abortions on people, going absolutely bonkers in terms of forcing their beliefs on others. The pro-choice view point allows pro-lifers to make their own decisions about whether to go through with a pregnancy or not. A pro-life view point tends not to offer that same respect back.

periodictable

Foxhound38 wrote: »

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

Because those opposed to abortion have an irrational belief system,ie GOD

Lord TSC

periodictable wrote: »

Because those opposed to abortion have an irrational belief system,ie GOD

This line of thinking annoys me somewhat as well if I'm being honest, and I say this as a pro-choice guy.

There are plenty of rational reasons to believe in God, or to seek comfort and identity in religion. Just because you or I don't place great importance on the role of religion in our lives doesn't mean we should consider everyone who does to be irrational.

Likewise, not all pro-lifers are hugely religious. They may make up a large portion of the group, but I've known plenty of pro-life people who don't give a **** about religion and don't use notions of "souls" or such to justify their decisions. There's a distinction between "life" in the biological sense (which I find most use as the pro-life argument on here) and life in the religious sense...

Czarcasm

periodictable wrote: »

Because those opposed to abortion have an irrational belief system,ie GOD

You're wrong there. There are numerous atheists opposed to abortion, nothing whatsoever to do with any irrational belief system.

Grayson

Teamshadowclan wrote: »

This line of thinking annoys me somewhat as well if I'm being honest, and I say this as a pro-choice guy.

There are plenty of rational reasons to believe in God, or to seek comfort and identity in religion. Just because you or I don't place great importance on the role of religion in our lives doesn't mean we should consider everyone who does to be irrational.

Likewise, not all pro-lifers are hugely religious. They may make up a large portion of the group, but I've known plenty of pro-life people who don't give a **** about religion and don't use notions of "souls" or such to justify their decisions. There's a distinction between "life" in the biological sense (which I find most use as the pro-life argument on here) and life in the religious sense...

I'm squarely on the fence with religion. I'm athiest but see that religion can be an important non-damaging part of someone life.

I do hate the fact that it affects my life though. Even without the abortion debate, i really don't think religion should come into any political decision. Murder is wrong and can be justified as wrong by any number of non religious ethical schools of thought. Religion isn't necessary to create a just society and have fair laws.
But then we have an issue like gay marriage which people are against because their religion says so. It doesn't matter if it's homophobic or bigoted, they're just against it mainly because of their religion and that affects the lives of other.

So really, I'd prefer it if religion just went away.

seenitall

Teamshadowclan wrote: »

There are plenty of rational reasons to believe in God, or to seek comfort and identity in religion. Just because you or I don't place great importance on the role of religion in our lives doesn't mean we should consider everyone who does to be irrational.

Eh, no. Religion, any religion, is one of the very bastions of irrationality of human mind, along with any other myth, legend, superstition, fairy tale etc. Therefore, anyone who does believe in a deity or any other supernatural (there is a clue in that word too) being is...how shall I put it... being VERY irrational indeed.

Would you consider believing in Hobbits or unicorns to be rational? How about believing in people treading on water, people rising from the dead, people turning water into wine?

Please.

Shenshen

Teamshadowclan wrote: »

This line of thinking annoys me somewhat as well if I'm being honest, and I say this as a pro-choice guy.

There are plenty of rational reasons to believe in God, or to seek comfort and identity in religion. Just because you or I don't place great importance on the role of religion in our lives doesn't mean we should consider everyone who does to be irrational.

Likewise, not all pro-lifers are hugely religious. They may make up a large portion of the group, but I've known plenty of pro-life people who don't give a **** about religion and don't use notions of "souls" or such to justify their decisions. There's a distinction between "life" in the biological sense (which I find most use as the pro-life argument on here) and life in the religious sense...

What I always found striking about life in the biological sense is that in medicine, we would declare someone biologically dead when there is no measurable brain activity - I'm no medic and I could have this wrong, so if anyone out there could enlighten me if I am mistaken, please do.

But based on this, why would we assume that a foetus is alive before there is any brain activity? As I understand, the brain in a foetus usually starts its activity around the beginning of the 3rd months of the pregnancy.

Shenshen

seenitall wrote: »

Eh, no. Religion, any religion, is one of the very bastions of irrationality of human mind, along with any other myth, legend, superstition, fairy tale etc. Therefore, anyone who does believe in a deity or any other supernatural (there is a clue in that word too) being is...how shall I put it... being VERY irrational indeed.

