Repeal the 8th Bandwagoning

Cupcake_Crisis

Lady Spangles wrote: »

I'm talking about the actual procedure, though. If I was speaking to a woman who had gone through the procedure then my manner would be entirely different. I would have thought that that goes without saying.

But seeing as you're determined to find fault with everything I say now, I'm just leaving this here.

But there are no doubt women reading this thread who have had abortions and they'll find your way of describing it very insensitive.

Lady Spangles

anna080 wrote: »

So what you're saying is, when talking to women who have had abortions, you'd police your tone? Why?

That's not what tone policing is. And of course I would adapt my behaviour depending on a situation. All people do.

When I said an embryo wasn't a baby but a ball of cells, I was replying to someone who said terminating was "murder". I get the feeling you're twisting my words now.

Lady Spangles

Cupcake_Crisis wrote: »

But there are no doubt women reading this thread who have had abortions and they'll find your way of describing it very insensitive.

I understand that. But there's also people on this thread calling women who have had terminations "sociopaths" and "murderers". My stripped down descriptions of embryos is to counter their allegations. These women are neither murderers nor sociopaths, they haven't killed anyone and they've done nothing wrong. That's what I'm trying to say here. I'm trying to avoid emotive language altogether.

And I still don't fully understand why I'm being chastised for using such bare language while no one says anything to the other's using words like "baby killers".

Zubeneschamali

Cupcake_Crisis wrote: »

But there are no doubt women reading this thread who have had abortions and they'll find your way of describing it very insensitive.

and...

They will vote to keep the 8th as a result?

No, didn't think so.

Cupcake_Crisis

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

and...

They will vote to keep the 8th as a result?

No, didn't think so.

Over one persons tone? No.

Over the tone and beacause of how fractioned the pro choice side is? Possibly

The way some on the pro choice speak, and the fact that we can't seem to agree on what we really want is enough to make anyone wonder.

Zubeneschamali

Cupcake_Crisis wrote: »

Over the tone and beacause of how fractioned the pro choice side is? Possibly

Actual women who have had abortions themselves will vote to keep a 14 year prison sentence for having an abortion because they don't like our tone?

Not happening.

Cupcake_Crisis

Lady Spangles wrote: »

I understand that. But there's also people on this thread calling women who have had terminations "sociopaths" and "murderers". My stripped down descriptions of embryos is to counter their allegations. These women are neither murderers nor sociopaths, they haven't killed anyone and they've done nothing wrong. That's what I'm trying to say here. I'm trying to avoid emotive language altogether.

And I still don't fully understand why I'm being chastised for using such bare language while no one says anything to the other's using words like "baby killers".

But people have called people out for labeling women murderers? I certainly have. If not on this thread then certainly in others.

retro:electro

Lady Spangles wrote: »

I understand that. But there's also people on this thread calling women who have had terminations "sociopaths" and "murderers". My stripped down descriptions of embryos is to counter their allegations. These women are neither murderers nor sociopaths, they haven't killed anyone and they've done nothing wrong. That's what I'm trying to say here. I'm trying to avoid emotive language altogether.

And I still don't fully understand why I'm being chastised for using such bare language while no one says anything to the other's using words like "baby killers".

Well that's what they feel abortion does, and to an extent, they're entitled to feel that way. They're not trivialising it. At best they're probably amplyfing their POV to emphasise their point, there's a difference.
I understand the intention behind your posts, genuinely I do. Just understand that your turn of phrase does nothing to support or encourage discussion. It just further divides.

Cupcake_Crisis

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Actual women who have had abortions themselves will vote to keep a 14 year prison sentence for having an abortion because they don't like our tone?

Not happening.

Actual women who can't get a clear grasp of what repealing the 8th will actually mean because no one can say what it WILL actually mean.

nozzferrahhtoo

anna080 wrote: »

It's the flippancy with which you describe these things, "it's just a clump of cells", "it's just popping a pill- that's it", you clearly have no regard for the psychological and emotional legacy abortion can entail.

Cupcake_Crisis wrote: »

But there are no doubt women reading this thread who have had abortions and they'll find your way of describing it very insensitive.

I wonder if it can be seen to go both ways a bit too though.

Let us take a step back from the emotive aspect of language and realize that "clump of cell", while not seeming sensitive, is at least ACCURATE. That IS what it is. A clump of undifferentiated cells that is in no way a person or sentience or any of the other things we should hold moral and ethical concern for.

