nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

PopePalpatine

I didn't know whether to post this here or in the Sanctimony of Pro-Lifers thread in t'udder forum - a BBC article on Paraguay's "epidemic" of child pregnancies. Paraguay only allows for abortion if the mother's life is at risk. On average, two girls aged 14 and under become pregnant in Paraguay every day.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Augustine John

I don't agree with everything Pope Francis says but I think he is right when he says that abortion is a symptom and part of our " throw away society " .

recedite

King Mob wrote: »

At what point do you get human rights then?

The onus is not on me to say when. The entity come into existence, and grows, and eventually asserts its own rights as an adult.
Anyone wishing to put a stop to that process is terminating that human life, so they should be prepared to say on what basis that is justified.
That involves balancing the rights of the entity versus the "harm" it is causing the mother or anyone else.
In order to do that, you must first gauge what rights the entity has.
Legally, that was 100% at implantation up until recently. But dropped effectively to 0%, getting restored again to 100% at birth (% of full human rights).
Philosophically, I'm not sure many of us agree with those raw sums.

recedite

aloyisious wrote: »

I'm curious as to whom is being referred-to in the "I'M giving the benefit of the doubt, just in case" quote? Is it being given to the person/non-person referred to or to smacl in respect of his/her posts? The debater who posted the quote is on my ignore list so if some-one could repost any reply from that person. I'd be obliged.

Well, this is the problem with having your fingers stuck in your ears.

alaimacerc

recedite wrote: »

I don't have to say, because I'm not the one calling for the destruction of this person/non-person.

Or "for allowing a person to decide whether they wish to remain pregnant", as that's correctly spelled.

You're the one calling for granting of rights of personhood to what you're now characterising as a possible non-person -- with grandiose criminal sanctions for purported violation of same. And you "don't have to" produce any argument at all for such personhood? That's an especially hand-waving example of a burden-of-proof road-haulage exercise.

Here's a slightly more plausible one. People, as recognised at common law, enjoy very broad rights of bodily autonomy and consent in medical matters. Let's take that as a given on the first instance. On what basis do you presume to override that for pregnant women? Extra credit for acknowledging that "a democratic one" is no longer an available option.

alaimacerc

aloyisious wrote: »

I'm curious as to whom is being referred-to in the "I'M giving the benefit of the doubt, just in case" quote? Is it being given to the person/non-person referred to or to smacl in respect of his/her posts? The debater who posted the quote is on my ignore list so if some-one could repost any reply from that person. I'd be obliged.

recedite replied to smacl. If there's any sense to be had in the sentence in question, however, I'm unable to assist you.

fritzelly

Augustine John wrote: »

I don't agree with everything Pope Francis says but I think he is right when he says that abortion is a symptom and part of our " throw away society " .

So selective adoption and practice of catholicism or maybe tell us what you don't agree with and we can all pretend you are not just a pro-lifer jumping on to a thread to try and spout your beliefs?

Augustine John

I don't agree with everything Pope Francis says but I think he is right when he says that abortion is a symptom and part of our 'throw away ' society

alaimacerc

Peregrinus wrote: »

It's a wholly unevidenced leap, though, from that to an assumption that his username incorporates a reference to a biblical verse which, let's be honest, is not the verse you'd pick if you wanted to make a point about abortion.

Who's making any such assumption? It was me that mentioned Numbers, describing this as a "guess".

So what would be the point of picking this one verse, specifically about iron bars? Does Sean have a fixation on iron bars? Does he think "iron bars" is a coded reference to abortifacients?

It's the first of that list thats talk of putting murders to death. But now you seem to be mistaking explicit speculation for some sort of favourable critical review. Maybe he just thought it was some cold-blooded Old-Testament shizzle to say. Maybe it's his PIN number, and he's actually a hardline atheist. The evidence he's considerably less open-minded than he sought to represent stands quite separately, however.

So, I'm going with "no, this is wildly unlikely to be a reference to Numbers 35:16. That makes no sense at all. Besides, it would be much more fun if it was Ezekiel 16:35, so if we are going with improbable and unevidenced leaps, that's my pick.".

Referring to Ezekiel 16:35 as Ezekiel 35:16 seems especially unhelpfully middle-endian. Even if he is a Yank, what with their form with dates. Could possibly be Genesis, which is at least childbirth-themed. Or a Biblical-numerological Genesis/Numbers mashup -- get Dan Brown on the phone!

alaimacerc

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

the 10 (10,12, whatever you're having yourself) commandments

No, definitely ten -- the Hebrew, Greek and English terms all have that number baked into them. Different denoms and sources just differ on which verses to lump or split in order to get them them to add up to exactly ten. (Hence the possible confusion from people yelling about "the fifth commandment" on 8th amendment canvasses, or indeed Catherine Cookson talking about her bodice-ripping protagonist breaking the seventh one.)

alaimacerc

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, I'm not sure that freedom of movement would be an enormous help here. [...]

The European Convention on Human Rights would be a much more productive avenue to explore; Ireland's restrictive abortion legislation has already caused us problems there, and there would certainly be a prospect of challenging movement controls or information controls.