Would you consider believing in Hobbits or unicorns to be rational? How about believing in people treading on water, people rising from the dead, people turning water into wine?

Please.

I think "rational" and "empiric" are getting somewhat confused here.
If a person feels happier assuming that there is a higher power somewhere, if this notion contributes to said person's mental health and general sense of wellbeing, and if it were deterimential to this person's outlook on life not to belief in a deity, surely it is the rational choice to believe?

Czarcasm

Grayson wrote: »

I'm squarely on the fence with religion. I'm athiest but see that religion can be an important non-damaging part of someone life.

I do hate the fact that it affects my life though. Even without the abortion debate, i really don't think religion should come into any political decision. Murder is wrong and can be justified as wrong by any number of non religious ethical schools of thought. Religion isn't necessary to create a just society and have fair laws.
But then we have an issue like gay marriage which people are against because their religion says so. It doesn't matter if it's homophobic or bigoted, they're just against it mainly because of their religion and that affects the lives of other.

So really, I'd prefer it if religion just went away.

I think Grayson there's nothing wrong with religion or being religious, but what I find objectionable are people that force their religious beliefs on others. One's belief in a deity, or the absence of belief in a deity, is something that is personal to that individual, but some people use their religion to force their opinion down other people's throats, and THAT'S what's damaging. It's not the religion, it's the way people use it.

I for one would like to see a secular constitution with religion taken completely out of the equation as Ireland is a mix of many different religions now, and even those with no religion, but the constitution takes no account of this, as it is mainly geared from a Roman Catholic perspective. I cannot see this happening in my lifetime though.

Lord TSC

seenitall wrote: »

Eh,no. Religion, any religion, is one of the very bastions of irrationality of human mind, along with any other myth, legend, superstition, fairy tale etc. Therefore, anyone who does believe in a deity or any other supernatural (there is a clue in that word too) being is...how shall I put it... being VERY irrational indeed.

Would you consider believing in Hobbits or unicorns to be rational? How about believing in people treading on water, people rising from the dead, people turning water into wine?

Disagree. And I'll state before hand that I'm agnostic here.

You're using the example of an extreme of religious belief. There's plenty of people who allow religion to play a part in their lives without actually believing a man walked on water. My religion teacher in 5th and 6th year was a priest, and was brilliant; he stressed how he taught everyone he could that the bible is a book of metaphor and parable, not meant to be believed as literal. And most religious folk I know would follow that train of thought; rationally, they use religious beliefs to guide their lives and the type of people they are. That's perfectly rational. Everyone has a mantra they live by. And it's quite rational to use religion to help form that.

I agree it's not overly rational to believe the bible in a literal sense, and I know there's plenty of people who do. But I refuse to pait anyone who allows religion to be a part of their life to be irrational to an extreme.

Meanwhile, I do think there can still be a lot of rationality behind believing in a higher power. A lot of people need to believe there's more to life than what we experience with our basic senses. They use religion in positive ways to drive their lives forward. Just because you don't doesn't mean that it's irrational. Religion can be a hugely comforting thing to a lot of people and can give meaning to people's lives.

Well done you if you can find that meaning in other ways. I, too, don't need religion to define myself. But it's hugely unfair to make a massive sweeping statement where you paint anyone who accepts religion as irrational, and such sweeping statements annoy me just as much as people who refuse to consider personal circumstances in pregnancies and discussions on abortion.

Shenshen wrote: »

But based on this, why would we assume that a foetus is alive before there is any brain activity? As I understand, the brain in a foetus usually starts its activity around the beginning of the 3rd months of the pregnancy.

It strikes me that the problem there comes with the fact that you can find "research" and "Scientific evidence" to back up most arguments, and that a lot of pro-lifers will who go down that route will throw back research which shows things like "Pain can be felt earlier than that" or "Yes, but a dead person doesn't have potential to be alive, while a foetus does and you're destroying the potential".

seenitall

Shenshen wrote: »

I think "rational" and "empiric" are getting somewhat confused here.
If a person feels happier assuming that there is a higher power somewhere, if this notion contributes to said person's mental health and general sense of wellbeing, and if it were deterimential to this person's outlook on life not to belief in a deity, surely it is the rational choice to believe?