Now let us take that step forward again back into the emotive aspect of language. How much of the REQUIREMENT for being sensitive about it, and how much of the "emotional legacy" of abortion stems from us treating............. emotionally and linguistically and with all our genuinely well meant vagaries of sensitivity.......... that "clump of cells" as being more than it actually is.

Perhaps a move towards calling a spade a spade, when it actually IS a spade....... gives us the power to divest some of the emotional control it has over us and in doing so alleviates the suffering in areas where suffering is not warranted.

Language has power and perhaps our rush to be overly sensitive and tip toeing around language actually lends fuel to the fire of what we are trying to be sensitive about in the first place.

In the abortion debate specifically however one common anti-choice move is to impute values to that "clump of cells" that it does not have, so as to build a foundation for "arguments of emotion" where arguments of intellect and philosophy have failed them. And that too builds an environment where our hand is forced to call a spade a spade, when it is in fact a spade........ despite how insensitive doing so might first appear.

I often hear the argument framed similar to "You want to call it a fetus / clump of cells and not a baby because you want to DEHUMANIZE it!" when in fact I want to call it WHAT IT IS in order to pre-empt the tactic of humanizing it before it's due. Not to take away something it has, but prevent it attaining something it does not.

Lady Spangles

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I wonder if it can be seen to go both ways a bit too though.

Let us take a step back from the emotive aspect of language and realize that "clump of cell", while not seeming sensitive, is at least ACCURATE. That IS what it is. A clump of undifferentiated cells that is in no way a person or sentience or any of the other things we should hold moral and ethical concern for.

Now let us take that step forward again back into the emotive aspect of language. How much of the REQUIREMENT for being sensitive about it, and how much of the "emotional legacy" of abortion stems from us treating............. emotionally and linguistically and with all our genuinely well meant vagaries of sensitivity.......... that "clump of cells" as being more than it actually is.

Perhaps a move towards calling a spade a spade, when it actually IS a spade....... gives us the power to divest some of the emotional control it has over us and in doing so alleviates the suffering in areas where suffering is not warranted.

Language has power and perhaps our rush to be overly sensitive and tip toeing around language actually lends fuel to the fire of what we are trying to be sensitive about in the first place.

In the abortion debate specifically however one common anti-choice move is to impute values to that "clump of cells" that it does not have, so as to build a foundation for "arguments of emotion" where arguments of intellect and philosophy have failed them. And that too builds an environment where our hand is forced to call a spade a spade, when it is in fact a spade........ despite how insensitive doing so might first appear.

I often hear the argument framed similar to "You want to call it a fetus / clump of cells and not a baby because you want to DEHUMANIZE it!" when in fact I want to call it WHAT IT IS in order to pre-empt the tactic of humanizing it before it's due. Not to take away something it has, but prevent it attaining something it does not.

Which is exactly what I was trying to do. Especially when I read the "sociopath" comment from much earlier in the thread. The old "call a spade a spade" saying was in my head all along but I didn't want to use it because those allegations of my having no empathy did sting somewhat, and didn't want to be accused of comparing abortions to spades or whatever. But yes, this is exactly what I was attempting to do.

If I was talking with a woman who'd had a termination, then of course things would be totally different. In fact, I'd never given abortion much thought until I moved to Ireland (from England where this isn't really an issue) and met so many women who made that journey. It was the emotive language of pro-life that really shocked me. It was the same emotive language that made my friends feel like killers and that is so wrong, so unfair. If someone could just stand up and say it like it really is, it might help.

Cupcake_Crisis

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I wonder if it can be seen to go both ways a bit too though.

Let us take a step back from the emotive aspect of language and realize that "clump of cell", while not seeming sensitive, is at least ACCURATE. That IS what it is. A clump of undifferentiated cells that is in no way a person or sentience or any of the other things we should hold moral and ethical concern for.

Now let us take that step forward again back into the emotive aspect of language. How much of the REQUIREMENT for being sensitive about it, and how much of the "emotional legacy" of abortion stems from us treating............. emotionally and linguistically and with all our genuinely well meant vagaries of sensitivity.......... that "clump of cells" as being more than it actually is.

Perhaps a move towards calling a spade a spade, when it actually IS a spade....... gives us the power to divest some of the emotional control it has over us and in doing so alleviates the suffering in areas where suffering is not warranted.

