Why we can't have a rational conversation about abortion

Czarcasm

Mardy Bum wrote: »

Would you say some who believed in Thor was irrational?
Would you say some who believed in the Wiccan goddess was irrational?

No, I wouldn't immediately see that person as irrational at all, their beliefs are only a part of who they are as a person. What IS irrational, is to think otherwise.

Superstition is irrational. It is the definition of irrationality.

Superstition is irrational yes, but it is not the definition of irrationality. The psychotheraputic definition of irrationality (which would be the most relevant definition applicable here) is described below-

The term irrational is often used in psychotherapy and the concept of irrationality is especially known in rational emotive behavior therapy originated and developed by American psychologist Albert Ellis. In this approach, the term irrational is used in a slightly different way than in general. Here irrationality is defined as the tendency and leaning that humans have to act, emote and think in ways that are inflexible, unrealistic, absolutist and most importantly self- and social-defeating and destructive.

Source: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irrationality

The above definition could be applied to a person regardless of their religious beliefs, or lack thereof, so therefore a person can be irrational whether they be religious or atheist.

squod

Mardy Bum wrote: »

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.

Late late show had a couple on with their twin babies. One born at 24 weeks. RTE player --->

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/premature-survival-rates-high-says-expert-1.554494

Whistlingmilk

squod wrote: »

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

I could be against the legalization of abortion for all you know. I am certainly against the 'quoting' of statistics without a reference. Glad to see you've finally provided some, and glad to see the problems with them have been highlighted.

I Heart Internet

token101 wrote: »

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

The unborn's right to life doesn't supersede the mother's right to life.

It does supersede some of a mother's other rights though. But the right to life supersedes all other rights (in my opinion).

Sarky

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

You might want to read it again. Pay particular attention to the part that says that about 40% of pregnancies are unplanned, and half of those are terminated. It's in the very first point of the website, so I doubt you just skipped over it. If you were to use your calculation method everywhere, we'd end up with numbers about 10 times bigger in every country. You don't get to choose different methods to prove a point without mentioning it, because that's really very similar to lying.

I'll take your not taking up my other points as admission that you were wrong on them, so thanks for that. We've all learned something today.

I Heart Internet

Mardy Bum wrote: »

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.

Different perhaps. But why does lack of perception of pain mean one can abort it? If I get a general anaesthetic I won't perceive pain.

squod

Whistlingmilk wrote: »

I could be against the legalization of abortion for all you know. I am certainly against the 'quoting' of statistics without a reference. Glad to see you've finally provided some, and glad to see the problems with them have been highlighted.

What problems with them? Did you dislike it when I pointed out that Poland decreased their abortion rate dramatically through legislation?

Nodin

squod wrote: »

Late late show had a couple on with their twin babies. One born at 24 weeks. RTE player --->

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/premature-survival-rates-high-says-expert-1.554494

Squod, is there some reason you can't explain your own remarks?

squod

Sarky wrote: »

You might want to read it again. Pay particular attention to the part that says that about 40% of pregnancies are unplanned, and half of those are terminated. It's in the very first point of the website, so I doubt you just skipped over it. If you were to use your calculation method everywhere, we'd end up with numbers about 10 times bigger in every country. You don't get to choose different methods to prove a point without mentioning it, because that's really very similar to lying.

I'll take your not taking up my other points as admission that you were wrong on them, so thanks for that. We've all learned something today.

I take it you're not following the numbers. Express 100,000 as a percentage of 330,000. The WHOs figures are accurate, the Canadian Governments figures are accurate and the people campaigning in NYs figures are accurate.

I believe it's clearly you who is lying.

Mardy Bum

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Different perhaps. But why does lack of perception of pain mean one can abort it? If I get a general anaesthetic I won't perceive pain.

Their nerve endings have not developed.

Nodin

squod wrote: »

I take it you're not following the numbers. Express 100,000 as a percentage of 330,000. The WHOs figures are accurate, the Canadian Governments figures are accurate and the people campaigning in NYs figures are accurate.

I believe it's clearly you who is lying.

Giving out about others while coming out with cryptic remarks you refuse to explain rather puts you in an awkward position, to be honest.

Nemesis

What are the fetal homicide laws in Ireland at the moment?.

http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/health/fetal-homicide-state-laws.aspx

A complex situation indeed.

Sarky

squod wrote: »

I take it you're not following the numbers. Express 100,000 as a percentage of 330,000. The WHOs figures are accurate, the Canadian Governments figures are accurate and the people campaigning in NYs figures are accurate.