You have a point there. I guess I was responding more to the second point in the paragraph I quoted, that is: everyone who IS religious is being irrational, although it may be a rational (reasonable) choice for them to make for themselves. (Although I would doubt even that, you see, as religions for the most part seek to manipulate and brainwash the faithful to their own ends - not much rationality in following them either as far as I'm concerned, but each to their own.)

drkpower

Shenshen wrote: »

What I always found striking about life in the biological sense is that in medicine, we would declare someone biologically dead when there is no measurable brain activity - I'm no medic and I could have this wrong, so if anyone out there could enlighten me if I am mistaken, please do.

But based on this, why would we assume that a foetus is alive before there is any brain activity? As I understand, the brain in a foetus usually starts its activity around the beginning of the 3rd months of the pregnancy.

People are declared brain dead when there is irreversible loss of brain activity. Therefore, it seems wea value potentiality to some degree. The brain function/consciousness argument is an attractive one, but it doesn't solve every problem (mind you, nor does any other solution to the abortion issue).

seenitall

Teamshadowclan wrote: »

Disagree. And I'll state before hand that I'm agnostic here.

You're using the example of an extreme of religious belief. There's plenty of people who allow religion to play a part in their lives without actually believing a man walked on water. My religion teacher in 5th and 6th year was a priest, and was brilliant; he stressed how he taught everyone he could that the bible is a book of metaphor and parable, not meant to be believed as literal. And most religious folk I know would follow that train of thought; rationally, they use religious beliefs to guide their lives and the type of people they are. That's perfectly rational. Everyone has a mantra they live by. And it's quite rational to use religion to help form that.

I agree it's not overly rational to believe the bible in a literal sense, and I know there's plenty of people who do. But I refuse to pait anyone who allows religion to be a part of their life to be irrational to an extreme.

Meanwhile, I do think there can still be a lot of rationality behind believing in a higher power. A lot of people need to believe there's more to life than what we experience with our basic senses. They use religion in positive ways to drive their lives forward. Just because you don't doesn't mean that it's irrational. Religion can be a hugely comforting thing to a lot of people and can give meaning to people's lives.

Well done you if you can find that meaning in other ways. I, too, don't need religion to define myself. But it's hugely unfair to make a massive sweeping statement where you paint anyone who accepts religion as irrational, and such sweeping statements annoy me just as much as people who refuse to consider personal circumstances in pregnancies and discussions on abortion.

I'm sorry, but there is NO rationality in believing in someone who doesn't exist, any which way you try to spin this. There is comfort, there is peace, you could even maaaaybe argue it is a rational choice for the given person to believe a hobbit ever existed (as in, being rational about being irrational? hmmmm, but ok), but rational is one thing it is not.

As you say, people need to believe. It is a belief. Belief in literally eating a person's body every Sunday, while all of one's senses indicate that it is a piece of bread - can you even come up with anything more irrational than that?

No, it's not because I'm not religious that religion is irrational. Religion is irrational because a lot of people, as you said, need to believe in miracles and superstitions. Always have, and perhaps always will.

Shenshen

Teamshadowclan wrote: »

It strikes me that the problem there comes with the fact that you can find "research" and "Scientific evidence" to back up most arguments, and that a lot of pro-lifers will who go down that route will throw back research which shows things like "Pain can be felt earlier than that" or "Yes, but a dead person doesn't have potential to be alive, while a foetus does and you're destroying the potential".

Again, I'm no expert, but the quick google search I did before posting about the beginning of brain activity and biological death actually suggested that pain cannot be felt until quite a bit later, as pain receptors take longer to develop than the actual brain.

As for the "potential" argument, I find that one particularly ... well, ridiculous, almost.

It's estimated that the vast majority of pregnancies naturally abort in the very early stages, many times without the mother even realising she had been pregnant at all. If "potential" life is equally important as actual life, why on earth are we not throwing all the resources we have at medical solutions to this, to make sure each and every single pregnancy will get carried out to birth?

It also directly leads me to the question of accidents during pregnancy resulting in miscarriage. I know a lady who wore high heels all the way through her pregnancy, causing her to stumble more often than someone in flat shoes might have. At one point, she narrowly avoided tripping and falling down a flight of stairs.
Stupid? Certainly. But imagine she had fallen and had as a consequence miscarried. If the foetus was actually a person with full rights, surely that accident would have brought her to court on a charge of manslaughter?

And leaving the actual fertilised ovum aside, surely every ovum has potential to be turned into a human being? As does every sperm cell?
Are menstruating women robbing future human beings of their potential existence?
Or masturbating men?
Were Monty Python right all along?

Lord TSC

Shenshen wrote: »

As for the "potential" argument, I find that one particularly ... well, ridiculous, almost.

