Abortion Discussion, Part the Fourth

smacl

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Is calling themselves "Pro-Life" not an insult, as it (at the very least) implies that we are "anti-life"?

I do agree with the continued use of it, as you say, to encourage continued civil discourse, but I do think it should still be recognised that the name chosen by them was done so very carefully so as to lay down the emotive foundation of their argument and disparage their opponents before discussion even begins.

Most probably, but then they clearly needed something a bit catchier than SPUC, not least because so many of my generation were walking around in SPUC Off t-shirts first time around.

Bannasidhe

smacl wrote: »

Most probably, but then they clearly needed something a bit catchier than SPUC, not least because so many of my generation were walking around in SPUC Off t-shirts first time around.

Me! That was me!!

Hotblack Desiato

AFAIK the term "pro-life" in the US goes right back to Roe v. Wade, if not earlier.

Mark Hamill

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I guess the world did the same thing when the word "gay" was used for homosexuality. It is a word meaning happy and carefree and so on. So the opposite of gay is what? Unhappy restricted and depressed?

Daniel Dennett did a semi tongue and cheek play on this. Suggesting that instead of words like atheist and intellectual, we call ourselves "Brights". The implication being the opposite people are what? Dark? Murky?

Pro-choice in context is, as other people have pointed out, at least honest and the opposite is not some contrived insult or diminutive. But if the forum powers that be want us to stick to the established terms so be it. I just hope I remember to use "pro life" here and "anti choice" in every other area of boards.ie

Most of the time however I do not use any label but sentences like "Those campaigning against choice based abortion". So far no mod has taken issue with that.

When gay was first used to describe homosexuals, it was more from it's "bright and showy" meaning, than it's "happy" meaning. Hence the opposite of "gay" was (and is) "straight", which in this context means conventional and serious. (think of the "straight man" in a comedy double act being the serious or composed one).

"Brights" clearly was coined to imply the other side were not.

.......

Mark Hamill wrote: »

"Brights" clearly was coined to imply the other side were not.

The Brights versus the Dims?

the bright, and the light, and the half-bright

nozzferrahhtoo

I think the opposite of Bright that was suggested at the time was "Murky" but I am not sure if memory is right on that one. Maybe it was Dims.

The point being still though that words like "Gay" bring certain connotations to mind, the opposite of which CAN often be a contrived implication about the other side. It does not have to be, or even if it is it might not have been the intention, but it is an effect that can happen either way.

That is why pro choice and anti choice work for me. They are direct opposites without any demeaning implication about the other. Where as "pro life" somehow suggests we are not. Which is not representative at all. While "pro abortion" is also a distortion given most of us pro choice people are actually entirely anti abortion and want to work towards a society where no abortions... ideally.... ever actually happen.

robindch

Mark Hamill wrote: »

What exactly do you mean by "common ground"? Are you saying that both side should recognise the inherent common ground in their positions and argue from that?

I'm saying that both sides are talking about the topic, but without making much obvious effort to explore areas where there is agreement on certain basic facts or aspects of the issue, and certainly nothing related to how agreement might be extended to cover other areas.

Instead, the "pro-life" stakes a claim to life itself as the guiding principle, while "pro-choice" stakes a claim to the idea of control as the guiding principle. Control and life are fundamental, but incommensurable, concepts, so with both sides typically arguing from their guiding principle rather than from common ground, there is unlikely ever to be any agreement or development of the discussion.

I've suggested a few times inthread where common ground exists, but neither side took up the suggestions with any enthusiasm and one could certainly imagine reasons why this might be so.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Of course if you want to accuse both sides of doing that, then you need to explain what that common ground (i.e. correct answer) is and how either or neither side is accepting of it.

I'm not sure you understand what "common ground" is - it's basic premises which both sides agree on, or basic similarities concerning the form of the arguments presented on both sides. They do exist in the abortion discussion, but their existence doesn't imply that they're correct any more than two people who happen to agree that that 2+2=5 would be correct either.

robindch

Mark Hamill wrote: »

"Brights" clearly was coined to imply the other side were not.

