Why we can't have a rational conversation about abortion

seenitall

Teamshadowclan wrote: »

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?"

Oh that's plainly ridiculous. Please don't put words in my mouth, I really don't appreciate it. I never said my knowledge or my reality (as if there were any such thing) superceded everyone else, you are being deliberately insulting.

The fact of the matter is that religion is irrational, it is built on irrationality, and therefore a religious person, who, by default, has to follow religious rules and dogmas about imaginary beings and all the rest of it, hasn't got the same freedom that I have of actually acknowledging and learning from the scientific and rational heritage of human race. Therefore yes, they do know less of a hell of a lot of things than a non-religious, rationally thinking person will do. They believe more, they know less.

I will leave it to you to decide which is the "smarter" way of thinking or choosing to live one's life. "Smarter" being your chosen word.

Elitism my foot. Seems that calling a spade a spade is elitism in your book. :rolleyes:

Lord TSC

seenitall wrote: »

The fact of the matter is that religion is irrational, it is built on irrationality, and therefore a religious person, who, by default, has to follow religious rules and dogmas about imaginary beings and all the rest of it, hasn't got the same freedom that I have of actually acknowledging and learning from the scientific and rational heritage of human race. Therefore yes, they do know less of a hell of a lot of things than a non-religious, rationally thinking person will do. They believe more, they know less.

And there's the logical fallacy you're perpetuating right there; that all religious people, by default, have to follow the same rules and dogmas about imaginary beings. You're painting all religious people as being the same, all having the exact same set of characteristics to each other, all following the exact same style of religion. The fact that there are many, many religious people who don't follow an irrational literal understanding of the bible seems not to matter to you, because once they are religious, they all should be painted with the same brush. Doesn't matter apparently if you're a religious extremist or someone who just follows the basic mantras of a religion, you're illogical and irrational because you "know" less than people who have rejected religion.

The truth is there's a vast spectrum that religious people fall onto. Do you consider them all irrational? All those billions of people who follow one religion or another, they are all less rational than you?

And for someone who is giving out about putting words in mouths, you seem to constantly take one aspect of what I'm saying and ignore everything else. Yes, it is elitism to take one group of people and try and portray them as something lower than you. You can deny that's what you're doing but you're still doing it. Saying "I am more rational than these people" is forming two-tiers and putting yourself on top of it. That, by definition, is elitism.

I also strongly dispute the fact that religion is built on irrationality; the truth is most religions are built on solid principles that get twisted and turned by the people who try and spread those principles. I may not be much of a catholic, but the founding principle of "Treat others as you'd have them treat you" is pretty damn solid. But because there's a core of "irrational" people, you're happy to paint everyone with the same brush and make a crazy sweeping generalisation.

squod wrote: »

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

Wow, you resorted to hyperbole pretty quickly....

Still, harks back to what I said earlier. Anytime anyone uses a "All X are Y" argument (be it "All religious people are irrational" or "All pro-choicers are after a trip to the dark ages"), it instantly destroys their credibility imo.

Nodin

squod wrote: »

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

Comedy gold there.

kylith

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.

Yes, that would be correct, if we were to introduce abortion on demand. This is not because thousands of Irish women would suddenly decide to have abortions when they otherwise wouldn't have, but because the thousands of Irish women who currently go to England could instead have a termination in their home country.

Czarcasm

seenitall wrote: »

Oh that's plainly ridiculous. Please don't put words in my mouth, I really don't appreciate it. I never said my knowledge or my reality (as if there were any such thing) superceded everyone else, you are being deliberately insulting.

The fact of the matter is that religion is irrational, it is built on irrationality, and therefore a religious person, who, by default, has to follow religious rules and dogmas about imaginary beings and all the rest of it, hasn't got the same freedom that I have of actually acknowledging and learning from the scientific and rational heritage of human race. Therefore yes, they do know less of a hell of a lot of things than a non-religious, rationally thinking person will do. They believe more, they know less.

I will leave it to you to decide which is the "smarter" way of thinking or choosing to live one's life. "Smarter" being your chosen word.

