Sanctity of Life (Abortion Megathread)

volchitsa

Nick Park wrote: »

I mentioned the bridesmaid incident, as you well know, in conjunction with another case where a young woman told me she had, at 14-years of age, taken a morning after pill after being raped. In both cases I accepted at face value what these two women told me. I didn't challenge the veracity of the rape account, or of the other woman's reason for getting an abortion. I listened respectfully to what they both had to say because I think that is the best way to approach people. Often, by listening rather than just trying to push your point of view, you can learn an awful lot. What I learned in this case, and I shared it in this thread as a reasonable position, is that you cannot treat all abortions as if they were the same. Therefore it is unreasonable, as you were doing, to suggest that the legal response to abortion should be the same in every case.

So, yes, I do think a woman risking her life by illegally importing and taking an abortion pill without medical supervision (as suggested by an 'advice' service) is different from a 'health care professional' carrying out abortions as his or her main source of income.

And you, of course, are free to argue that they are exactly the same thing.

Again, pardon me for doubting your veracity, but it's not very respectful to go around posting her story on the Internet in such a judgmental way, using her to push an agenda is it? Did she give you her permission, or does your respect not go that far?

lazygal

Do you oppose the morning after pill too Nick?

Nick Park

lazygal wrote: »

Pretty sure there's a commandment somewhere about bearing false witness.

This forum is open to Christians and non-Christians alike, so don't worry about anyone enforcing commandments on you. But watch out for mods! They can still pull you up if you get caught being obviously dishonest (e.g. in misrepresenting the position of other posters).

For my own part, I carry out a simple policy. In a format like this, where so many people share personal experiences and anecdotes, I stay truthful myself and I presume that others will do likewise. If I reluctantly find it impossible to believe in the honesty of another poster then it's probably better to disengage from interaction with them - as it sort of defeats the whole point of a discussion forum.

volchitsa

Nick Park wrote: »

This forum is open to Christians and non-Christians alike, so don't worry about anyone enforcing commandments on you. But watch out for mods! They can still pull you up if you get caught being obviously dishonest (e.g. in misrepresenting the position of other posters).

For my own part, I carry out a simple policy. In a format like this, where so many people share personal experiences and anecdotes, I stay truthful myself and I presume that others will do likewise. If I reluctantly find it impossible to believe in the honesty of another poster then it's probably better to disengage from interaction with them - as it sort of defeats the whole point of a discussion forum.

Still, worth pointing out the reasons for doubting the poster's honesty first though.

IMO.

Nick Park

volchitsa wrote: »

Again, pardon me for doubting your veracity, but it's not very respectful to go around posting her story on the Internet in such a judgmental way, using her to push an agenda is it? Did she give you her permission, or does your respect not go that far?

It's common practice, when discussing ethical issues, to use real life examples. Certainly, for those of us who speak to others under conditions of confidentiality, you should never divulge anything which might reveal the identity of the person concerned. But ask any counsellor, doctor or psychiatrist who has ever contributed to a debate or a journal, it's perfectly acceptable to outline scenarios you have encountered instead of speaking in generalities. That's how people get to grips with the application of ethics.

I shared two rare and extreme scenarios (without betraying any confidences) for one reason only - to stress that you cannot treat every abortion as being the same. That is a perfectly reasonable point. And, despite attempts to distract from it, I think most readers can grasp it.

lazygal

Does the woman who had an abortion at 24 weeks so she could fit into a bridesmaid dress know you're using her very specific and easily identifiable case, as the circumstances are, as you've said rare, know you're using her as a reason to oppose all abortions for other women?

Cabaal

lazygal wrote: »

Does the woman who had an abortion at 24 weeks so she could fit into a bridesmaid dress know you're using her very specific and easily identifiable case, as the circumstances are, as you've said rare, know you're using her as a reason to oppose all abortions for other women?

Even "if" and its a very very big if what Nick has said is true using it as any reason for why women shouldn't have abortion is just outright silly.

Its like claiming I knew a man once that had a crowbar and he broke into a house using the crowbar so men can't be trusted with crowbars. or I knew a man who did something silly so logically all men are silly.

You can't punish a whole gender for one thing done by one person, its just idiotic. Only a complete idiotic would think this is ok.

Actually wait, its the basis for the whole adam and eve story in the bible and.....nevermind, it might explain why Nick wants to punish all women for one women's personal decision.
:pac:

Nick Park

lazygal wrote: »

Does the woman who had an abortion at 24 weeks so she could fit into a bridesmaid dress know you're using her very specific and easily identifiable case, as the circumstances are, as you've said rare, know you're using her as a reason to oppose all abortions for other women?

Easily identifiable?

Please explain how anyone could possibly identify the woman concerned based on the very sparse information I provided? (She was a woman. She was a bridesmaid. She lived in the UK).