I believe it's clearly you who is lying.

Indeed they are accurate. And they're not what you claim they are. Did you read the links in any detail, or did you just leap upon the biggest numbers you saw?

cranks

Pretty good flight deals at the moment

http://www.ryanair.com/ie

Nodin

cranks wrote: »

Pretty good flight deals at the moment

http://www.ryanair.com/ie

You've some point hidden in there, have you?

cranks

sorry, wrong thread

seenitall

Czarcasm wrote: »

The above definition could be applied to a person regardless of their religious beliefs, or lack thereof, so therefore a person can be irrational whether they be religious or atheist.

So let's see:

religion

inflexible? Check. Rules are the rules, you know.
unrealistic? Check. No sex before marriage!
absolutist? Check. So says the man in the white robe in Vatican.
self- and social-defeating and destructive? Check. This thread wouldn't exist otherwise, let alone thousands of Irish women being shamed for 'travelling'...

May not be the definition, but it sure fits.

Sarky

By the by squod, unless I provided a link otherwise, everything I mentioned in my larger post, I got straight from the links you provided. Why would you call your own links into question? That doesn't seem... rational.

squod

Sarky wrote: »

By the by squod, unless I provided a link otherwise, everything I mentioned in my larger post, I got straight from the links you provided. Why would you call your own links into question? That doesn't seem... rational.

What the hell are you on about? Lookat, just don't read my posts. I shouldn't be debating with someone who can't manage basic maths.

Troll added to ignore list.

Nodin

squod wrote: »

What the hell are you on about? Lookat, just don't read my posts. I shouldn't be debating with someone who can't manage basic maths.

Troll added to ignore list.

Are you going to explain yourself now? What did you mean by "dark ages" and how does abortion get us there?

Sarky

A totally rational response. Totally.

Mardy Bum

Czarcasm wrote: »

No, I wouldn't immediately see that person as irrational at all, their beliefs are only a part of who they are as a person. What IS irrational, is to think otherwise.

Superstition is irrational yes, but it is not the definition of irrationality. The psychotheraputic definition of irrationality (which would be the most relevant definition applicable here) is described below-

Source: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irrationality

The above definition could be applied to a person regardless of their religious beliefs, or lack thereof, so therefore a person can be irrational whether they be religious or atheist.

Whilst I admire your semantic wranglings the OED's definition is the following "Not endowed with reason." Humans selves are nothing more than their thoughts. We all act in different spheres in life whether its our day job, our home life, our hobbies and in the sack. Now a person may act rationally in one of these spheres but may also act totally irrationally in the other spheres. Now how do we decide if this person is irrational? Well if the person is of the belief that water turns into wine and bread into human skin and now add a dollop of fatuous dogma on top of that well you have the makings of an irrational person. This does not preclude the ability to reason correctly when they get to work but their thought processes are irrational outside of it if they lead a life in accordance to a dogma based on faith.

A Primal Nut

I'm not religious but I don't see the pro-choice people as any more rational than pro-life people. For example, anytime someone criticises abortion, the pro-choice people immediately bring up cases of rape or where the mothers life is in danger. This completely ignores the vast majority of abortions which are not due to either of those circumstances. Pro-choice people don't want to talk about situations where an abortion was chosen because it was inconvenient.

I notice for example that many pro-lifers support abortion where the life of the mother is in imminent danger, but this is ignored by pro-choice people who constantly bring it up in debates as a stick to beat pro-life people with.

Czarcasm

Sandwlch wrote: »

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

In my opinion anyway, it's certainly possible to have a rational discussion on abortion, and I've had many such discussions on the issue. Now if the question is could such a rational discussion ever take place on the internet, my answer would have to be hell no. Could such a rational discussion ever be had in public, again my answer would have to be hell no. Such a discussion can only be had on a personal level between those actually affected by the particular situation.

Outside that, people seem to lose sight of all sense of perspective because they have an over-riding subconscious need to be right, rather than make any attempt to understand the other person's point of view, because it doesn't jig with their opinion, and that then forces them to become even more irrational and ingrained in their particular point of view.

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"

See right there is exactly what I'm talking about. Because I'm Roman Catholic, you see me as unfit to have a rational conversation about abortion, but yet you see a non-religious person as possibly capable of having a rational conversation about abortion.

In my opinion the use of the word "possibly" there is what I prefer to call an exercise in àrse covering. In other words, it is your own bias places the importance on religion, and yet you cannot see how irrational your stance is. You are dismissing a person based on the fact that you can only see their opinion as coming from a religious perspective and none other.