Elitism my foot. Seems that calling a spade a spade is elitism in your book. :rolleyes:

Christ you're smug. I like you!

Sandwlch

Because any possibility of rational debate is scuppered by one side of the potential debate being spoiled by catholics - self evdently irrational people, with no interest in a genuine debate on the topic, but only pushing without question the opinion of their leader in Rome.
Embarrasing for a modern democracy, but thats the lingering post catholic legacy effect we still endure in this country. It will take another couple of generations to grow out of it.

Grayson

squod wrote: »

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

They have more in common genetically with a crab than with you or I. And that's a fact.

(I'm surprised no-one else posted this)

Strangely, when i think of the dark ages i think of a time when the church ruled, everyone was uneducated and they all believed in superstition.

EDIT. BTW, you never did show a source for those figures.

squod

Whistlingmilk wrote: »

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.

You've done no research, yet you criticise my posts? And how many abortions do you want?

seenitall

Teamshadowclan wrote: »

And there's the logical fallacy you're perpetuating right there; that all religious people, by default, have to follow the same rules and dogmas about imaginary beings. You're painting all religious people as being the same, all having the exact same set of characteristics to each other, all following the exact same style of religion. The fact that there are many, many religious people who don't follow an irrational literal understanding of the bible seems not to matter to you, because once they are religious, they all should be painted with the same brush. Doesn't matter apparently if you're a religious extremist or someone who just follows the basic mantras of a religion, you're illogical and irrational because you "know" less than people who have rejected religion.

The truth is there's a vast spectrum that religious people fall onto. Do you consider them all irrational? All those billions of people who follow one religion or another, they are all less rational than you?

And for someone who is giving out about putting words in mouths, you seem to constantly take one aspect of what I'm saying and ignore everything else. Yes, it is elitism to take one group of people and try and portray them as something lower than you. You can deny that's what you're doing but you're still doing it. Saying "I am more rational than these people" is forming two-tiers and putting yourself on top of it. That, by definition, is elitism.

I also strongly dispute the fact that religion is built on irrationality; the truth is most religions are built on solid principles that get twisted and turned by the people who try and spread those principles. I may not be much of a catholic, but the founding principle of "Treat others as you'd have them treat you" is pretty damn solid. But because there's a core of "irrational" people, you're happy to paint everyone with the same brush and make a crazy sweeping generalisation.

All religious people may not believe the exact same things, but they are taking their guidance on their thinking from a non-existant entity or another. Exactly how rational is that???

Treat others as you'd like to be treated is what I live by, and I am certainly not religious. Can you explain how this 'solid' tenet is more crucial to religiosity than indoctrination into believing in a beardy man in the sky and only his way of 'saying' things should be done being the right way for everyone? Because from what I can see in the world around me, it is just the opposite. Wars and jihads being fought in the name of religion, and in the West at the moment, people's reproductive or other human rights still being eroded by the virtue of other people believing, and that only following their belief is the right way to go about things. NOT based on rationality and reason, much less on compassion or 'do unto others'. And you have the compunction to talk to me about elitism??

Religion is irrationality to its very rotten, power obsessed, manipulative, brainwashing, delusional, backwards core. Call me elitist all you want. Now that I'm beginning to get a grasp of your world-view, I am beginning to be proud of being called that by you.

squod

looking_around wrote: »

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.

Whats ridiculous? How many abortions will your morals tolerate?

Grayson

squod wrote: »

You've done no research, yet you criticise my posts? And how many abortions do you want?

I did research and posted it to contradict your figures. Which you still haven't backed up.

is that because you nicked it from an old WHO report that also says

Legal restrictions on abortion do not affect its incidence; women seek desperate measures if they cannot obtain safe abortions. Data from Romania revealed that, when termination of pregnancy was banned by the Ceausescu regime, maternal mortality was more than 20 times higher than today.

Unsafe abortion kills. Much has been done to improve abortion services in the Region, but up to 30% of maternal deaths are still caused by unsafe abortion in some countries of eastern Europe and central Asia.