That's an unevidenced imputation. The marketing term was dreamed up, self-applied by various people and it was hoped that it would work in the same way as "gay" brightened up things for the LGBT+ community.

Thankfully, very few people ever used the term as it's - quite frankly - embarrassing.

Mark Hamill

robindch wrote: »

I'm saying that both sides are talking about the topic, but without making much obvious effort to explore areas where there is agreement on certain basic facts or aspects of the issue, and certainly nothing related to how agreement might be extended to cover other areas.

Instead, the "pro-life" stakes a claim to life itself as the guiding principle, while "pro-choice" stakes a claim to the idea of control as the guiding principle. Control and life are fundamental, but incommensurable, concepts, so with both sides typically arguing from their guiding principle rather than from common ground, there is unlikely ever to be any agreement or development of the discussion.

I've suggested a few times in thread where common ground exists, but neither side took up the suggestions with any enthusiasm and one could certainly imagine reasons why this might be so.

If you are the only one who can see this "common ground" maybe it doesn't exist? Or maybe it is redundant and changes nothing about the discussion to bring it up and discuss on it. Just because you might agree with someone on some tangential issue doesn't mean you can be led to agree with them on the main issue.

I honestly can't think of any basic fact that is already defacto agreed on by both sides that would actually change the discussion if it was more openly pointed out. Can you give an example of some important common ground that is being ignored, as I missed/can't remember your in-thread examples?

nozzferrahhtoo

robindch wrote: »

Instead, the "pro-life" stakes a claim to life itself as the guiding principle, while "pro-choice" stakes a claim to the idea of control as the guiding principle.

Which is exactly my problem with the pro life term. Because life itself IS one of my guiding principles as a pro choice person. So the implication that it is not, is problematic.

The fact is that some life is more important to me than other life, which is why I am pro choice, but in essence life itself is important also and guides much of my principles.

robindch wrote: »

I've suggested a few times inthread where common ground exists

As have I. To the point I think people get sick in their mouth a little when they see me do it again But for me there is really only one piece of "Common ground" that unites most people on most sides of the abortion issue.

And that common ground is that we pretty much ALL want to work towards an ideal of a society where no abortions actually ever happen.

That common ground unites us, and if we let it unites us strongly. It is a goal few..... let us not rush to mention the anti natalists..... can speak much against.

smacl

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I honestly can't think of any basic fact that is already defacto agreed on by both sides that would actually change the discussion if it was more openly pointed out. Can you give an example of some important common ground that is being ignored, as I missed/can't remember your in-thread examples?

I think that by considering the argument exclusively from the entrenched positions on either side you run the risk of neglecting the middle ground, which is the position occupied by very many people. Many members of the oireachtas committee for example changed their position with respect to repeal based on expert evidence. Common ground here is that both sides agree that as a society we have a duty of care to look after the best interests of pregnant women. The pro-life side would give equal or greater weight to the right to life of the unborn, where the pro-choice side would not. The pro-choice argument also places a strong emphasis on the rights of the individual where the unborn is not yet an individual. The discussion started around the common ground of duty of care to pregnant women and in my opinion this was where the argument to repeal was essentially won.

uptherebels

smacl wrote: »

Common ground here is that both sides agree that as a society we have a duty of care to look after the best interests of pregnant women.

Except that isn't even close to being true!

smacl

uptherebels wrote: »

Except that isn't even close to being true!

Firstly, while that might very much be the case for the extremes of the pro-life side, I don't think it is the case for very many people who are against abortion but at the same time place a higher priority on the well being and personal freedoms on the women in question. Secondly, it doesn't really matter, as the more extreme elements of the pro-life brigade have to at least pretend to care about the well being of pregnant women to have any modicum of credibility. The broad suspicion that this was in fact no more than a pretense is what lost them so much of the middle ground.

.......

smacl wrote: »

Common ground here is that both sides agree that as a society we have a duty of care to look after the best interests of pregnant women.

