How do Pro Life campaigners want women who have abortions punished?

thee glitz

kidneyfan wrote: »

It is extreme because when a woman chooses to kill her child she doesn't want a guilt trip!:)

It seems to be that pro-choice arguments, wrapped in a spurious bodily autonomy banner, are made in an attempt to convince all that abortion availability is a human rights issue. This is done in an effort to relieve women of their abortion guilt.

thee glitz

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Earlier this year in Poland during a botched abortion a Down Syndrome baby was born alive shortly before the 24-weeks-gestation. According to witnesses it cried for 20 minutes before dying.

“The screams of this child were so traumatic for the personnel that they declared that they will never forget it”, “Some say they will leave their job as a result”

And who could fault them for that - a truly horrific story.

seamus

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Earlier this year in Poland during a botched abortion a Down Syndrome baby was born alive shortly before the 24-weeks-gestation. According to witnesses it cried for 20 minutes before dying.

Oh and I don't believe Down Syndrome qualifies as a fetal abnormality which justifies abortion.

Have you got a reputable source on this?

That is, an online source without a conservative agenda, and quotes from actual eyewitnesses rather than 20th-hand paraphrases from a pro-life campaigner?

Outlaw Pete

volchitsa wrote: »

Except you're wrong, it certainly is stopping them, it's just that you think that's ok.

You cannot compare Tubal ligation with child destruction. Well, I suppose you can if you want... but it's an absurd thing to do. One is a procedure which affects nobody else but the woman concerned (and which I support of course... not that it is any of my business) and the other is the destruction of a developing unborn child who has a body of their own (which is very much my business). Pro choicers talk about pro lifers inflicting their views on them... while they, without any sense of irony.... inflict their views on defenseless developing unborn babies in the womb.

So the fact that her widower went to a ProChoice group in despair because he was getting nowhere with any explanation from the hospital has passed you by?

These women approached the Pro Life Campaign and so what's the difference. You may say they had pro-life beliefs before going to them with their stories, but Savita's husband had pro choice beliefs before he approached the Pro Choice movement with his, so what's with the double standards? Both groups are going to highlight in accordance with their own agendas. I don't endorse all the Pro Life Campaign does and so it sickens me when pro choicers see no wrong with the crap the Pro Choice movement get up to. You'd swear butter wouldn't melt in their mouths.

Or perhaps that just doesn't matter when you need to use her death to push your own agenda?

I'm not using her death, I am criticizing others for doing so. Abortion Laws were not the sole reason that Savita died as there were other factors involved, much of which was drowned out by the Pro Choice movement at the time but in the end it was all included in the Arulkumaran report into her death.

The Arulkumaran report was published on 13 June 2013. It identified three "Key Causal Factors" for the death: inadequate assessment and monitoring; failure to offer all management options to a patient; and non adherence to clinical guidelines related to the prompt and effective management of sepsis. It made six recommendations for improvements in patient care in such situations. Most recommendations called for improvements in healthcare guideline, training and practices, and one recommendation called for legislative changes if necessary to allow for expediting delivery for clinical purposes.

Again all very selective stuff there from you. People regret decisions they've made all the time. Hardly a reason to ban marriage or a career choice, or anything else. Funny that pro life goes on about women having to assume the alleged responsibility that flows merely from having sex, but if a woman regrets her abortion, it implies that all women must be prevented from ever having that choice themselves. What's happened to the woman's individual responsibility for her choices? Having sex even with contraception means she has to stay pregnant, but having an abortion makes her a victim? :rolleyes:

Lot of sanctimonious nonsense with very little retort of the points I made. I am not citing regret as a reason to ban abortion. I am highlighting it as many users on this thread are speaking abortion as if it is just a little procedure women have to benefit their lives and while I don't doubt that it can, it's clear that sometimes it does not and that information is never welcomed, or at least not as much as your average 'go girl' hashtag campaign is. For example, the NWCI response to WomenHurt.ie:

This inherent contradiction in the women’s movement has led to to some interesting situations. Coles is a founder member of Women Hurt, which seeks to provide support for women who regret abortions. They launched a billboard campaign recently, with slogans such as “I was told abortion would solve my problems. It only gave me new ones.”