Dripping Ice Cubes

Grayson wrote: »

So if she was raped, then the "childs" rights aren't valid?

Here's a thought for you. If they are "rights" then they are inherient. That's what rights are. They can't be removed. You could say that the "childs" rights are greater than the mothers. But they either are or are not. They can't change depending upon the situation.

That's the problem with discussions like this. People use the word rights like it's some kind of easy thing to through around. And generally they mean human rights but they don't clarify. If rights are to have any value then they have to be defined. And a right has to apply in all situations.

So using the same logic you use above, if we assume that a foetus has rights that are as stong as a person's, then the mother has as equal a claim to rights. So when a mothers life is in danger, their rights should be as strong, if not stronger than the foetus. This is because it is the foetus that is endangering the life of the mother, not by it's actions as such, but by it's existance. So in any case where the mothers life is in danger, the foetus should be aborted. And considering pregnancy is inherently dangerous, then it could be said that a woman should be able to abort whenever.

Not that this is my opinion, it's just logic. And it's that way because of how you define rights.

I never said the unborn child doesn't have rights in a rape scenario, the relative rights of the mother simply make a shift. Ultimately morals are subjective. In order to have a truly logically consistent discussion we would need to agree on a set of axioms first and deduce further from there.

The fact a foetus doesn't choose it's actions is where your argument is invalid. A persons actions and choices play a part in their rights in any given situation.

Czarcasm

seenitall wrote: »

All religious people may not believe the exact same things, but they are taking their guidance on their thinking from a non-existant entity or another. Exactly how rational is that???

Treat others as you'd like to be treated is what I live by, and I am certainly not religious. Can you explain how this 'solid' tenet is more crucial to religiosity than indoctrination into believing in a beardy man in the sky and only his way of 'saying' things should be done being the right way for everyone? Because from what I can see in the world around me, it is just the opposite. Wars and jihads being fought in the name of religion, and in the West at the moment, people's reproductive or other human rights still being eroded by the virtue of other people believing, and that only following their belief is the right way to go about things. NOT based on rationality and reason, much less on compassion or 'do unto others'. And you have the compunction to talk to me about elitism??

Religion is irrationality to its very rotten, power obsessed, manipulative, brainwashing, delusional, backwards core. Call me elitist all you want. Now that I'm beginning to get a grasp of your world-view, I am beginning to be proud of being called that by you.

seenitall what you're talking about there is more to do with human nature than it is to do with religion. If human beings couldn't fight with each other about religion, I guarantee you we'd find some other excuse to flex our superiority complex muscles. You're talking about what people do in the name of religion, ie- they use their religion as a justification for their behaviour.

They were irrational before they were ever religious, and religion just gives them a handy stick to beat you with, and you beat them with your atheist stick and so on and so on and so on.

Now who's irrational.

Grayson

Dripping Ice Cubes wrote: »

I never said the unborn child doesn't have rights in a rape scenario, the relative rights of the mother simply make a shift. Ultimately morals are subjective. In order to have a truly logically consistent discussion we would need to agree on a set of axioms first and deduce further from there.

The fact a foetus doesn't choose it's actions is where your argument is invalid. A persons actions and choices play a part in their rights in any given situation.

But you implied that a woman chooses to get pregnant. It's quite possible for a woman who's on the pill, and using protection to get pregnant.

seenitall

Czarcasm wrote: »

seenitall what you're talking about there is more to do with human nature than it is to do with religion. If human beings couldn't fight with each other about religion, I guarantee you we'd find some other excuse to flex our superiority complex muscles. You're talking about what people do in the name of religion, ie- they use their religion as a justification for their behaviour.

They were irrational before they were ever religious, and religion just gives them a handy stick to beat you with, and you beat them with your atheist stick and so on and so on and so on.

Now who's irrational.

LOL. There would be no beatings whatsoever, from either side, if religious people didn't have a bee in the bonnet about only their deity-of-choice's prescribed lifestyle and thoughts being the ones that should be followed by everyone, even in a nominally secular society.

At least if I were living in Saudi Arabia, I'd have Allah to blame and I would simply be called a cursed non-believer, rather than this 'elitist' BS.

