Why we can't have a rational conversation about abortion

squod

seenitall wrote: »

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.

Animals have a sense of morality. Scienticians are studying apes and primates and some suggest they have a instinct for moral conscience.

http://www.livescience.com/24802-animals-have-morals-book.html

Do you reckon apes would be into letting 40% of other apes get abortions? Theoretically like.

Sarky

Could you back up those numbers, squod? I'm sure you just didn't see the others asking you, and I'd hate for people to think you were lying or relying on some bollocks made up by Youth Defence or some other bunch of despicable c*ntbags.

seenitall

squod wrote: »

Animals have a sense of morality. Scienticians are studying apes and primates and some suggest they have a instinct for moral conscience.

http://www.livescience.com/24802-animals-have-morals-book.html

Do you reckon apes would be into letting 40% of other apes get abortions? Theoretically like.

Theoretically like, why wouldn't they be?

There is nothing in my sense of morality as a human being to direct me to forbid women from having abortions. I do think, though, that I would be singing a different tune if I were, for whatever reason, indoctrinated into believing that the life of an embryo or early term foetus has an inherent right to carry on growing regardless of the wishes of the woman who is carrying the pregnancy.

I see no reason why the apes wouldn't agree with me. Unless they discovered God, that is (God, preferably, being a He ).

Phill Ewinn

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.

Extemists is right.

Sarky

I'd prefer to see where squod got those numbers before believing them, frankly. It's just a quirk I have. I'm sure he won't be long.

Nodin

squod wrote: »

Whats ridiculous? How many abortions will your morals tolerate?

For me, as many as women want.

Nodin

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Extemists is right.

There ye are Phill. You going to explain your position now?
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=84455874&postcount=132

squod

Sarky wrote: »

I'd prefer to see where squod got those numbers before believing them, frankly. It's just a quirk I have. I'm sure he won't be long.

http://www.nyc41percent.com/

http://www.med.uottawa.ca/sim/data/Abortion_e.htm

http://www.euro.who.int/en/what-we-do/health-topics/Life-stages/sexual-and-reproductive-health/activities/abortion/facts-and-figures-about-abortion-in-the-european-region

In response to TS's extremist rant.

Teamshadowclan wrote: »

........ there's really not an equivalent extremist for the pro-choice side when compared to the pro-lifers.

squod

Nodin wrote: »

For me, as many as women want.

Nodin wants us to end up in the dark ages. I want constitutive rights the unborn already have.

/Thread.

Nodin

squod wrote: »

Nodin wants us to end up in the dark ages..

I'm somewhat intrigued now. What do you mean by "dark ages" and how does abortion get us there?

squod wrote: »

I want constitutive rights the unborn already have.

.

Good to see the womenfolk of the country are foremost in your thoughts. You'll find that even here, theres been some effort to balance the rights given to the "unborn" with the rights of the mother, hence the current legislation.

squod

Nodin wrote: »

You'll find that even here, theres been some effort to balance the rights given to the "unborn" with the rights of the mother, hence the current legislation.

Nodin wrote: »

For me, as many as women want.

No balance in your equation N.

Nodin

squod wrote: »

No balance in your equation N.

I don't see both as equal, so thats obviously not going to happen, is it?

Now - What do you mean by "dark ages" and how does abortion get us there?
I'm unable to work it out meself.

Garzard

People who bring God and the bloody Bible into it should be kicked off the abortion debate and have their comments deleted - we're not living in a church dominated society anymore ffs. Almost every reason I see against abortion is some crap like ''...because God says no.'' Why are the idiots who make comments like these even listened to, let alone given a say??

What's annoying me even more is that these new reforms I'm hearing about every day on the news don't seem to be getting anywhere. The whole thing's getting much more complicated than it needs to, when abortion could and should be as simple as requesting one, no questions asked. It should all rest with the woman entirely.