Language has power and perhaps our rush to be overly sensitive and tip toeing around language actually lends fuel to the fire of what we are trying to be sensitive about in the first place.

In the abortion debate specifically however one common anti-choice move is to impute values to that "clump of cells" that it does not have, so as to build a foundation for "arguments of emotion" where arguments of intellect and philosophy have failed them. And that too builds an environment where our hand is forced to call a spade a spade, when it is in fact a spade........ despite how insensitive doing so might first appear.

I often hear the argument framed similar to "You want to call it a fetus / clump of cells and not a baby because you want to DEHUMANIZE it!" when in fact I want to call it WHAT IT IS in order to pre-empt the tactic of humanizing it before it's due. Not to take away something it has, but prevent it attaining something it does not.

I 100% get where you are coming from, and I get where LS is coming from too, but women have abortions for a multitude of different reasons . The phrase 'clump of cells' will likely affect a woman who had an FFS or a miscarriage more than it might affect a woman who had an early term termination. But it's presented as a blanket statement.

What non emotive language like this does is arm the pro life side. It's allows them to portray us as people who want to abort babies up to 9 months by just popping a pill. And the lack of clarity within the pro choice side enables that even further.

retro:electro

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I wonder if it can be seen to go both ways a bit too though.

Let us take a step back from the emotive aspect of language and realize that "clump of cell", while not seeming sensitive, is at least ACCURATE. That IS what it is. A clump of undifferentiated cells that is in no way a person or sentience or any of the other things we should hold moral and ethical concern for.

Now let us take that step forward again back into the emotive aspect of language. How much of the REQUIREMENT for being sensitive about it, and how much of the "emotional legacy" of abortion stems from us treating............. emotionally and linguistically and with all our genuinely well meant vagaries of sensitivity.......... that "clump of cells" as being more than it actually is.

Perhaps a move towards calling a spade a spade, when it actually IS a spade....... gives us the power to divest some of the emotional control it has over us and in doing so alleviates the suffering in areas where suffering is not warranted.

Language has power and perhaps our rush to be overly sensitive and tip toeing around language actually lends fuel to the fire of what we are trying to be sensitive about in the first place.

In the abortion debate specifically however one common anti-choice move is to impute values to that "clump of cells" that it does not have, so as to build a foundation for "arguments of emotion" where arguments of intellect and philosophy have failed them. And that too builds an environment where our hand is forced to call a spade a spade, when it is in fact a spade........ despite how insensitive doing so might first appear.

I often hear the argument framed similar to "You want to call it a fetus / clump of cells and not a baby because you want to DEHUMANIZE it!" when in fact I want to call it WHAT IT IS in order to pre-empt the tactic of humanizing it before it's due. Not to take away something it has, but prevent it attaining something it does not.

If the 8th fails on anything it will fail on the "clump of cells", rationale.

nozzferrahhtoo

Cupcake_Crisis wrote: »

The phrase 'clump of cells' will likely affect a woman who had an FFS or a miscarriage more than it might affect a woman who had an early term termination.

Sure. But the word "baby" can affect them too. I submit that perhaps the effect of it could even be worse. The power that word has over them is to have them suffer from emotions and traumas and stresses that the thing they actually apply the label to is not worthy of.

In some ways therefore telling a woman who had a miscarriage that they "lost a baby" could, coherently at least, be argued to be insensitive. Because not only have they suffered a medical event.... which is bad enough already......... but the word elevates what they lost to all the emotional involvement that the word "baby" implies and suggests. Sometimes the cold, clinical and ACCURATE terminology can be MORE sensitive in that regard, due to the power and effect language can have. If someone has a miscarriage would you genuinely prefer they believe they have lost a barely differentiated non-sentient ball of cells........... or sit there believing to have lost a baby?

But you are right, while our hand is forced often to use clinical and non-emotive language......... because the anti-choice arguments so heavily rely ON using emotive language.......... we do need to find ways to mediate the more negative effects of doing so while not losing side of the genuine reasons FOR doing so. I would be the first to admit I am not the go-to guy for suggestions on how best to proceed in that regard.

Woodhenge

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I wonder if it can be seen to go both ways a bit too though.

Let us take a step back from the emotive aspect of language and realize that "clump of cell", while not seeming sensitive, is at least ACCURATE. That IS what it is. A clump of undifferentiated cells that is in no way a person or sentience or any of the other things we should hold moral and ethical concern for.