This non-political, non-denominational campaign was roundly attacked as “harsh, cruel and unhelpful” by Susan McKay of the National Women’s Council. It seems that some women do not have the right to speak. A woman like Coles, who has spent a lot of her career trying to achieve equality for women, becomes “harsh, cruel and unhelpful” when she talks about her personal experience.

But the stats back up that these women are far from alone, even if many would prefer that they kept their mouths shut.

“While it is difficult to draw firm conclusions, a recent report from the HSE/Crisis Pregnancy Programme showed an increase in the number of women expressing abortion regret. In that study, 44 per cent of women expressed varying degrees of regret about their abortions up from 33 per cent in a similar HSE study in 2003.”

volchitsa

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

You cannot compare Tubal ligation with child destruction. Well, I suppose you can if you want... but it's an absurd thing to do. One is a procedure which affects nobody else but the woman concerned (and which I support of course... not that it is any of my business) and the other is the destruction of a developing unborn child who has a body of their own (which is very much my business). Pro choicers talk about pro lifers inflicting their views on them... while they, without any sense of irony.... inflict their views on defenseless developing unborn babies in the womb.

These women approached the Pro Life Campaign and so what's the difference. You may say they had pro-life beliefs before going to them with their stories, but Savita's husband had pro choice beliefs before he approached the Pro Choice movement with his, so what's with the double standards? Both groups are going to highlight in accordance with their own agendas. I don't endorse all the Pro Life Campaign does and so it sickens me when pro choicers see no wrong with the crap the Pro Choice movement get up to. You'd swear butter wouldn't melt in their mouths.

I'm not using her death, I am criticizing others for doing so. Abortion Laws were not the sole reason that Savita died as there were other factors involved, much of which was drowned out by the Pro Choice movement at the time but in the end it was all included in the Arulkumaran report into her death.

Lot of sanctimonious nonsense with very little retort of the points I made. I am not citing regret as a reason to ban abortion. I am highlighting it as many users on this thread are speaking abortion as if it is just a little procedure women have to benefit their lives and while I don't doubt that it can, it's clear that sometimes it does not and that information is never welcomed, or at least not as much as your average 'go girl' hashtag campaign is. For example, the NWCI response to WomenHurt.ie:

But the stats back up that these women are far from alone, even if many would prefer that they kept their mouths shut.

There's so much that is contradictory and even nonsensical in your posts that I will just point this one out for starters :

You yourself said you are pro choice up to (iirc) 12 weeks. Does a "child's body" suddenly materialize at 12 weeks then?

Or is just another case of anti choicers actually being fine with their own choices, however contradictory, but not ok to allow the woman herself to make her own choices according to her own opinions, and not your choices and your opinions?

Depp

volchitsa wrote: »

There's so much that is contradictory and even nonsensical in your posts that I will just point this one out for starters :

You yourself said you are pro choice up to (iirc) 12 weeks. Does a "child's body" suddenly materialize at 12 weeks then?

Or is just another case of anti choicers actually being fine with their own choices, however contradictory, but not ok to allow the woman herself to make her own choices according to her own opinions, and not your choices and your opinions?

good rebuttal, nice little ad hominem retort of the posters personal viewpoint and ignoring the valid points made, you should get a few thumbs up for that!

volchitsa

Depp wrote: »

good rebuttal, nice little ad hominem retort of the posters personal viewpoint and ignoring the valid points made, you should get a few thumbs up for that!

I think you need to look up what an ad hominem is.

How can it be an ad hominem to point out that his own views are contradictory?

Depp

volchitsa wrote: »

I think you need to look up what an ad hominem is.

How can it be an ad hominem to point out that his own views are contradictory?

attack the poster not the post, you attacked his personal view on 12 weeks vs later and ignored every point he made in the post, think its you that needs to look it up, almost every post you've made in this thread is the same smarmy point scoring bullsh!t don't be so surprised when someone calls you out on it

volchitsa

Depp wrote: »

attack the poster not the post, you attacked his personal view on 12 weeks vs later and ignored every point he made in the post, think its you that needs to look it up, almost every post you've made in this thread is the same smarmy point scoring bullsh!t don't be so surprised when someone calls you out on it

Thanks for admitting you were wrong to say I was making an ad hom : attacking his views is not attacking him.