Andrewf20

Nature seems to be a big contributor to miscarriage or "natural" abortion. Id be interested to hear a religious persons view on this. Does God over see these? If every life is precious then why would God allow such a thing to be so common, despite the parents best efforts to nurthur the foetus to full term.

Also, why would a God deny some couples the capabilty to have children (infertility etc), especially when life & life creation is seen as so precious.

I see these as holes when it comes to appealing to religon on this topic.

Czarcasm

Sandwlch wrote: »

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".

See below-

Mardy Bum wrote: »

Its actually called cognitive dissonance for the most part.

Thank you. I just didn't want to be seen to be talking over people's heads, so I try to keep my language as basic as possible.

seenitall wrote: »

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

Yes, and that's exactly my point- there is only ONE reality. It's our perception that makes us see that reality whatever way we want to, hence why some irrational people use religion to back up their world view, and some people use a lack of belief, to back up their world view; reality doesn't change, only our perceptions of reality can change.

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.

Because seenitall, as I said, if it wasn't religion or lack thereof that people fought over- it'd be some other irrational reason given to flex their superiority muscles. Religion isn't borne out of ignorance, but irrational behaviour is borne out of insecurity. Therefore people will use any excuse they can think of to see themselves as superior to their fellow human beings. Some people who like to take the moral high ground like to use religion as the basis for their irrational behaviour, which as I said, is borne out of insecurity.

Some people who like claim the enlightened high ground to use their lack of belief as the basis for theirirrational behaviour, borne out of the very same insecurity within themselves.

You will dismiss people who are religious as irrational, without actually acknowledging that a lack of belief in a deity does not mean a person cannot be irrational. I've met plenty of atheists who can be irrational, my wife being one of them at times. I feel that her opposition to abortion based on her own ethical beliefs, is irrational. She at least understands that my beliefs are only a part of who I am, and that as I said earlier in the thread- humanity for me trumps religion every time.

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.

It doesn't take any measure of mental gymnastics at all tbh, it just takes a rational human being who is able to understand that you learn more and achieve more by listening, than you do by shoving your opinion down people's throats.

Sandwlch

Czarcasm wrote: »

See below-

Thank you. I just didn't want to be seen to be talking over people's heads, so I try to keep my language as basic as possible.

You will dismiss people who are religious as irrational, without actually acknowledging that a lack of belief in a deity does not mean a person cannot be irrational.

Cognitive dissonance explains irrationality, it does not mean you are not irrational.

A lack of belief in a deity does indeed not mean a person cannot be irrational.
But believing is a deity is proof of irrationality.

Sarky

squod wrote: »

http://www.nyc41percent.com/

http://www.med.uottawa.ca/sim/data/Abortion_e.htm

http://www.euro.who.int/en/what-we-do/health-topics/Life-stages/sexual-and-reproductive-health/activities/abortion/facts-and-figures-about-abortion-in-the-european-region

In response to TS's extremist rant.

Thanks. Don't you think it would have saved a lot of time by just including them the first time?

Link 1:
Huh, that DOES seem high, doesn't it?

Now, while the overall 41% rate is surprising, and looks to be supported quite well by the data depending on how it's measured (yes, I looked up the reports) there are a few things that are pertinent:

The site doesn't seem interested in the fact that despite being relatively high, the number of abortions in New York has been steadily falling. Dropped from about 95K-87K between 2000 and 2009, for example. About an 8% reduction.

Also worth mentioning is their different methods of measuring abortion. The first one they use, abortions per thousand fertile women each year, has a rate of about 46.5% in 2005, but a rate of 19.4% in 2009. That's a dramatic fall, and less than half of what you're actually claiming. So it'd really help if you mentioned which method you were using to calculate rates next time. For the record, the above method is generally regarded as the standard. Using others without mentioning it tends to make you look like you're deliberately presenting a false picture to make the numbers look bigger. And nobody wants to be accused of that.