Now let us take that step forward again back into the emotive aspect of language. How much of the REQUIREMENT for being sensitive about it, and how much of the "emotional legacy" of abortion stems from us treating............. emotionally and linguistically and with all our genuinely well meant vagaries of sensitivity.......... that "clump of cells" as being more than it actually is.

Perhaps a move towards calling a spade a spade, when it actually IS a spade....... gives us the power to divest some of the emotional control it has over us and in doing so alleviates the suffering in areas where suffering is not warranted.

Language has power and perhaps our rush to be overly sensitive and tip toeing around language actually lends fuel to the fire of what we are trying to be sensitive about in the first place.

In the abortion debate specifically however one common anti-choice move is to impute values to that "clump of cells" that it does not have, so as to build a foundation for "arguments of emotion" where arguments of intellect and philosophy have failed them. And that too builds an environment where our hand is forced to call a spade a spade, when it is in fact a spade........ despite how insensitive doing so might first appear.

I often hear the argument framed similar to "You want to call it a fetus / clump of cells and not a baby because you want to DEHUMANIZE it!" when in fact I want to call it WHAT IT IS in order to pre-empt the tactic of humanizing it before it's due. Not to take away something it has, but prevent it attaining something it does not.

This is why people accuse the Repeal movement insensitive and unable to empathise. By your logic above, a 12 year old girl with an embryo developing inside her is just a 'clump of cells' different from any other 12 year old. A couple who have been trying to become parents for years discover that there is a 'clump of cells' inside one of them and their whole world changes instantly. This is what you simply don't understand or refuse to contemplate because of the implications on modern conveniences and expediencies.

Human life does not necessarily have to pass any kind of worthiness test or biological exam to be hugely significant in and of itself, just by virtue of its existence. It has enormous ramifications and real world consequences just by its existence.

Wibbs

Lady Spangles wrote: »

If you label people on the basis of a few words then that tells me this is more your problem than mine.

Great comeback...

As IG noted:

infogiver wrote: »

It comes from the same place as "triggered" "safe place" "check your privilege " "patriarchy " etc

Such terms are a near guarantee of someone's position. Just like if you hear "cuck" from someone. Tells you pretty much all you need to know.

Lady Spangles wrote: »

It's like accusing someone of bullying while trying to flush their head down a toilet.

No. No it's not. Just because someone thinks a stated position is worthy of strong debate, this doesn't mean "bullying", but again the so called "liberals" are quick to pull the B word. It's a transparent effort to stifle debate you don't like. Just like all the other buzzwords in the arsenal.

TBH whenever I see buzzwords coming from any position I have found it pretty safe to assume that there is much parroting of received doctrine rather than any real attempt or interest in debate and one can be sure inaccuracies and fudging are will follow.

Lollipops23

Ugh, SAKE.

Right, me being very passionate about a topic does not equal jumping on the bandwagon.

I'm actually loving seeing so many people- men and women, of different generations, getting involved in the campaign. I love when someone spots my badge on my coat and asks about it, or expresses solidarity.

I will take "band wagoning" over apathy any day of the week OP.

jameorahiely

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Abortion is a funny issue in that there is more infighting on both sides than I am used to seeing in other conversations.

Observe above for example, I am pro-choice and I am arguing AGAINST one argument FOR being pro-choice that someone offered. Yet despite the fact I am arguing AGAINST a pro-choice argument jameorahiely...... one of the forums more shrill and loud anti-abortion posters......... is triggered by it and going mad over it.

It is a mad and emotive topic........ a lot of sensibilities appear to break down on the people who get most emotional about it. All we can do really is stay entirely calm and emotionless ourselves in the face of it, and hope to lead by example I guess.

Noz you're bevoming a parody of youself at this stage, but at least ypu'be stopped reffering to yourself in the third person :pac:
Yes.CALM and EMOTIONLESS.

Tell us more about how the WOMAN does everything in her power to not get pregnant by getting the MAN to wear a comdom.


I can do the capital letters thing too :pac:

jameorahiely

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I can just be thankful that you are not in control of ethical procedures related to the disposal of medical waste.



Nope.

Allow me to explain this again in the smallest words and sentences I can muster.