Now who's pissed off?

(I am. )

Lord TSC

seenitall wrote: »

Last 2 posts

So we have...
1. All religious people are irrational
2. Without religion, there'd be no war.

If that's what you believe....sorry, "know"...then I think we're better off ending this here and now. We've already ventured waaay off topic, and if you really believe anything close to those, then I'm not going to bother wasting time trying to debate such irrational posts.

Grayson

seenitall wrote: »

LOL. There would be no beatings whatsoever, from either side, if religious people didn't have a bee in the bonnet about only their deity-of-choice's prescribed lifestyle and thoughts being the ones that should be followed by everyone, even in a nominally secular society.

At least if I were living in Saudi Arabia, I'd have Allah to blame and I would simply be called a cursed non-believer, rather than this 'elitist' BS.

Now who's pissed off?

(I am. )

you elitist cursed non believer.

At least i got kicked out of there because i was too pretty.

Sandwlch

Teamshadowclan wrote: »

So we have...
1. All religious people are irrational

I dont think even religious folk would dispute that one. More a case of wearing the irrationality as a badge of 'faith' honour.

Teamshadowclan wrote: »

2. Without religion, there'd be no war.

Nonsense alright.

seenitall

Teamshadowclan wrote: »

So we have...
1. All religious people are irrational
2. Without religion, there'd be no war.

If that's what you believe....sorry, "know"...then I think we're better off ending this here and now. We've already ventured waaay off topic, and if you really believe anything close to those, then I'm not going to bother wasting time trying to debate such irrational posts.

Still putting things in my mouth, I see. I never said that there'd be no wars without religion, did I?

Thank you for considering my posts irrational. A compliment from your esteemed, highly rational self.

mrblack

Does this debate over an issue affecting about 3 women per year really matter since the cost of a Ryanair flight or boat is so cheap that any female in the unfortunate situation of wanting/needing a termination can go and have one in UK/Netherlands anyway.

It still amazes me that its so mighty important to some folks that our little Godfearing/Godforsaken bankrupt republic still choses the hypocritical way of banning terminations for rape victims, nonviable fetuses and everyone else who thinks its their best solution to their predicament. Twas condoms twenty five years ago, then divorce,then the pill and now this seems to be social issue of the day that drives Priests & their best sheep into convulsions.

Thank God the UK/NI is close that they can solve our social issues and unemployment issues coz we seem unable to properly govern ourselves at all. The Bankruptch legislation farce we have now and the fact that we have put ourselves in the economic situation of having a foreign Troika tell us how to tax and spend responsibly indicates our complete inability to actually govern ourselves. On social issues we still have auld biddies and Billy's refusing to accept the reality that irish women are independant and do what they want regardless of what fundamentalist catholics and their pharisees desire to exercise control over their bodies.
These people were most likely the first to push the unlucky girls into the laundries to hide their shame up till the 1980's. Sean Brady takes the biscuit-This fellah even got young boys to swear on the bible not to tell on his paedophile colleagues FFS. His track record on dealing with children is so bad that I am astonished that anyone actually gives a toss what he says about any issue.

Sorry rant over!

Aseth

Bravo the priesthood. While everyone in the country seems to be busy quarelling about abortion - nobody talks about pedophilia in the church anymore.

squod

mrblack wrote: »

Does this debate over an issue affecting about 3 women per year .............

3 yeah? Jaysus.

charlemont

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?

Educated being the answer..:pac:

Czarcasm

seenitall wrote: »

LOL. There would be no beatings whatsoever, from either side, if religious people didn't have a bee in the bonnet about only their deity-of-choice's prescribed lifestyle and thoughts being the ones that should be followed by everyone, even in a nominally secular society.

At least if I were living in Saudi Arabia, I'd have Allah to blame and I would simply be called a cursed non-believer, rather than this 'elitist' BS.

Now who's pissed off?

(I am. )

From purely an evolutionary perspective seenitall, the above, even based on your scientific world view, is just ridiculous.