I don't know about you, but that all sounds promising, don't you think? It'd be nice if there were some statistics as to why they've been falling. Alas, one can only speculate. I suspect it's down to education about safer sex and contraceptives, it usually takes longer to filter down through some places, particularly where there's plenty of religion.

Side-note: A quick google on the city's economy, and it turns out the highest areas for abortion correlate pretty well with the less affluent and more ethnic parts of the city. That doesn't explain the overall high baseline elsewhere, but given poor areas tend to be more religious and less educated, which would probably fit in fairly well with the fact that the highest rates of unplanned pregnancies are usually in the most religious areas of America. On a side note, a good 70% of the city's population says it's Christian, most of that Catholic. Probably not terribly relevant, but interesting all the same in view of the large abortion rates.

Given that New York City's abortion laws aren't significantly different from any other American city, your claim that the high rate is due to "pro-choice extremists" doesn't really hold much water. Perhaps you could provide statistics as to WHY the number is as high as it is there? Until then, it's probably best if you don't make silly statements on the matter.

Link 2:
I don't think you read past point one (and must have misinterpreted it), because point 2 puts the abortion rate at around 1.2-1.6% in Canada, pretty similar to most of the developed western world. Point 1 dealt only with unplanned pregnancies. about 60% of all pregnancies there are planned, and they're not included in your figures. Half of 40% is, last time I checked, about 20%. Rather less than the numbers you were trying to back up, don't you think?

Even then, 90% of those are done before the end of the first trimester, before a foetal brain's cells even have synapses to link them and make them work. Doctors require "compelling health or genetic reasons" before they'll even think of abortion past 20 weeks. Sounds reasonable.

Again, interesting to note that Quebec is a statistical outlier with one of the highest abortion rates in the western world. The page says that school sex education is not universal there. It also identifies as strongly catholic. Again, probably unrelated, but it does seem to crop up a lot in such cases...

Link 3:
Europe's rate is about 1.2-5%, depending on which country you look at. A lot of Eastern European countries had some crazy rates, in some countries they exceeded the birth rates in the early part of the century. They've fallen to 5% or less since, thanks to the introduction of things like contraceptives and general increases in population education/wealth. All the evidence here points to decent availability of abortion and access to contraceptives and sex education are what keeps rates low.

Massive decreases and a promising outlook you'll have to agree, however grudgingly.


tl;dr

Mostly, those websites don't really say what you're claiming they say. What was that about extremist rants?

blatantrereg

Sarky, you should check out Neonomicon (looking at your signature).
This post works on at least two levels

token101

NIMAN wrote: »

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

It's not a sponge cake; it's not possible to just "be somewhere in the middle". You're either for it or against it. I believe there's lots of merit to both sides, but sitting on the fence has let it drag on for too long.

NIMAN wrote: »

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

What sort of cases? Rape? Incest? People who say it's OK to have a termination in either of those two cases but not in the case of a one night stand probably have the least logic of all. Just because someone's biological father was a a ****ing scumbag, that shouldn't have an impact on you.

It's a also bit more than "Eh I can't be arsed being pregnant". You're bringing another life into the world and whatever decision you make it will fundamentally alter your own life and the life of the child. People who say "ah just hand it up for adoption", as though a child is a sack of unwanted clothes seem to forget that.

I also don't understand how any statistics of any nature have any relevance whatsoever to this entire debate! It's a strictly personal decision based on your own morals.

playedalive

Andrewf20 wrote: »

Nature seems to be a big contributor to miscarriage or "natural" abortion. Id be interested to hear a religious persons view on this. Does God over see these? If every life is precious then why would God allow such a thing to be so common, despite the parents best efforts to nurthur the foetus to full term.

Also, why would a God deny some couples the capabilty to have children (infertility etc), especially when life & life creation is seen as so precious.

I see these as holes when it comes to appealing to religon on this topic.

Good point! But I'd say religious folk would say that God willed it that way...