I dont believe that this is remotely true. But if we were to pretend it was.

Pro-choice folk believe a woman is capable of deciding what her best interests are for herself while the pro-life side believe that other people should be the ones to decide what the best interests of pregnant women are.

smacl

....... wrote: »

I dont believe that this is remotely true.

Nor do I for those campaigning for pro-life at grass roots level, but that the pro-life side are at least pretending that this is the case is evidenced by the 'Love both' marketing slogan. My personal opinion is that, at a grass roots level, the pro-life movement is primarily motivated by empowering religious conservatives to prop up a now defunct status quo that is deeply misogynistic and really only cares for itself. That said, I also think they should be given the same space as everyone else to voice their arguments and prove me wrong.

Mark Hamill

smacl wrote: »

I think that by considering the argument exclusively from the entrenched positions on either side you run the risk of neglecting the middle ground, which is the position occupied by very many people. Many members of the oireachtas committee for example changed their position with respect to repeal based on expert evidence. Common ground here is that both sides agree that as a society we have a duty of care to look after the best interests of pregnant women. The pro-life side would give equal or greater weight to the right to life of the unborn, where the pro-choice side would not. The pro-choice argument also places a strong emphasis on the rights of the individual where the unborn is not yet an individual. The discussion started around the common ground of duty of care to pregnant women and in my opinion this was where the argument to repeal was essentially won.

But how is the "duty of care to pregnant woman" common ground being ignored by either side in the abortion threads (as per robindch's claim)?
The pro-choice side argued that this duty includes abortion (for reasons like personal control over your own medical care and medical necessity etc.). The pro-life side argued it doesn't (because of reasons like competing duty to the life of the unborn etc.). It's not for nothing that so much of the debate about abortion centres around the possible medical necessity for abortions and the safety of abortion procedures.

The argument to repeal was won, but by 67% to 33%, and some of those 33% still argue in the abortion threads. That they haven't come to a consensus with the 66% doesn't mean the common ground wasn't discussed.

Kidchameleon

If we don't have abortion clinics then what is the problem exactly? People can protest about whatever they want surely? So long as no one is getting harassed then who cares...

aloyisious

In northern Ireland later this year [Nov], a woman who sourced medication in 2013 for her 15 year old daughter to have an abortion faces trial on charges directly related to her action. I think most people debating the issue accept this is now an all-Ireland island issue [seeing as how irish and UK citizens protestors engaged in abortion-related protest rallies on both sides of our common border] and will hold opinions on what the outcome of the trial will/should be.

Personally I hope the outcome will end with the legal availability of the medication on sale in N/I Chemists shops alongside other contraceptive items [even if it's within law-prescribed age-limits] in the same way they can be obtained legally in the republic and mainland Britain.