The reason I didn't go any further than that btw is because I think it is pointless to discuss with someone whose views are so contradictory that they literally say entirely contradictory things. And it's really not an ad hom to point that out.

gctest50

I presume you meant to post "attack the post n not the poster"

Depp wrote: »

attack the poster not the post,

anyway, then give this example of volchista going for the post and not him

Depp wrote: »

you attacked his personal view on 12 weeks vs later and .................

odd

Little CuChulainn

volchitsa wrote: »

There's so much that is contradictory and even nonsensical in your posts that I will just point this one out for starters :

You yourself said you are pro choice up to (iirc) 12 weeks. Does a "child's body" suddenly materialize at 12 weeks then?

Or is just another case of anti choicers actually being fine with their own choices, however contradictory, but not ok to allow the woman herself to make her own choices according to her own opinions, and not your choices and your opinions?

Everyone has an opinion on when a fetus should be considered a human life, no matter what side of the argument they fall on.

Outlaw Pete

volchitsa wrote: »

You yourself said you are pro choice up to (iirc) 12 weeks. Does a "child's body" suddenly materialize at 12 weeks then?

I explained my reasoning with the following:

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

I plan to vote to repeal the 8th in the hope that it leads to the better legislation on abortion here, hopefully with it being brought into line with that of countries like Spain, where first trimester abortion is legal and late term abortion is also (if the life of the mother is at risk etc.)

The reason I would concede to first trimester abortion becoming legal here is not because I have no moral regard for first trimester fetuses, it's because I see what has goes on in other countries where abortion is totally illegal (like Chile) and it hasn't resulted in less abortions at all, just more illegal ones (close to a quarter of a million annually).

Also, given that the vast amount of miscarriages occur during first trimester, I think it's really pointless trying to prevent women from obtaining abortions at that stage of pregnancies.

Indeed, you yourself replied to that post and said:

volchitsa wrote: »

That's interesting Pete.

So interesting you forgot about it

volchitsa

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

I explained my reasoning with the following:

Indeed, you yourself replied to that post and said:

So interesting you forgot about it

Since I mentioned it, then clearly I hadn't forgotten about it, had I? :rolleyes:
I just hadn't checked the exact number of weeks you'd picked, and wasn't 100% sure it wasn't 16. Hence the IIRC, that's all. So I've no idea what point you're making here.

You however are talking about killing "babies" that have "their own bodies", and yet you're seemingly ok with that, as long as it's done during the pretty much random period that you have decided is acceptable.

By "random" I mean random according to your declared views on what the embryo/fetus is - not that it's necessarily a random date for everyone. But you appear to have no physiological or even moral justification (except miscarriages) for choosing that cut-off point in terms of fetal development for example, given your declared beliefs that the fact that the fetus has a body is what makes it "your business" - but only after 12 weeks.

It just seems a bit strange for you to be so certain that it suddenly is "very much" your business after that, and also so sure that other posters, or indeed pregnant women, who may have far more solid biological/developmental reasons behind their own chosen cut-off points, are simply wrong. If there is any margin for uncertainty - as you effectively acknowledge with your own cut off point - then what makes you sure that there is an absolute cut off point where you choose to place it? It's not as though you've based it on anything concrete that all will be naturally bound to agree with, after all.

Outlaw Pete

seamus wrote: »

Have you got a reputable source on this?

That is, an online source without a conservative agenda, and quotes from actual eyewitnesses rather than 20th-hand paraphrases from a pro-life campaigner?

http://www.fakt.pl/wydarzenia/polska/warszawa/nieudana-aborcja-w-szpitalu-lekarze-kontra-obroncy-zycia/67pn69c

volchitsa

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

http://www.fakt.pl/wydarzenia/polska/warszawa/nieudana-aborcja-w-szpitalu-lekarze-kontra-obroncy-zycia/67pn69c

So you read Polish do you? LOL

Clearly your primary source is Lifesite or similar, which is far from objective.
As for your tabloid "back-up" well luckily there's google translate - you should have tried it yourself.

So here's what I see there : the article gives very little in the way of facts - and the plaintiff is a priest from the Polish equivalent of the pro life campaign in Ireland, the reason for the termination is unknown, the allegation is under investigation : so no explanation as to why a Catholic hospital (Holy Family) in a country with abortion laws almost as stringent as Ireland's was carrying out the abortion.

At 6 months, that's going to be for the same sorts of reasons that abortions are carried out in Irish hospitals.