• User suggested people making every effort not to get pregnant, but do, should be allowed abortions.
• I said that would be unworkable.
• I explained this is because there is no way to establish the criteria.
• I then used condoms as one SINGLE example of this. Just to highlight the point.
• There is no way to evaluate whether any given abortion applicant has had them used correctly, or even AT ALL.
• You are now focusing solely on that example, having been triggered by it.
• You are not addressing the point as a whole, just the example for it.

If you can point to which of those 7 points is the one that is not clear to you, I can break it down further.

That's right you only support the organisations that dispose of them by throwing yhem in buckets amd waltzing around throw a waiting room full of people with all the days aborted babies in them.

And nope you didn't say condoms were one single example. You gave it as an example of the woman doing everything in her power to not get pregnant. Why didn't you choose one the woman has full responsibility and control of?

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Hesthea wrote: »

You say its outdated but that it will change with time which means that you know it still happens hence its not outdated. Its a reality many mothers have to face on a daily basis.

That's illogical. It's an out of date way of thinking, I didn't say it non existent.

i am a single mother. I am discriminated for being one. I have been told to keep my legs closed and i have, not so long ago, in the park while my child was playing, two other women referring that way about another mother in the park.

Its not pleasant and its totally hypocritical.

Become a women and a single parent too. Try to find a job. Try to rent a house for you and your child and let me know how people treat you after knowing that. I certainly do.

I'd say a single father has the exact same problems as a single mother in this regard. It's difficult for me to believe you are discriminated against, due to my experiences. They are just a pair of gossiping árseholes. Average joe might be pissed off because of the benefits a single parent might get.

I have 2 friends who are single mothers. One has never worked, has 4 kids, and has everything paid for. Recently got a lovely 4 bed house fully kitted out. I think she may have had to buy a TV, from her social welfare benefits. Not exactly a very inspiring life to live, according to many, but you can see how some work their asses off can be pissed off with this lifestyle choice.

Unfortunately, it is man V woman thing. People keep on stigmatizing single mothers. We are the scourge of society.

It's not, stop clutching at straws. You are the one making it a man v woman thing. It's as if people can't be happy if there's no "us v them" air to it.

When someone talks about single mothers people automatically think we are bums, allergic to work, that we like to party all the time and receive payments from the welfare to splurge anywhere except on our children needs.
Although there might be a small percentage of people like that, majority isn't and yet is labelled like the rest. No matter what you say, no matter how well you do, how many references you have. When you say you are a single mother you become a persona non grata.

Yea i'd say that some people may think that some of the things you mentioned are true. But that says more about the person judging you, and I really wouldn't get worked up about what they have to say. However, your last paragraph is wrong.

Men abandon their children all the time and yet the fault always befalls on the women. We are always the ones that should have done more, given more, sacrificed more. Why?

This is nonsense.

What i see is women adopting the attitude that men have regarding life.

Its interesting to see men commenting that a woman shouldn't be able to abort. That she shouldn't have that right. Why does any of you still think like that? Will you help her to raise the child? Even if things don't work out between you two?

"Why does any of you...", huh? You men or you pro lifers? Well the right to protect life should not be reserved exclusively to females. There should be input from all sides. Like in my previous comments, I don't agree with abortion under certain circumstances. I don't believe that one person should decide that the life within them should be terminated. Why should the life of one be decided by another?

If you said yes, congratulations. You are one of the few that will take responsibility over the child that you helped to conceive. But you are just a small minority. Many others say the same but then they decide they need to move on with their lives and, of course, the child is not a priority in their lives.

What? This doesn't make any sense, single mother (parents even) are not the majority. So saying that a father who helps raise a child, is the minority, is incredibly wrong. Or do you mean those that do not wish to have an abortion? If that's the case, do you have any material to back up your statement?

Even if abortion is legalized that doesn't mean that women will start aborting like if it were the most natural thing in the world. It means that their body is their own. That they will feel safer knowing that if they do get pregnant and something happens (it can range from being abandoned by the father's child or their own family to being sick. From having lost her job and having no way to support herself or the child, there are so many reasons) they have the power to decide what is best for them at that time.

Some of your points could be valid, but being abandoned by father or family shouldn't be a reason to terminate a pregnancy, nor should losing a job. There's a lot of support, both financially and mentally for single parents. In some cases, the support is very appealing.

No matter what people say, in the end we are the ones who will have to care and raise the child alone.