You're just as much about people buying into your "age of aquarius"-like "reality" as you admitted yourself about your reality; I'm Roman Catholic and you scorn my opinion while talking about alternate realities yourself? Get up outta that now in all fairness! You have the very same bee in your bonnet about anyone's belief in a deity.

You do realise there are geneticists, biologists, all sorts of evolutionary scientists who can manage to keep their religion separate from their science. The people that are irrational are the type that can't tell the difference between the two.


ps: I'm not pissed off at all either, all about the tolerance and understanding me

blatantrereg

Indeed.* People don't react well to the idea that random strangers can control their lives and what they do with their own bodies. Other people don't like the idea of killing babies. The two views are irreconcilable. It just depends whether you realise that an immature foetus is not a baby.

*I said "indeed" to give the impression that I have read the thread, even though I am probably paraphrasing the same point made several times already. I didn't even read the OP however. chuckle.

Sandwlch

Czarcasm wrote: »

From purely an evolutionary perspective seenitall, the above, even based on your scientific world view, is just ridiculous.

You're just as much about people buying into your "age of aquarius"-like "reality" as you admitted yourself about your reality; I'm Roman Catholic and you scorn my opinion while talking about alternate realities yourself? Get up outta that now in all fairness! You have the very same bee in your bonnet about anyone's belief in a deity.

You do realise there are geneticists, biologists, all sorts of evolutionary scientists who can manage to keep their religion separate from their science. The people that are irrational are the type that can't tell the difference between the two.

You cant have it both ways saying, "I'm irrational about my religion, but I'm rational about this topic on which my irrational religion has a strong edict".

Mardy Bum

Czarcasm wrote: »

From purely an evolutionary perspective seenitall, the above, even based on your scientific world view, is just ridiculous.

You're just as much about people buying into your "age of aquarius"-like "reality" as you admitted yourself about your reality; I'm Roman Catholic and you scorn my opinion while talking about alternate realities yourself? Get up outta that now in all fairness! You have the very same bee in your bonnet about anyone's belief in a deity.

You do realise there are geneticists, biologists, all sorts of evolutionary scientists who can manage to keep their religion separate from their science. The people that are irrational are the type that can't tell the difference between the two.


ps: I'm not pissed off at all either, all about the tolerance and understanding me

Its actually called cognitive dissonance for the most part.

The_Gatsby

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'?

He didn't say he was talking about a particular side though....He could mean people from both sides of the abortion debate

seenitall

Czarcasm wrote: »

From purely an evolutionary perspective seenitall, the above, even based on your scientific world view, is just ridiculous.

You're just as much about people buying into your "age of aquarius"-like "reality" as you admitted yourself about your reality; I'm Roman Catholic and you scorn my opinion while talking about alternate realities yourself? Get up outta that now in all fairness! You have the very same bee in your bonnet about anyone's belief in a deity.

You do realise there are geneticists, biologists, all sorts of evolutionary scientists who can manage to keep their religion separate from their science. The people that are irrational are the type that can't tell the difference between the two.

What alternate reality? What my reality? I did say that no such thing exists, didn't I?

Could you expand a bit more on how, from an evolutionary perspective, I was wrong/ridiculous in saying there would be no beatings with sticks on this issue if the religious folks didn't believe they have a god-given right to preach/dictate to everyone else how to live their lives.

If people manage to keep their religion separate from a science they study (especially a 'challenging' one, such as geology or evolutionary biology), I can only assume it is due to some skillful mental gymnastics, and I would applaud them on that score. I like gymnastics.

looking_around

squod wrote: »

Whats ridiculous? How many abortions will your morals tolerate?

As many as the mothers need.

Of course, this is assuming they are not using abortion as an alternative to contraception. (But thats easily solved, I believe, by making people have to do two sessions of counselling before they are allowed to abort. and or charging/fining people if they have aborted twice in a year or such--> as obviously not using/bothering with contraception.
This isn't because of morals, but the cost to the country to pay for abortions when the people could've bought contraception.

Morally, I do not the believe the foetus is 'alive'[in the sense of surviving/understanding/choices] and therefore doesn't have any rights.)