And interestingly, the first post under the article was a woman who had begun training as a midwife in the late 80s and who had been a witness to the same custom of leaving premature babies (not aborted) to die rather than try to resuscitate them or even comfort them. It seems to be a Polish habit, which may explain why Life had to accuse the only other Catholic country in Europe of these cruel practices.

It's kind of interesting that British, German or French hospitals, where abortion is legal, don't seem to be such brutal places to babies born at 20+ weeks, compared to Poland.

Outlaw Pete

volchitsa wrote: »

By "random" I mean random according to your declared views on what the embryo/fetus is - not that it's necessarily a random date for everyone. But you appear to have no physiological or even moral justification (except miscarriages) for choosing that cut-off point in terms of fetal development

There is nothing 'random' about my support of abortion up to 12 weeks. If you read the post you claim to have then you would have seen that I cited Chile as a perfect example of how a total ban on abortion is counterproductive. Allowing early abortion here would also mean that Irish women would have access to abortion a lot sooner than they would if they had to go to the UK and that in turn would lessen the amount of current later term abortions. If there was way that a total ban on abortions would work, I would have no hesitation in supporting it, but as far as I can see, there isn't.

volchitsa wrote: »

So you read Polish do you? LOL

I don't need to. My browser translates.

Clearly your primary source is Lifesite or similar, which is far from objective.

Nope, quite clearly my original source for the article was TheLiberal.ie given that was the site I originally linked to.

So here's what I see there : the article gives very little in the way of facts - and the plaintiff is a priest from the Polish equivalent of the pro life campaign in Ireland, the reason for the termination is unknown, the allegation is under investigation so no explanation as to why a Catholic hospital (Holy Family)

What did you use to translate the article, a potatoe? In the 4th paragraph it states that the abortion was being carried out because the baby was believed to have Down's Syndrome.

in a country with abortion laws almost as stringent as Ireland's was carrying out the abortion.

You don't appear to know what you are talking about. Pro choice women in Ireland wish that were the case. Abortion in Poland is available to women who have received pre-birth diagnoses of many conditions. In fact, the vast majority of pre-birth diagnoses of Down's Syndrome result in abortion there. Abortion is also legal in Poland if the pregnancy is a result of rape and look, this time I'm gonna use The Guardian as a source:

At present abortion is legal in Poland if the pregnancy poses a threat to the mother’s life or health; if the foetus displays conditions such as Down’s syndrome (and then only if approval for an abortion is given by a medical professional); or if the pregnancy is a result of rape.

seamus

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

What did you use to translate the article, a potatoe? In the 4th paragraph it states that the abortion was being carried out because the baby was believed to have Down's Syndrome.

"Probably, but it is not certain it had Down syndrome." is the translation that comes out. That might mean, "we don't know why the abortion was being carried out. It was probably because it had Down's Syndrome".

The entire source is sketchy overall. A priest attached to a pro-life organisation making a complaint to the police on behalf of an anonymous eyewitness.

Any road, since your claim seems to be that abortions aren't humane, this is a really poor source - not least because there's nothing solid in it, but because the fact that the hospital appears to have been breaking the law in what they were doing.
That is, this article demonstrates that legal abortions are in fact perfectly humane when done in the correct manner, and doctors punished for failing to do so.

thee glitz

volchitsa wrote: »

So you read Polish do you? LOL

So you've had a laugh at Pete's expense for posting an invalid source. At least you'll be sparing us a piss-poor appraisal of same. I've sent the outlet an email (in English obviously) to advise them of the illegitimacy of publishing articles relating to Poland in Polish.

Clearly your primary source is Lifesite or similar, which is far from objective.

Is it clear, is it Lifesite, is it similar, or otherwise?

As for your tabloid "back-up" well luckily there's google translate - you should have tried it yourself.

So here's what I see there : the article gives very little in the way of facts

What facts does it give?

and the plaintiff is a priest from the Polish equivalent of the pro life campaign in Ireland

So..?

the reason for the termination is unknown

Unless the mother's life was at risk, it shouldn't matter.

thee allegation is under investigation

I would hope so.

so no explanation as to why a Catholic hospital (Holy Family) in a country with abortion laws almost as stringent as Ireland's was carrying out the abortion.

A little bit of research, like the first result in a google seach, would tell you this is not so.

At 6 months, that's going to be for the same sorts of reasons that abortions are carried out in Irish hospitals.

Unsubstantiated speculation.