Not saying it's my arguement. Just an arguement I've had thrown back at me sometimes

seenitall wrote: »

I'm sorry, but there is NO rationality in believing in someone who doesn't exist, any which way you try to spin this.

If that's what you believe, fair enough. Luckily, I'm pro-choice, which means you're more than welcome to believe what you want :P

seenitall

Teamshadowclan wrote: »

If that's what you believe, fair enough. Luckily, I'm pro-choice, which means you're more than welcome to believe what you want :P

No, T, I don't believe it, I know it, as I know the difference between faith and material reality.

Thanks for that permission, luckily I don't have much cause to avail of it, perhaps the 'faithful' will be more appreciative.

Lord TSC

seenitall wrote: »

No, T, I don't believe it, I know it, as I know the difference between faith and material reality.

:rolleyes: If some of the pro-lifers made such responses, they'd be jumped on.

I was referring to your belief about what's rational, not about whether God exists or not btw.

seenitall

Teamshadowclan wrote: »

:rolleyes: If some of the pro-lifers made such responses, they'd be jumped on.

I was referring to your belief about what's rational, not about whether God exists or not btw.

Huh? If the pro-lifers said that they knew the difference between faith and reality, they'd be jumped on, really?? Not by me, they wouldn't! Cos I'd be same as that! I don't have a clue what you mean, could you elaborate?

I don't have any belief about what's rational, I have a knowledge about what's rational. 'Belief' implies having no material evidence for one's ideas. Outside of some personal emotional considerations, I try to 'believe' stuff as little as I can.

Lord TSC

I meant more this attitude of you seemingly knowing better than others.

If a pro-lifer said "I don't believe what's murder, I know what's murder" or had that type of attitude, they'd be jumped upon. If they had this notion that their version of knowledge and reality superceeded everyone else, and that anyone who disagreed with them were simply irrational, we'd say their argument was laughable.

This is why I get annoyed about people who attack those who have religious beliefs. It's verging on elitism. "Aren't I much smarter than people with imaginary friends?"

I Heart Internet

Why can't we have a rational conversation about abortion?

Because, in the big picture, there are two directly opposing viewpoints. One that says the unborn is a human being, deserving of its right to life and should be protected. The other viewpoint says that the unborn is not a human being or is some sub-human being that can be terminated if "necessary" or desireable as it does not have an absolute right to life.

Most debates about abortion are not straightforward debates between these two viewpoints, they are usually more delicate, subtle debates e.g. the current one regarding the threat of suicide being a grounds for abortion.

Regardless of the subtleties involved, everyone knows that it boils down to this major pro-life vs pro-choice argument and that looms large over any debate that even comes close to the "abortion debate".

squod

Teamshadowclan wrote: »

But my point was that there's really not an equivalent extremist for the pro-choice side when compared to the pro-lifers.

Here are your pro-choice extremists.

In Canada there are about 31 abortions per 100 live births: 330,000 live births and 100,000 abortions each year. Roughly half are performed in hospitals, half in clinics.

In New York the rate is 41%. In Eastern European countries (in this case: Belarus, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Hungary, *Poland, the Republic of Moldova, Romania, the Russian Federation, Slovakia and Ukraine) have the highest estimated abortion rates in the world. In 2003 there were more abortions than live births: 103 abortions per 100 births.

* I'm told Poland has since changed it's laws because of the number of fruitloops getting abortion on demand. It's now circa 2/1000.

Grayson

squod wrote: »

Here are your pro-choice extremists.

In Canada there are about 31 abortions per 100 live births: 330,000 live births and 100,000 abortions each year. Roughly half are performed in hospitals, half in clinics.

In New York the rate is 41%. In Eastern European countries (in this case: Belarus, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Hungary, *Poland, the Republic of Moldova, Romania, the Russian Federation, Slovakia and Ukraine) have the highest estimated abortion rates in the world. In 2003 there were more abortions than live births: 103 abortions per 100 births.

* I'm told Poland has since changed it's laws because of the number of fruitloops getting abortion on demand. It's now circa 2/1000.

links? BTW, after a quick google myself It turns out that in New york a lot of them weren't actually new york residents, but residents of other states who travelled there. the same for the czech republic.