Again, I must reiterate for a third time, that for me personally, humanity trumps religion every time, as at least I can understand that not everyone bases their opinion on their religion, or lack thereof. Their opinion is based on their ethics, only that some people seek to use religion/no religion to try and dismiss another person's opinion based on their own personal bias.

Nodin

A Primal Nut wrote: »

I'm not religious but I don't see the pro-choice people as any more rational than pro-life people. For example, anytime someone criticises abortion, the pro-choice people immediately bring up cases of rape or where the mothers life is in danger. This completely ignores the vast majority of abortions which are not due to either of those circumstances. Pro-choice people don't want to talk about situations where an abortion was chosen because it was inconvenient.
.

If a woman doesn't want to go through with a pregnancy, then thats a good enough reason for me.

Steve O

Nodin wrote: »

If a woman doesn't want to go through with a pregnancy, then thats a good enough reason for me.

That is the thing, I mean I am Egalitarian to the core but the fact is we blokes don't have to endure the horrors pregnancy brings to a human being. It is a womans choice 100%.

I Heart Internet

Mardy Bum wrote: »

Their nerve endings have not developed.

So??

I'm not being obtuse. I want to know why you think nerve endings not being fully developed or the inability to perceive pain means they're fair game for abortion.

seenitall

A Primal Nut wrote: »

I'm not religious but I don't see the pro-choice people as any more rational than pro-life people. For example, anytime someone criticises abortion, the pro-choice people immediately bring up cases of rape or where the mothers life is in danger. This completely ignores the vast majority of abortions which are not due to either of those circumstances. Pro-choice people don't want to talk about situations where an abortion was chosen because it was inconvenient.

I notice for example that many pro-lifers support abortion where the life of the mother is in imminent danger, but this is ignored by pro-choice people who constantly bring it up in debates as a stick to beat pro-life people with.

I don't think you talked with many pro-choice people then? (At least not in depth.)

I'm pro-choice and I don't bring up rape or imminent danger into the discussion of what it means to be pro-choice, it is as you say a minority of cases. They do have their place in the discussion though. They are just not the first thing I would refer to when talking about being pro-choice in general.

I'd say the reason the pro-choice stance has been focused on those two examples recently is because we would hope to elicit some compassion around these extreme cases (such as X and Savita), so that if we can't have elective abortion, we can at least ensure the procedure is available to the most vulnerable women.

... Fat chance, I know.

Whistlingmilk

squod wrote: »

What problems with them? Did you dislike it when I pointed out that Poland decreased their abortion rate dramatically through legislation?

The problem is that your selective 'quoting' misrepresents data, numbers you state cannot be confirmed or rebutted unless you provide a link. Which, yet again, I'm glad you've learned to do.

I am unsure what basis your other question has. Why exactly would I dislike such a thing, or like it for that matter? Poland made abortion illegal, which reduced the rate of abortion. What is your point?

Czarcasm

Mardy Bum wrote: »

Whilst I admire your semantic wranglings the OED's definition is the following "Not endowed with reason." Humans selves are nothing more than their thoughts. We all act in different spheres in life whether its our day job, our home life, our hobbies and in the sack. Now a person may act rationally in one of these spheres but may also act totally irrationally in the other spheres. Now how do we decide if this person is irrational? Well if the person is of the belief that water turns into wine and bread into human skin and now add a dollop of fatuous dogma on top of that well you have the makings of an irrational person. This does not preclude the ability to reason correctly when they get to work but their thought processes are irrational outside of it if they lead a life in accordance to a dogma based on faith.

seenitall wrote: »

So let's see:

religion

inflexible? Check. Rules are the rules, you know.
unrealistic? Check. No sex before marriage!
absolutist? Check. So says the man in the white robe in Vatican.
self- and social-defeating and destructive? Check. This thread wouldn't exist otherwise, let alone thousands of Irish women being shamed for 'travelling'...

May not be the definition, but it sure fits.

So we're all agreed then-

It's religion that is irrational, and not necessarily the person.

In my opinion, irrationality is borne of insecurity, and that person will graduate towards what fits with their perception of reality. For some, it's religion; for others, it's a lack of belief.

There's really no semantic wrangling intended, I'm just presenting my opinion based on my own perception, which hasn't so far drawn on my religion in any way, shape or form. If I were to draw on my religion to form my opinion, then rightly I should be dismissed as irrational, and by that same token anyone who draws on their lack of belief to form their opinion, should also rightly be dismissed as irrational.