And interestingly, the first post under the article was a woman who had begun training as a midwife in the late 80s and who had been a witness to the same custom of leaving premature babies (not aborted) to die rather than try to resuscitate them or even comfort them. It seems to be a Polish habit, which may explain why Life had to accuse the only other Catholic country in Europe of these cruel practices.

Interesting, but not relevant.

It's kind of interesting that British, German or French hospitals, where abortion is legal, don't seem to be such brutal places to babies born at 20+ weeks, compared to Poland.

If they allow abortion at 20+ weeks, they're in no position to be set as a good example.

Outlaw Pete

seamus wrote: »

"Probably, but it is not certain it had Down syndrome." is the translation that comes out. That might mean, "we don't know why the abortion was being carried out. It was probably because it had Down's Syndrome".

I said nothing to the contrary. The point is that they gave an explanation as to why the abortion was being carried out: there was something wrong with the fetus.

Any road, since your claim seems to be that abortions aren't humane, this is a really poor source - not least because there's nothing solid in it, but because the fact that the hospital appears to have been breaking the law in what they were doing.

Only because the babies were born alive. That is why there is / was an investigation. They mention that the prosecutor's office is taking issue with three abortions merely because they failed, not because they were carried out to begin with and so that makes it patently clear that there was adequate legal reasons for doing so and in Poland that can only be pre-birth diagnosed conditions, of which Down's Syndrome is one of the most common there, or rape.

In any event, you first of all took issue with my linking to an article because of a source and now you have an issue with the lack of details. Why though? I mean, I'd like more details too but I didn't cite the story as a means of backing up a point that I was making or anything, or even to solidify my position on abortion, I merely mentioned it in response to the following user's post where they spoke about a child dying on a table.

PucaMama wrote: »

If the child is already going to die give it pain reflief. Make it comfortable. Don't leave it to die alone on a table. Basic palliative care. Basic human dignity. Is that too much to ask for?

Nobody is claiming the story is anything, or is saying anything, other than precisely what it is. If I wanted to cite examples of horrific botched abortions and bring that element of the abortion debate into the thread, then trust me, I would be citing much different cases than that one.


In other news: this cringe inducing repeal the 8th video that went viral today is laughingly lacking in self awareness.

"A Body, is A Body, is A Body, is A Body, is A body..."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=571vnkdrWC0

Unless that body is the body of a developing human fetus it would seem.

volchitsa

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

There is nothing 'random' about my support of abortion up to 12 weeks. If you read the post you claim to have then you would have seen that I cited Chile as a perfect example of how a total ban on abortion is counterproductive. Allowing early abortion here would also mean that Irish women would have access to abortion a lot sooner than they would if they had to go to the UK and that in turn would lessen the amount of current later term abortions. If there was way that a total ban on abortions would work, I would have no hesitation in supporting it, but as far as I can see, there isn't.

Yes that's what I said - no physiological or developmental justification. Just that it's too hard to prevent. Would be a strange reason for legalizing murder though, wouldn't it? And yet that's what you're effectively saying your position is.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

I don't need to. My browser translates.

Nope, quite clearly my original source for the article was TheLiberal.ie given that was the site I originally linked to.

Their source however was this : "Anna Wiejak, the Polish reporter who broke the story and who is a member of the SOS Foundation to Save Unborn Children".

Which puts the pro life source only a degree further along the chain. So I think my guess was not that far off.

The reason I said that BTW was because I couldn't find it in any mainstream English language source, and that's still a good reason to be sceptical about the article.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

What did you use to translate the article, a potatoe? In the 4th paragraph it states that the abortion was being carried out because the baby was believed to have Down's Syndrome.

I used google, it basically says they don't know but are guessing Down's. Which is what I said. There's no evidence that it was for Down syndrome, or indeed only for Down's.

You don't appear to know what you are talking about. Pro choice women in Ireland wish that were the case. Abortion in Poland is available to women who have received pre-birth diagnoses of many conditions. In fact, the vast majority of pre-birth diagnoses of Down's Syndrome result in abortion there. Abortion is also legal in Poland if the pregnancy is a result of rape and look, this time I'm gonna use The Guardian as a source:

Poland, like Ireland, recently lost a case in the ECHR for refusing a termination to a woman for severe health reasons. So I'm certain I do know what I'm talking about.