Czarcasm

Sandwlch wrote: »

Cognitive dissonance explains irrationality, it does not mean you are not irrational.

A lack of belief in a deity does indeed not mean a person cannot be irrational.
But believing is a deity is proof of irrationality.

Believing in a deity is not by any means proof of irrationality. You may see that person's beliefs as irrational, but that does not mean the person themselves is irrational.

I'm not forcing my religion on anyone here, but there are some posters who identify as atheist who seek to use their lack of belief to set themselves apart from people who are religious so they can say that the only reason they can object to abortion is because they are religious. That, to me at least, is irrational behaviour.

If a person is truly rational, they should be able to see that people are far more complex than just being pegged as religious zealots or baby eating atheists, and if you want to keep religion out of a discussion, then keep it out, but also keep out personal bias formed from one's lack of belief in a deity.

The issue of abortion is not as black and white as "religious = irrational and opposed to abortion, while non-religion = rational and supportive of abortion".

Mardy Bum

Czarcasm wrote: »

Believing in a deity is not by any means proof of irrationality. You may see that person's beliefs as irrational, but that does not mean the person themselves is irrational.

I'm not forcing my religion on anyone here, but there are some posters who identify as atheist who seek to use their lack of belief to set themselves apart from people who are religious so they can say that the only reason they can object to abortion is because they are religious. That, to me at least, is irrational behaviour.

If a person is truly rational, they should be able to see that people are far more complex than just being pegged as religious zealots or baby eating atheists, and if you want to keep religion out of a discussion, then keep it out, but also keep out personal bias formed from one's lack of belief in a deity.

The issue of abortion is not as black and white as "religious = irrational and opposed to abortion, while non-religion = rational and supportive of abortion".

Would you say some who believed in Thor was irrational?
Would you say some who believed in the Wiccan goddess was irrational?
Superstition is irrational. It is the definition of irrationality.

I agree with you on the religion = anti abortion atheist = pro choice argument. There have been a lot of atheists who are against abortion.

I Heart Internet

Garzard wrote: »

People who bring God and the bloody Bible into it should be kicked off the abortion debate and have their comments deleted - we're not living in a church dominated society anymore ffs. Almost every reason I see against abortion is some crap like ''...because God says no.'' Why are the idiots who make comments like these even listened to, let alone given a say??

Then by your own admission you should be kicked right out of the debate.

If there is something worse than someone using their religious beliefs to defend a pro-life stance it is those who dodge any reasonable debate on abortion my immediately dragging God into the debate and deciding that their opponents in the debate are irrational religious freaks.

We can have a perfectly sensible debate on the rights and wrongs of abortion from a wholly humanist point of view. I find that many, many pro-choice people dodge that debate by dragging out the God card at the earliest possible opportunity.

A 20 week feotus seems like a baby, not because Jesus and the Pope tell us it is but becasue it looks kinda like a baby, moves kinda like a baby and behaves kinda like a baby. On a human level it feels right to speak up to defend it.

Sandwlch

The thread is on the possibility of a rational conversation about abortion, not about abortion.

Czarcasm wrote: »

The issue of abortion is not as black and white as "religious = irrational and opposed to abortion, while non-religion = rational and supportive of abortion".

I see it more as "religious=irrational and not fit to have a rational conversation about abortion, non-religous = possibly capable of having a rational conversation about it"

token101

I Heart Internet wrote: »

We can have a perfectly sensible debate on the rights and wrongs of abortion from a wholly humanist point of view. I find that many, many pro-choice people dodge that debate by dragging out the God card at the earliest possible opportunity.

A 20 week feotus seems like a baby, not because Jesus and the Pope tell us it is but becasue it looks kinda like a baby, moves kinda like a baby and behaves kinda like a baby. On a human level it feels right to speak up to defend it.