https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fnews%2Fcrime-and-law%2Fwoman-faces-ni-trial-in-november-for-procuring-abortion-pills-1.3937157%3Fmode%3Damp%26fbclid%3DIwAR27rwvDcsfnHYkmcIaBABrBQPb14Q9X00s3GhW97qRho0XiyTf-31FPtfE&h=AT3bw_HR4UvtPi1G7nD-xqpdKLB0u8QqHv9OlYI3gQLR6d516hn-B6mX1OEgfuki56e6fvq94UGZJv8PgFI5yCY5zYGGYZqkq4FJfWmdO0hu083OPwSQ4HRZ9squw6XZYIDCw6nYEfTn0X92xEsJTvCmE4DrhlM4H83dapdJ5PU6g5dpQfO9ahK4s7If-g5XJt7WJohkDNgDi58FOiLbxh8bzgh3j5Z6hncaGzG8T145A7-s9vR1ZEYx67LpDy-KLK7Gjx7vmFgLljrPZaLGNhewvXxqdLkN36athe6mVnnFgrLW0HfLiaal-DqVzaMII61a1CGybuMWLYL7EURh9A90UjlgmH9_Bw40No7l9hKZRiK9sQnNrkfcghx-DFNw35P8nYHhue-xyQjCfFtl26BlnKbk-3GsmrIwFsW2WEDCjYIgzoVNrNYWJOZIiKsh2PNMUfEhKMjABnSDfzXfQzmzIdmjT-VZVCiR3nrMuvt_Su__NQn8vr0oBufAhYwZiB-zwWFE6itFp2QG36AsN1oGUty5WxYHzuDto_5lETPlCvQL2Hh-tpj4ZFMwSl4FJj6rYWSG9Z3v3Pfjkhj5fOnavgY4G6q4ofDAFmu_K3QBwnyjZ2ECBaRZJVuBFAp27uiSy35MKaSwI8iJv4gMdn7QrllsA1_WE7wnA29DtU7Mef8GomyAgNRL67KJq18JnQXo0ZIkMAls0MRD0ZxGELI_2VszXUPBglQaVQjKttphmAY0NSIvJC5SUi3UjR4H7xKSl65EzE5PSQFmZvQ8oXsJP2u0WeCqaZ5z1rRx23Zl3ljfg3iivYKXG05_J-feWQ3mtNKD-xz3TImfUoDJ3BehgVWaWdzinCbQmfoLBgK8XgXcfYD4lFqDzGM

Edit: Having googled for more info on this case, I'm a mite bit concerned that the I/Times report link above given on the F/B page I read and lifted it from might be an error as there was a trial in Nov last year which involved a woman obtaining medication for her daughter of a similar age. Hopefully they are two completely separate trials and not one being [unfortunately] relisted in a news report as a new trial. Can some-one set my mind at rest at the coincidence of the offence listed along with the other similarities?

The F/B page carrying the report seems to have lifted it from a group titling itself: In Her Shoes - Women Of The Eighth.

Igotadose

The actress who plays a Nun on Derry Girls (FD: I think I've seen a couple minutes of this show once), has helped launch a new guide to accessing abortion services in Ireland. Cool.

https://www.advertiser.ie/galway/article/108382/derry-girls-sister-michael-helps-launch-new-galway-booklet-on-abortion-services

smacl

Kidchameleon wrote: »

If we don't have abortion clinics then what is the problem exactly? People can protest about whatever they want surely? So long as no one is getting harassed then who cares...

Sure. People protesting about abortion to anyone seeking medical attention outside their GPs is clearly harassment however and should be banned and punishable on that basis. Foreign religious nuts attempting to exorcise GPs practices should be arrested, fined and promptly deported.

Bredabe

Kidchameleon wrote: »

If we don't have abortion clinics then what is the problem exactly? People can protest about whatever they want surely? So long as no one is getting harassed then who cares...

They deliberately position themselves in the way of the average punter on the way to the shops/parks in the area.
This forces ppl with limited mobility onto the road and crowds anyone who will not walk on the road to get passed them.
This puts many people at eye line with the signs they are carrying, I have a relative who find this very distressing and has to change her route when they are there.

Igotadose

Some nims called The Life Institute are planning something for 6 July. Unfortunately, my Irish isn't that good, and I saw the announcement in an Irish-language only Facebook page (where, from what little I can gather, the other members of the group were VERY unhappy that someone shared this post to the group.) Anyway, this might explain the activity seen around with the aborting priest showing up and some folks saying they've seen signs here and there. I think the Life Institute is associated with the revolting Youth Defense league?

Igotadose

Igotadose wrote: »

Some nims called The Life Institute are planning something for 6 July. Unfortunately, my Irish isn't that good, and I saw the announcement in an Irish-language only Facebook page (where, from what little I can gather, the other members of the group were VERY unhappy that someone shared this post to the group.) Anyway, this might explain the activity seen around with the aborting priest showing up and some folks saying they've seen signs here and there. I think the Life Institute is associated with the revolting Youth Defense league?