Keep on blowing smoke. That way you can evade the actual point, and come back a few weeks later demanding to know why a pro-life poster doesn't see all abortions as being exactly the same.

Nick Park

Cabaal wrote: »

Even "if" and its a very very big if what Nick has said is true using it as any reason for why women shouldn't have abortion is just outright silly.

Which is why I never, not for one instant, used it as a reason why women shouldn't have abortion. :rolleyes:

I used it, as I have stated numerous times now, as demonstrating that not all abortions are the same, and that is foolish to suggest that we treat them all as being the same.

it might explain why Nick wants to punish all women for one women's personal decision.

Nick wants no such thing. And, since I have never suggested any such thing, it's sad that you would stoop to such a falsehood.

Cabaal

So why even mention it?

We know all reasons for abortions are different, all people are different so they will always have different reasons, but its these people's personal decision and its their life to live. If she was in the UK then what she did was legal.

If it happened then do I personally think its the best reason to have an abortion, no. But its not my place to tell any random women what she should do with her body.

Nick Park

volchitsa wrote: »

Still, worth pointing out the reasons for doubting the poster's honesty first though.

IMO.

That all depends on what those reasons are, and whether they are valid.

If those reasons are simply that it easier to imply dishonesty rather than engage with a differing point of view then, no, it's not worth pointing out.

What if those reasons are that you have an assumption how most people behave, and that if you encounter an instance where somebody behaved differently or bizarrely then, by definition, someone is lying? In that case your reasoning is so defective (since we all know that not everyone behaves in the way we might expect) that it's probably not worth pointing it out.

In your position, if I found it hard to believe that someone had indeed acted in the way that they told another poster, I might have said something like, "They may have been pulling the wool over your eyes" or something similar. I don't see why I should accuse the poster of making stuff up. Am I being unreasonable here?

volchitsa

Nick Park wrote: »

Which is why I never, not for one instant, used it as a reason why women shouldn't have abortion. :rolleyes:

I used it, as I have stated numerous times now, as demonstrating that not all abortions are the same, and that is foolish to suggest that we treat them all as being the same.


Nick wants no such thing. And, since I have never suggested any such thing, it's sad that you would stoop to such a falsehood.

But here's the thing, Nick: all abortions are the same. They're always a woman deciding to end a pregnancy, and the unborn life dies.

What you're saying is the reasons for abortions are different, but that's irrelevant to other people.

If abortion is killing a person then it's always wrong, like me murdering a burglar - I'll still have to explain that I had literally no choice or I'll be found guilty of murder. And if it's not killing a person, then it's none of your business what the reasons for it are.

Nick Park

Cabaal wrote: »

So why even mention it?

We know all reasons for abortions are different, all people are different so they will always have different reasons, but its these people's personal decision and its their life to live. If she was in the UK then what she did was legal.

If it happened then do I personally think its the best reason to have an abortion, no. But its not my place to tell any random women what she should do with her body.

Sigh.

The reason I mentioned it was because lazygal was, repeatedly, arguing that if I am pro-life then I should support the criminalisation of every woman who has an abortion. Since, after being told many times that all cases are different, she kept making this demand. Therefore I quoted two very rare examples from the opposite ends of the moral scale.

It was probably a mistake to do so given that she was just being obtuse and my attempt to clarify a very valid point (that every case is different) was bound to be twisted and misrepresented.

I keep falling into the trap of assuming that people on a discussion board might actually want to engage in honest discussion, rather than trying to demonise those with different views. Maybe I will learn one day!

volchitsa

Nick Park wrote: »

That all depends on what those reasons are, and whether they are valid.

If those reasons are simply that it easier to imply dishonesty rather than engage with a differing point of view then, no, it's not worth pointing out.

What if those reasons are that you have an assumption how most people behave, and that if you encounter an instance where somebody behaved differently or bizarrely then, by definition, someone is lying? In that case your reasoning is so defective (since we all know that not everyone behaves in the way we might expect) that it's probably not worth pointing it out.

In your position, if I found it hard to believe that someone had indeed acted in the way that they told another poster, I might have said something like, "They may have been pulling the wool over your eyes" or something similar. I don't see why I should accuse the poster of making stuff up. Am I being unreasonable here?

Well, having been pregnant several times, and had an abortion once, I think I have a fairly good grip of both conditions.

Pregnant women nowadays show off their bumps on the beach, why on earth would pregnancy be a problem for being a bridesmaid? It doesn't make sense.

So maybe you were being naive, and TBF I can just about imagine a few scenarios in which someone would do something so odd as to invent a story about their alleged abortion to tell to someone who is strongly anti-abortion, so I guess it's possible and if so, my apologies for assuming it was you who was lying. But someone was lying, I'm certain of that.

Nick Park

volchitsa wrote: »

But here's the thing, Nick: all abortions are the same. They're always a woman deciding to end a pregnancy, and the unborn life dies.