EDIT again

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Slovakia

Abortion in Slovakia was fully legalized on October 23, 1986.[1] Abortions were provided with restrictions in Slovakia and what is now the Czech Republic as early as December 19, 1957,[1] but it was the 1986 law which removed the requirement of medical approval for abortions before the twelfth week of pregnancy.[1] Girls under 16 require parental consent for an abortion, while girls aged 16 and 17 can have the procedure performed without consent but the parents still have to be notified.[1]

To procure an abortion on demand, a woman must have not exceeded the twelfth week of her pregnancy, and she must make her request for an abortion known in writing to her family physician.[1] Counseling and birth control information is given to the woman, and she is referred to a hospital to terminate her pregnancy.[1] After twelve weeks, a group of physicians must approve the abortion, which in practice only occurs if there is a chance of irreparable harm for either the fetus or the mother.[1]

The abortion rate peaked in the late 1980s after the liberalization of the old abortion law, with nearly 40 abortions per 1000 births.[2] In 2004, the figure fell below 15 abortions per 1000 births, its lowest rate since the government started tracking abortion figures in 1958.[2]

Doesn't seem that high. Are you just naming random countries?

fryup

look at this carry on in knock :rolleyes:

i thought we were beyond that bally-go-backwards-bog-brained-narrowminded-parochial-gombeen-holy-joe-TOSH

I Heart Internet

fryup wrote: »

i thought we were beyond that bally-go-backwards-bog-brained-narrowminded-parochial-gombeen-holy-joe-TOSH

^^Exhibit A in "why we can't have a rational conversation about abortion"

Czarcasm

squod wrote: »

I'm told Poland has since changed it's laws because of the number of fruitloops getting abortion on demand. It's now circa 2/1000.

So do you blindly believe everything you're told? I'm telling you then that your statistics are absolutely meaningless. Nice turn of phrase there with the "fruitloops getting abortion on demand".

No sitting on the fence for you obviously, I see where you get your username now, it's a portmanteau of God Squad- Squod.

Lord TSC

squod wrote: »

Here are your pro-choice extremists.
In Canada there are about 31 abortions per 100 live births: 330,000 live births and 100,000 abortions each year. Roughly half are performed in hospitals, half in clinics.

In New York the rate is 41%. In Eastern European countries (in this case: Belarus, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Hungary, *Poland, the Republic of Moldova, Romania, the Russian Federation, Slovakia and Ukraine) have the highest estimated abortion rates in the world. In 2003 there were more abortions than live births: 103 abortions per 100 births.

* I'm told Poland has since changed it's laws because of the number of fruitloops getting abortion on demand. It's now circa 2/1000.

Also looking forward to links to these figures.

Regardless, this is not an example of pro-choice extremists, but rather examples of extreme numbers of abortions. There is not a radical group forcing these people to get abortions and threatening them if they don't get rid of their children.

Those figures, if true, simply show how in those countries, abortion has got out of control and could be used as examples as to how it's important to educate people about the dangers of abortion to the body over a long term and how they shouldn't be used in place of other forms of birth control. It's why I'd be pro-choice but also pro-education over the long term as well.

joehig

cause it will never end

squod

Teamshadowclan wrote: »

Those figures, if true, simply show how in those countries, abortion has got out of control and could be used as examples as to how it's important to educate people about the dangers of abortion to the body over a long term and how they shouldn't be used in place of other forms of birth control. It's why I'd be pro-choice but also pro-education over the long term as well.

I didn't quote figures from Somalia. I didn't quote figures form 1902. This is what the pro-choicers want. Believe it or not.

We're not going to go from the 30 abortions we have each year here to 40 or 50. We're going to have thousands more in a pro-choice environment.

Pro-choicers here want to plunge this country into the dark ages. That's a fact.

Whistlingmilk

squod wrote: »

I didn't quote figures from Somalia. I didn't quote figures form 1902. This is what the pro-choicers want. Believe it or not.

We're not going to go from the 30 abortions we have each year here to 40 or 50. We're going to have thousands more in a pro-choice environment.

Pro-choicers here want to plunge this country into the dark ages. That's a fact.

You didn't quote any figures, you just stated a lot of different numbers. If you could provide a link or reference then you'd actually be quoting something. That's a fact.

looking_around

squod wrote: »

I didn't quote figures from Somalia. I didn't quote figures form 1902. This is what the pro-choicers want. Believe it or not.

We're not going to go from the 30 abortions we have each year here to 40 or 50. We're going to have thousands more in a pro-choice environment.

Even if that was the case(on the ridiculous numbers) , it would Not "plunge this country into the dark ages."
Thats ludicrous.

Stop forcing YOUR morals on others.