I will even give Portugal as an example. Abortion became legal in 2007, they were also against it for the same reasons stated by many of you and guess what?
Abortion became legal and the number of women resorting to it reduced.
All the fears that people had if abortion became legal were for nothing. The proof is in the statistics and the fact that the rate in women dying due to complications after an abortion also reduced significantly.

And if i'm not mistaken, its legal to abort until the 12th week.

There's definitely some irrational fears like over the counter abortions without restrictions. As discussed with nozzferrahhtoo, this would be a very small minority wishing to do this. Irresponsible people who probably shouldn't be parents. However, giving people the decision to terminate a pregnancy, no matter the reason, is something I don't agree with.

.........

Samaris wrote: »

Given you specify "medical" there, you appear to be on the side that a woman must carry a pregnancy to term, even if it endangers her. Why is that? Why exactly IS the developing human more important than the human already here?

That's not the pro life position at all, so quit pretending it is. There are two human lives not one, we're all constantly developing as human beings. Someone's stage of development is not a basis or mandate to give them superior or inferior rights to life. Nazi's used to claim they were more superiorly biologically developed, and on that basis, other human life should have less rights than they.

PopePalpatine

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Abortion is a funny issue in that there is more infighting on both sides than I am used to seeing in other conversations.

Observe above for example, I am pro-choice and I am arguing AGAINST one argument FOR being pro-choice that someone offered. Yet despite the fact I am arguing AGAINST a pro-choice argument jameorahiely...... one of the forums more shrill and loud anti-abortion posters......... is triggered by it and going mad over it.

It is a mad and emotive topic........ a lot of sensibilities appear to break down on the people who get most emotional about it. All we can do really is stay entirely calm and emotionless ourselves in the face of it, and hope to lead by example I guess.

I've yet to see any infighting amongst the pro-lifers, unless some of them calling on their more extreme comrades to stop using graphic and misleading images in their campaign counts.

Samaris

Mod: People, it's getting heated in here and the discussion is turning into a series of snide insults. If you're involved, take a step back for a bit and breathe, please. I don't want to have to card people or thread-ban them but I will if it continues.

thee glitz

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Language has power and perhaps our rush to be overly sensitive and tip toeing around language actually lends fuel to the fire of what we are trying to be sensitive about in the first place.

I won't speculate on your motivation for doing so, but will point out that your continued use of the term 'anti-choice' is taking liberties. It's akin to calling Repealers 'pro-abortion', which many apparently disagree with.

In the abortion debate specifically however one common anti-choice move is to impute values to that "clump of cells" that it does not have, so as to build a foundation for "arguments of emotion" where arguments of intellect and philosophy have failed them. And that too builds an environment where our hand is forced to call a spade a spade, when it is in fact a spade........ despite how insensitive doing so might first appear.

I often hear the argument framed similar to "You want to call it a fetus / clump of cells and not a baby because you want to DEHUMANIZE it!" when in fact I want to call it WHAT IT IS in order to pre-empt the tactic of humanizing it before it's due. Not to take away something it has, but prevent it attaining something it does not.

Me - the cells that comprise me are human. Always have been. You too. They didn't transform from say being potentially dog cells to being definitely human. Unless magic perhaps. When a lady tells me she's pregnant, I don't instantly wish her that I hope it's not a horse she's carrying.

gctest50

thee glitz wrote: »

.......


Me - the cells that comprise me are human............

Not true

Human male =

about 30 trillion human cells

and about 40 trillion bacteria

nozzferrahhtoo

Woodhenge wrote: »

This is why people accuse the Repeal movement insensitive and unable to empathise. By your logic above, a 12 year old girl with an embryo developing inside her is just a 'clump of cells' different from any other 12 year old.

I have been discussing the fetus and only the fetus. So I am not sure how comparing various 12 year olds as "just a clump of cell" is a statement made based on MY logic. It is solely coming from your head, not mine.

The difference between a fetus at, say, 12 weeks...... and a 12 year old.......... and a 12 year old and another 12 year old........... is their personhood, rooted in their faculty of sentience and consciousness. A 12 year old has this. A fetus at 12 weeks does not.

Woodhenge wrote: »

A couple who have been trying to become parents for years discover that there is a 'clump of cells' inside one of them and their whole world changes instantly. This is what you simply don't understand or refuse to contemplate

I neither fail to understand it nor do I fail to contemplate it. At all. Even a little bit. And as a parent myself I entirely understand the emotional processes relevant to becoming invested in not just what the clump of cells is, but what it represents for one's future.