What you're saying is the reasons for abortions are different, but that's irrelevant to other people.

If abortion is killing a person then it's always wrong, like me murdering a burglar - I'll still have to explain that I had literally no choice or I'll be found guilty of murder. And if it's not killing a person, then it's none of your business what the reasons for it are.

Now now. Let's not lose the run of ourselves. Lazygal was trying to claim that I should support the criminalisation of women, and that therefore I should advocate a mandatory punishment. It was a cheap and poorly executed attempt to create a straw man. I believe that it was my refusal to allow her to get away with such a cheap rhetorical trick that triggered the subsequent faux outrage.

My opinion is that all abortions are different. Just as all killings are different. There is no automatic moral equivalency, nor should all be treated the same. I think that is an eminently reasonable position.

volchitsa

Nick Park wrote: »

My opinion is that all abortions are different. Just as all killings are different. There is no automatic moral equivalency, nor should all be treated the same. I think that is an eminently reasonable position.

Hmm. How many planned killings of born people require a panel of three experts to be legal?

lazygal

Nick Park wrote: »

Sigh.

The reason I mentioned it was because lazygal was, repeatedly, arguing that if I am pro-life then I should support the criminalisation of every woman who has an abortion. Since, after being told many times that all cases are different, she kept making this demand. Therefore I quoted two very rare examples from the opposite ends of the moral scale.

It was probably a mistake to do so given that she was just being obtuse and my attempt to clarify a very valid point (that every case is different) was bound to be twisted and misrepresented.

I keep falling into the trap of assuming that people on a discussion board might actually want to engage in honest discussion, rather than trying to demonise those with different views. Maybe I will learn one day!

Nick there's no need to act the martyr.
The case you've outlined is very specific. It's easy to identify people through social media. I've recognized people I know by a single phrase. I think you're being very naive if you think a case you've decided to post about on a forum anyone can view won't spark any recognition by the woman who had an abortion to fit into s bridesmaid dress, the bride or groom or anyone else. You have no idea who's reading your case of a woman who had an abortion at six months gestation specifically to fit into a bridesmaid dress.

lazygal

Also Nick you oppose all abortions so why outline cases of allegedly frivolous reasons like fitting into dresses as grounds to refuse elective abortion? There's no reasons you'll accept for abortion, all women must stay pregnant in your view so why focus on late term or dress related abortions at all?

Nick Park

lazygal wrote: »

Nick there's no need to act the martyr.
The case you've outlined is very specific. It's easy to identify people through social media. I've recognized people I know by a single phrase. I think you're being very naive if you think a case you've decided to post about on a forum anyone can view won't spark any recognition by the woman who had an abortion to fit into s bridesmaid dress, the bride or groom or anyone else. You have no idea who's reading your case of a woman who had an abortion at six months gestation specifically to fit into a bridesmaid dress.

You are descending into nonsense.

If someone has revealed enough on social media for others to know that they probably had an abortion to fit into a bridesmaid dress, then the secret is already public knowledge.

If that is not the case, then even Hercule Poirot would find it impossible to make any such identification.

You're blowing smoke harder than a Chinese power station. :pac:

lazygal

Nick Park wrote: »

You are descending into nonsense.

If someone has revealed enough on social media for others to know that they probably had an abortion to fit into a bridesmaid dress, then the secret is already public knowledge.

If that is not the case, then even Hercule Poirot would find it impossible to make any such identification.

You're blowing smoke harder than a Chinese power station. :pac:

So, this woman doesn't know you've decided to use her as an example of why women shouldn't have the choice to have an abortion.
It is not your story to share Nick-if she's decided to post all the details all over social media that's her choice, but you've decided to use her story yourself, as some kind of slippery slope example. It hasn't worked.

uck51js9zml2yt

Nick Park wrote: »

Sigh.

The reason I mentioned it was because lazygal was, repeatedly, arguing that if I am pro-life then I should support the criminalisation of every woman who has an abortion. Since, after being told many times that all cases are different, she kept making this demand. Therefore I quoted two very rare examples from the opposite ends of the moral scale.

It was probably a mistake to do so given that she was just being obtuse and my attempt to clarify a very valid point (that every case is different) was bound to be twisted and misrepresented.

I keep falling into the trap of assuming that people on a discussion board might actually want to engage in honest discussion, rather than trying to demonise those with different views. Maybe I will learn one day!

Nick, what do you really expect? After all, this is the "christianity" forum.;)

Nick Park

volchitsa wrote: »

Hmm. How many planned killings of born people require a panel of three experts to be legal?

Some require no experts at all.

28 planned killings of born people were legally carried out in the USA last year that required a panel of 12 non-experts.

Thousands of planned killings of born people were legally carried out in China last year. The requirement for the death penalty there is legally just one supposed expert.