(The word I've bolded interests me. Pro choice women, eh?
Is that because you think pro choice men will disagree, or have you just accidentally let slip that you realize that pro-life/pro-choice largely splits along the male/female gender divide?)

volchitsa

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

I said nothing to the contrary. The point is that they gave an explanation as to why the abortion was being carried out: there was something wrong with the fetus.

Except you suggested that it was not a good enough reason for terminating a pregnancy, when you don't know that this was the reason. The fetus may have been Downs, but that's no evidence that this was the reason for the termination.

Only because the babies were born alive. That is why there is / was an investigation. They mention that the prosecutor's office is taking issue with three abortions merely because they failed, not because they were carried out to begin with and so that makes it patently clear that there was adequate legal reasons for doing so and in Poland that can only be pre-birth diagnosed conditions, of which Down's Syndrome is one of the most common there, or rape.

What do you mean by "failed"? This abortion that you are objecting to took place, didn't it? So is it one of the three or are you talking about something else?

In any event, you first of all took issue with my linking to an article because of a source and now you have an issue with the lack of details. Why though? I mean, I'd like more details too but I didn't cite the story as a means of backing up a point that I was making or anything, or even to solidify my position on abortion, I merely mentioned it in response to the following user's post where they spoke about a child dying on a table.

But as I pointed out, a Polish woman actually described seeing this happen to naturally born premature babies and being told by the doctors that it was the best way. So it's not about abortion procedure, it's about Poland's lack of humanity to dying newborns. But you're only interested in making it into an issue about abortion. Much as you tried earlier with the Spanish fetal study which was not about sentience but you tried to suggest that maybe it was all the same.

Nobody is claiming the story is anything, or is saying anything, other than precisely what it is. If I wanted to cite examples of horrific botched abortions and bring that element of the abortion debate into the thread, then trust me, I would be citing much different cases than that one.

I bet you can't. Not recent ones, anyway, and not nearly as horrific as the treatment of raped children in countries where abortion is banned.

In other news: this cringe inducing repeal the 8th video that went viral today is laughingly lacking in self awareness.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=571vnkdrWC0

Unless that body is the body of a developing human fetus it would seem.

Well of course you would say that wouldn't you.
Despite being on record as saying you acknowledge the practical truth of that point, given that it is exactly what your support for abortion on demand up to 12 weeks is based on : i.e. that it is the woman's body and that it is effectively impossible to prevent her from doing what she wants with it without denying her basic human rights.

So a lack of self awareness seems to be a common affliction around here.

gctest50

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

.....I don't need to. My browser translates.


What did you use to translate the article, a potatoe? In the 4th paragraph it states that the abortion was being carried out because the baby was believed to have Down's Syndrome.

Take a screenshot of your browser translating the 4th paragraph and post it up

nozzferrahhtoo

Apologies for any delay in response. My company is being entirely unreasonable this month in that they appear to expect me to actually work for my salary And it appears this unprecedented madness is to continue for the foreseeable.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

You're still saying it failed even though it took you six days to realise that the analogy was about the intent behind abortion legislation.... and even then instead of apologizing you laughably accused me of moving goalposts. Glad.to.hear.it.

Except there was nothing I failed to realize. Your inability to understand the failure is not an indication of my failure to understand the analogy. But as I said I need discuss the failures of the analogy no further unless you really want to, I have done that.

And no when I first replied to it there was no mention of the intent of the abortion legislation in the line I replied to. I was replying to your comparison of seamus saying "The intention of the act of abortion is to end the pregnancy. The destruction of a foetus is incidental" to you replying with "The intention of a drunk driver is just to get home, the loss of innocent life is just incidental"

So I was commenting on the comparison of the intent of abortion with the intent of the drunk driver, and not a single thing to do with the intention of legislation against abortion and intention of legislation against drunk driving. Seeing the difference yet? Because I do, and as I said I want my goal posts back.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

I linked to different studies at different times for different reasons and so any chance of a little specificity?

I was very specific, so try and keep up. I specifically referred to ALL the studies you linked to that were showing fetal response to stimulus. How can I get more specific than that given you know what studies you linked to and you know which ones were related to fetal response to stimulus.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

One of those studies I cited was merely to show that the following statement from you was, and is, absurd

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Some response studies tell us very little, that's true, but some tell us a whole damn lot.