But I ALSO understand and contemplate, where some people refuse to do either, how those processes can be willfully hijacked and manipulated by some people to form emotion based anti-abortion arguments where intellectual or philosophical arguments have failed them.

Mediating how, when and why a concept is applied, is not the same as not understanding, or refusing to contemplate the concept. Quite the opposite really. It would be your error, not mine, to conflate the two. Anyone who, after reading all the posts I have written on this topic, thinks it valid to accuse me of not having contemplated the issues..... is really in a fantasy land of their own devising.

Ush1

I find this clump of cells thing more disingenuous, than in poor taste. Yes it's a clump of cells...that eventually becomes a human child. It's not something static and abstract.

nozzferrahhtoo

jameorahiely wrote: »

That's right you only support the organisations that dispose of them by throwing yhem in buckets amd waltzing around throw a waiting room full of people with all the days aborted babies in them.

I have no recollection of supporting any such mal-practice, or any such organizations engaging in it. Could you cite/link/quote where I have done so please?

jameorahiely wrote: »

And nope you didn't say condoms were one single example.

I can only assume you missed words like "for example" or "things like" or when I used them then.

jameorahiely wrote: »

You gave it as an example of the woman doing everything in her power to not get pregnant.

So I gave it as an example......... but I did not say it was an example? I am genuinely confused now as to what your point is. Help me out here.

jameorahiely wrote: »

Why didn't you choose one the woman has full responsibility and control of?

And if I am talking about fruit and give apple as an example, why did I not give oranges? I only needed one example to highlight my point. What relevance does it have WHICH of the many possible ones available I pick?

My point would be EXACTLY the same whether I chose condoms, the rhythm methods, the pill, or any other of the MANY contraception methods and tools available.

If the most one can attack my position with is to worry about why I chose one example, and not another, WHILE making the point.... then my point must be on pretty firm ground indeed.

The point, again, simply was that access to abortion based on the pregnant woman claiming to have done "everything possible" to not get pregnant, is not likely going to be a workable criteria. Are you actually disagreeing with that point in some way? It is not clear if you are.

nozzferrahhtoo

PopePalpatine wrote: »

I've yet to see any infighting amongst the pro-lifers, unless some of them calling on their more extreme comrades to stop using graphic and misleading images in their campaign counts.

I have probably been deeper in such debates, and in many more locations and forums (on and off line) than most. So perhaps I am just seeing more of it than most too. I can not be sure.

I would say the infighting I have observed personally falls into three main categories.

The first would be, as you said, around the graphics and moves used to argue for the pro-choice side. The "Virgin Mary being given an abortion" stunt for example did cause some ire among many pro-choice people. I myself was not SO worked up by it other than to find that move crass at best.

The second would be around which arguments are good ones for supporting being pro-choice. I, for example, even though I am pro-choice tend to argue AGAINST using the "What about women who were raped" and "Not providing abortion services forces women to travel to the UK" arguments. I find both of them to be very poor arguments. In turn I have my own deep (and for many, too long ) arguments for being pro-choice but I have had a few people who are ENTIRELY pro-choice line up to tell me they think my arguments are bad ones. They think, quite often, that the entire pro-choice argument should be predicated on the "her body her choice" line of reasoning, whereas my ENTIRE argument is based on evaluating whether the fetus, at the time it is being terminated, could validly be said to have rights or not.

The third, and biggest, I would think is the concept of when the "cut off" should be for offering an abortion choice based service. Some have low numbers (12 usually) and some high (24 weeks, like the UK etc.) and I have seen heated arguments between both camps. While some want NO cut off AT ALL, allowing a developing child to be terminated in some form even a week before it's due date. And while people espousing THAT seem to be relatively a stark minority, it does seem to raise quite the ire in BOTH pro and anti choice camps.

Hesthea

......... wrote: »

Can you explain why people who need to take human life for their medical, financial, psychological (and so on) reasons should be allowed to ?

Can you explain while someone who has medical issues that might endanger their life if the pregnancy goes forward shouldn't? Is her life less important than the other that is still in the making?

Can you explain how someone who has no financial means to support herself shouldn't? Should they starve to death? Live on the streets? Should her sell her body to be able to feed the baby that she would have?

Should a person with psychological issues see the pregnancy through and then kill herself or the baby or both because she was obligated to go through it and can't cope with it?