In Yemen, Pakistan and Afghanistan planned killings are legally carried out by US forces launching drones. The number of 'experts' required to make such killings legal vary according to the circumstances.

Nick Park

lazygal wrote: »

So, this woman doesn't know you've decided to use her as an example of why women shouldn't have the choice to have an abortion.
It is not your story to share Nick-if she's decided to post all the details all over social media that's her choice, but you've decided to use her story yourself, as some kind of slippery slope example. It hasn't worked.

Using the bare details of a case where no-one can be identified is perfectly acceptable practice. If it were not, then most medical and sociological journals would close down tomorrow.

Also, as you well know, I used her story to nail your rather silly straw man argument and to demonstrate that abortions are not all the same. You know very well it was never for one moment presented as a slippery-slope argument, and it is extremely dishonest for you to suggest otherwise.

eviltwin

Yet again I'm amazed so many women who have had abortions would admit that to someone anti abortion :rolleyes:

Nick Park

volchitsa wrote: »

Pregnant women nowadays show off their bumps on the beach, why on earth would pregnancy be a problem for being a bridesmaid? It doesn't make sense.

So maybe you were being naive, and TBF I can just about imagine a few scenarios in which someone would do something so odd as to invent a story about their alleged abortion to tell to someone who is strongly anti-abortion, so I guess it's possible and if so, my apologies for assuming it was you who was lying. But someone was lying, I'm certain of that.

Ok. So your logic is as follows:

1. Most women (but not all) are happy to show off their bumps on the beach.
2. Therefore it is impossible that any woman would ever want to lose her bump for the photographs at a wedding with her fellow bridesmaids.
3. Therefore somebody must be lying.
4. It must be the Christian who is lying.

If you think that makes sense, then I'm not going to engage in the kind of discussion that might convince you to think otherwise.

lazygal

Nick Park wrote: »

Using the bare details of a case where no-one can be identified is perfectly acceptable practice. If it were not, then most medical and sociological journals would close down tomorrow.

Also, as you well know, I used her story to nail your rather silly straw man argument and to demonstrate that abortions are not all the same. You know very well it was never for one moment presented as a slippery-slope argument, and it is extremely dishonest for you to suggest otherwise.

All abortions are the same, as another poster said-the unborn child is killed.
You think the reasons for abortion differ, but why that's relevant I don't understand given that you don't want women to be able to access abortion if they so choose. If I was raped, you wouldn't allow me to have an abortion. If I had a FFA diagnosis, you wouldn't allow me to have an abortion. If I wanted to fit into a bridesmaid dress, you wouldn't allow me to have an abortion.

Why do you need to post the difference between a rape victim taking the MAP and a bridesmaid having a late term abortion to fit into a dress? Is the unborn child killed in both cases?

lazygal

eviltwin wrote: »

Yet again I'm amazed so many women who have had abortions would admit that to someone anti abortion :rolleyes:

Yes, like Cora and Breda:pac:. Astonishing that women who know they'll be talking to someone who thinks they murdered a child open up so regularly and frequently.

Nick Park

eviltwin wrote: »

Yet again I'm amazed so many women who have had abortions would admit that to someone anti abortion :rolleyes:

Really? I think your amazement is misplaced. There are many reasons why they do so. Sometimes it is because they regret their actions. At other times people feel the desire to try to shock others (even though most Christian ministers have usually long ago heard enough to make them fairly unshockable!). Some women like to write about their abortions in newspapers or invite you to follow them on twitter.

I must say, on this thread, I am amazed at how non-Christians seem to think that everybody behaves and thinks in the same way. People are much more varied than you might imagine - and we should never underestimate the capacity of people to behave in bizarre, weird and incomprehensible ways.

Nick Park

lazygal wrote: »

Why do you need to post the difference between a rape victim taking the MAP and a bridesmaid having a late term abortion to fit into a dress? Is the unborn child killed in both cases?

The reason I needed to post the difference was because you were trying to construct a straw-man argument that anyone who is pro-life should advocate that all abortions should be dealt with in the same manner, and that women should be criminalised.

It was a really poor argument back then, and all your misrepresentations and obfuscations haven't made it even a fraction more sensible.

Other people hold different opinions to yourself. Some people are opposed to abortion in most cases. They also see each case as being different. Misrepresenting their position isn't going to change their minds.

lazygal

Nick Park wrote: »

The reason I needed to post the difference was because you were trying to construct a straw-man argument that anyone who is pro-life should advocate that all abortions should be dealt with in the same manner, and that women should be criminalised.

It was a really poor argument back then, and all your misrepresentations and obfuscations haven't made it even a fraction more sensible.

Other people hold different opinions to yourself. Some people are opposed to abortion in most cases. They also see each case as being different. Misrepresenting their position isn't going to change their minds.

So how should women who have abortions be dealt with?