In a rush so just giving the link with a full comment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niamh_U%C3%AD_Bhriain

And this reported example of their rationale

https://www.buzz.ie/news/life-institute-yes-side-didnt-win-referendum-media-298503

aloyisious

I think there's an anti-abortion rally in early July in Dublin City Centre. Saw mention of it somewhere on F/B on a Pro-Life website.

With ref to the peculiarities of its meanings, I'm using the term Pro-Life advisedly as some from that quarter, despite their publicly saying they are OK with abortions in certain medical needs, don't want to follow through when the eventuality arises and the pregnant woman or girl is the one who may be called upon to pay the price for another persons personal belief that the unborn [in terms of life] has priority over the woman or girl. It seems to me that the use by them of the term Pro-Life is rather inadequate to explain away such a rationale.

Hotblack Desiato

DubInMeath wrote: »

And this reported example of their rationale

https://www.buzz.ie/news/life-institute-yes-side-didnt-win-referendum-media-298503

A 13-page document published by the Life Institute contains headers such as 'Why the referendum was lost', 'The Yes campaign did not win the vote - the media did' and 'The role of the church in re-establishing a culture of life'.

Ahh. Keep crying those delicious salty, salty tears

Cabaal

Igotadose wrote: »

The actress who plays a Nun on Derry Girls (FD: I think I've seen a couple minutes of this show once), has helped launch a new guide to accessing abortion services in Ireland. Cool.

https://www.advertiser.ie/galway/article/108382/derry-girls-sister-michael-helps-launch-new-galway-booklet-on-abortion-services

The religious types will just love this!

Cabaal

This is a non-story, Google was stopping foreign influence from both pro-life and pro-choice sides.

I find it amusing that a US based christian funded organization (Project Veritas) is so very much concerned about the democratic process in Ireland.

https://www.broadsheet.ie/2019/06/27/the-algorithm-method/

“On Monday Project Veritas released a viral investigation that raised questions of Google’s interference in American elections. This new document shows their subsidiary, YouTube, appeared to have attempted to influence elections in Ireland.”

A YouTube spokesperson said:

“… In the midst of the Irish referendum on abortion, our systems brought authoritative content to the top of our search results for abortion-related queries. This happened for both pro-choice and pro-life queries, there was no distinction.”

So who's involved with Project Veritas?
None other then James O'Keefe, so whats he done?

Attempt to solicit voter fraud (2014)

In October 2014 O'Keefe and his two colleagues attempted to bait staffers for Congressman Jared Polis (D-CO) and then-U.S. Senator Mark Udall, as well as independent expenditure organizations, into approving voter fraud, according to several staffers who interacted with O'Keefe and his colleagues. Staffers began photographing O'Keefe's crew and advising them that what they were advocating was illegal; one nonprofit said they contacted police

Failed attempt to sting The Washington Post (2017)

Starting in July 2017, Project Veritas operative Jaime Phillips attempted to infiltrate The Washington Post and other media outlets by joining networking groups related to journalism and left-leaning politics. She and a male companion attended events related to the Post, and their conversations with journalists were sometimes covertly recorded.[157] ..............

.......Jonathan Chait of New York magazine said that O'Keefe, having set out prove that the Post was fake news, ended up disproving it. O'Keefe's plot collapsed because it was premised on a ludicrously false worldview, wrote Chait. "The Washington Post does not, in fact, publish unverified accusations just because they're against Republicans." O'Keefe's attempts to prove rampant voter fraud have failed "because voter fraud is not rampant."[169]

eviltwin

The Rally for Life is on the same day as the Trans Pride march. Should make for an interesting day in the city centre!

realitykeeper

volchitsa wrote: »

We don't normally ban a medical procedure on the grounds that there has been a misdiagnosis or even medical negligence. The usual response is to improve procedures so as to reduce the risk of the misdiagnosis happening again.
That seems to me to be the right approach here too.

True but irrelevant.


Mod: Realitykeeper has been yellow carded for backseat modding. It is not your place to decide what is and it not relevant. You can leave that to your friendly mods.
Do not discuss this warning in thread. If you wish to discuss it do so via PM. Thanking you.