Except you have failed ENTIRELY to show anything absurd about the statement. Because once again merely observing a response to a stimulus in a fetus tells you NOTHING about whether it is sentience, conscious, or subjectively aware.

So other than DECLARING my statement absurd, you have literally done nothing to show it actually is. But by all means do keep trying.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

This is why I accuse you of playing to the gallery, as you know that I do not suggest anything regarding sentience.

And that is why your accusation is nonsense. Because all I am doing is attempting to figure out WHAT the point of your cited studies are. You link to a study showing facial responses to sound. Great. So what? What is your point? IS there a point?

How you conflate attempting to work out what YOUR point is with me "playing to the gallery" is a complete mystery to me. And I suspect to you too.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Any chance you give that kind of nonsense a rest?

No, if someone appears to have made something up, I will happily ask them if they made it up. How about you worry about the content of your posts, poor as it is, without presuming to control how I type mine.

But as I said it is no actually in the study. It appears to be a half sentence quoted, likely out of context, by a news paper article. It is, on the face of the half sentence alone, as I said, startling unprofessional conjecture.... or just a poor attempt to describe medical terminology to a lay audience.

Suffice to say however there is no reason to think the fetus is making attempts to speak. She would have been better saying, and wholly less misleading, something like "making oral movements that are similar to some of the more basic movements we observe in speech". That would be A) wholly more accurate and a lot harder to misconstrue in any emotive fashion.

Though I guess I should suspect a drop in professionalism here given this is not so much solely a study, as a paper written by people who have invented a product they wish to sell to the public. I am not seeing anything supporting the line in the news paper article that "The device is said to help advance the communication skills of unborn children".

But as I said, I am still waiting to hear if observed oral movements have a point in the context of replying to anything I have said??? Is there a point here I am missing, and if so could you finally come out with what it actually is?

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

You never answered the question with respect. Okay, you don't take viability into account, gotcha... but what do you take in account then if you think "we are safe" to abort 21-to-24-week old fetuses at? What are you "iffy" about is what I am asking you.

As I said a few times, I think human consciousness is a bit like a rainbow. You can point at a point on the rainbow and say "We are definitely looking at red here" and another point and say "We are definitely looking at purple here".

But you can not so easily, if at all, point at a place where you can say "THIS is where red stops and purple begins".

What I am iffy about with abortion in later terms is that I predicate moral and ethical concern on the presence of the faculty of consciousness/sentience.

There are points in the human life cycle where we can point at "purple" and say "Yes this is a conscious / sentient" entity.

There are points in the cycle where we can point at "red" and say "There really is no reason to think this is a conscious or sentient entity, and every reason to think it is NOT".

And between those two points is like identifying where red ends and purple begins.

So the higher the number for me, the more worried I get about our basic human ignorance as to the workings of consciousness. I simply do not know where is a "safe" line in the sand.

So I couple what we DO know with a pragmatic observation of what we REQUIRE from abortion. And I find that what we DO know keeps us very safe indeed up to 24 weeks, and absolutely as safe as safe gets at 16 weeks. And pragmatically I realize that 90%+ abortions have been done by 12 weeks anyway.

So where my political ideas, pragmatic ideas, and scientific ideas all overlap is 16 weeks and I see no argument whatsoever to be against abortion up to that point. Certainly not arguments taking the form of "Music makes its mouth move".

So what makes me "iffy" is that the later in the process we go the more we are moving away from where we "know" we are safe to where we are less and less sure. And we are doing so for little reason or gain given very people want or need abortions in NORMAL circumstances at those late stages.

So I feel it better to balance philosophy and science and pragmatism and not push past our certainties without just cause or requirement. While I think the arguments I have on the pro-choice side can be pushed to 22, 24, and maybe even more weeks...... I see no benefit from doing so that scale with the risks and uncertainty.

And on top of that there are political realities to consider. Whatever number of people would vote FOR abortion on demand at 24 weeks..... I think it safe to imagine that MORE people would vote for 22.... more again for 20..... more again for 18..... and so on.

So I slide the scale between what is required and what more people would actually vote for. And if 90%+ abortions happen at 12 weeks..... then 12 weeks (or slightly more for safety buffer, which is why I say 16)...... is around where the scale starts between the most utility, and the most favorable votes for it. And any push higher than that 12 will have to be made with awareness of the cost in votes each actual increase will come at.