Definitely has a lot of merit, but why does its rights supersede the mother's?

seenitall

Czarcasm wrote: »

Yes, and that's exactly my point- there is only ONE reality. It's our perception that makes us see that reality whatever way we want to, hence why some irrational people use religion to back up their world view, and some people use a lack of belief, to back up their world view; reality doesn't change, only our perceptions of reality can change.
Because seenitall, as I said, if it wasn't religion or lack thereof that people fought over- it'd be some other irrational reason given to flex their superiority muscles. Religion isn't borne out of ignorance, but irrational behaviour is borne out of insecurity. Therefore people will use any excuse they can think of to see themselves as superior to their fellow human beings. Some people who like to take the moral high ground like to use religion as the basis for their irrational behaviour, which as I said, is borne out of insecurity.
Some people who like claim the enlightened high ground to use their lack of belief as the basis for theirirrational behaviour, borne out of the very same insecurity within themselves.
You will dismiss people who are religious as irrational, without actually acknowledging that a lack of belief in a deity does not mean a person cannot be irrational. I've met plenty of atheists who can be irrational, my wife being one of them at times. I feel that her opposition to abortion based on her own ethical beliefs, is irrational. She at least understands that my beliefs are only a part of who I am, and that as I said earlier in the thread- humanity for me trumps religion every time.
It doesn't take any measure of mental gymnastics at all tbh, it just takes a rational human being who is able to understand that you learn more and achieve more by listening, than you do by shoving your opinion down people's throats.

There is only one reality - one of the physical world around us. I'm glad we agree on that, so I don't know what you are on about with my alleged reality, my Age of Aquarius etc. Still baffled.

Yes, I'm sure irrationality isn't something found in religious people's thinking solely. Nor did I ever say it was.

I don't like the sound of that "claiming the enlightened high ground" though, as if I am the first person ever to go 'hey, as far as I can tell, religion is based on some 2000 year's old mumbo jumbo written by some rather superstitious shepherds in a desert (and who can blame them, life was tough and they had to make it bearable as best they could), therefore cannot be either very rational, very enlightened, or very relevant to the modern day and age." And then I must have added: "Ooooh I feel so superior right now!!!":D

I don't feel triumphalist or on a high ground, I feel utterly defeated, dejected and depressed that in the 21st century these kind of discussions are still being held.

Er, if a geologist has been told by in his church that the earth is 5000 years old, and then he learns something different in his studies, I don't see how reconciling these two 'views' :rolleyes: wouldn't involve a grrrrrreat deal of mental exertion. Nothing to do with shoving anyone's opinions down people's throats indeed.

squod

Sarky wrote: »

Link 2:
I don't think you read past point one (and must have misinterpreted it), because point 2 puts the abortion rate at around 1.2-1.6% in Canada, pretty similar to most of the developed western world. Point 1 dealt only with unplanned pregnancies. about 60% of all pregnancies there are planned, and they're not included in your figures. Half of 40% is, last time I checked, about 20%. Rather less than the numbers you were trying to back up, don't you think?

About 20% yeah? It's 30%. Fuhken huge numbers

330,000 live births and 100,000 abortions each year. Roughly half are performed in hospitals, half in clinics.

http://www.med.uottawa.ca/sim/data/Abortion_e.htm


http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/050712/dq050712a-eng.htm

darced

This post has been deleted.

Nodin

squod wrote: »

About 20% yeah? It's 30%. Fuhken huge numbers


http://www.med.uottawa.ca/sim/data/Abortion_e.htm


http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/050712/dq050712a-eng.htm

Sure what can ye do.

Now - What did you mean by "dark ages" and how does abortion get us there?

Mardy Bum

I Heart Internet wrote: »

A 20 week feotus seems like a baby, not because Jesus and the Pope tell us it is but becasue it looks kinda like a baby, moves kinda like a baby and behaves kinda like a baby. On a human level it feels right to speak up to defend it.

A fetus can't feel pain until after 24 weeks.
In my books that makes if a bit different. 24 weeks should be the upper limit.