We're well above my pay grade on either, but the first has in some cases been construed more broadly than work per se, and I don't know how the first interacts with travel per se (as opposed to basis level of reproductive rights in general).

The avenue that is still open to pro-life activists in Ireland is an avenue that was always open to them and, to my mind, the avenue that they should always have been following, which is to try and change the social, cultural and political context within which women have to face crisis pregnancies so as to make it (a) less likely that they will find themselves facing crisis pregnancies in the first place, and (b) if they do face crisis pregnancies, more likely or more possible that, being free to choose, they will choose not to terminate. But that would require them to abandon the tactic of controlling women through the might of the law and the power of the state, and instead embrace the tactic of winning over hearts and minds. So don't hold your breath.

Well, quite, on both. They already have the rhetoric: if I'd a quid for every time I'd heard an anti-abortion professional ritually intone "better options than abortion", I'd have... a decent amount of money. In practice "better options" seems to always just mean "one option less", however. Imagine, conservative religious types -- or at least, denominationally themed authoritarians -- not zealously embracing measures like better sex education, and greater social equality. Who'd have thunk it.

robindch

Augustine John wrote: »

I don't agree with everything Pope Francis says but I think he is right when he says that abortion is a symptom and part of our " throw away society " .

Pope Frank is on thin ice complaining about "throw away societies" when he's head of the organization which provided the ethical outlook to the nuns who ran the homes at Tuam and other places.

aloyisious

alaimacerc wrote: »

recedite replied to smacl. If there's any sense to be had in the sentence in question, however, I'm unable to assist you.

Thank's. I assumed the "giving the benefit of the doubt" mentioned by recedite was solely a request to smacl to answer and give his/her opinion on when the human rights of both the comatose person and the unborn baby came into being and were extinguished. I assume that recedite got his mention of human rights in reverse by error - for them to be extinguished, they would have to have come into existence first.

The notion that recedite, as a pro-life anti-abortion stalwart, would have doubts about the existence of the human rights of the unborn baby, and have to give them the benefit of doubt, would be strange.

Augustine John

Ok , forget about Pope Francis . I think that abortion is a symptom and part of our ' throw away ' society .

gctest50

Augustine John wrote: »

Ok , forget about Pope Francis .

?

thread be called :

Pope francis already spouting bullsh1t

robindch

gctest50 wrote: »

thread be called :

Posts moved into thread be called "abortion discussion, part trois".

Augustine John

I am not a catholic and if you want an example I don't agree with how he views transgendered people . Btw I find your use of the word ' spout' unnecessarily offensive

recedite

aloyisious wrote: »

Thank's. I assumed the "giving the benefit of the doubt" mentioned by recedite was solely a request to smacl to answer and give his/her opinion on when the human rights of both the comatose person and the unborn baby came into being and were extinguished. I assume that recedite got his mention of human rights in reverse by error - for them to be extinguished, they would have to have come into existence first.

The notion that recedite, as a pro-life anti-abortion stalwart, would have doubts about the existence of the human rights of the unborn baby, and have to give them the benefit of doubt, would be strange.

I can't hear you. Fingers in ears.

fritzelly

Augustine John wrote: »

Btw I find your use of the word ' spout' unnecessarily offensive

I'm sorry, let me correct it - exude your beliefs

alaimacerc

Augustine John wrote: »

I am not a catholic and if you want an example I don't agree with how he views transgendered people . Btw I find your use of the word ' spout' unnecessarily offensive

I think I'm missing some context here, but what about "pontificate"? No better man, etc.

fritzelly

alaimacerc wrote: »

I think I'm missing some context here, but what about "pontificate"? No better man, etc.

Yup - no better parting gift than from a retired (lol) pontiff than to request that all "possible" child abuse claims be pardoned in lieu (cant remember the correct word) then a current pope pretending other stuff didnt happen
Nothing like keeping it in the family

[Deleted User]

recedite wrote: »

The onus is not on me to say when. The entity come into existence, and grows, and eventually asserts its own rights as an adult.
.

That's a dodge on your part. You're the one who believe that people who do have 100% human rights should have their right to bodily autonomy revoked.

So why do you disagree with every possible answer you've been given?
Are you ok with say the morning after pill?
Do you agree with your buddies when they say that this is murder?

If so, why? If not, why not?

alaimacerc

recedite wrote: »

In order to do that, you must first gauge what rights the entity has.
Legally, that was 100% at implantation up until recently. But dropped effectively to 0%, getting restored again to 100% at birth (% of full human rights).

Your maths is as wonky as your law, I'm afraid. Firstly, your Beyond Legal Memory up until recently is in from 1982, to until as soon as the vexatious filibusters are dealt with. Prior to that rights of personhood in common law all started at birth. The 8th bestowed (yes, not "recognised") precisely one right on a blastocyst. Certainly various posters here have made vague claims that maybe others, can't quite think which, why, or how, but maybe! But no such rights were found in law to exist, and it's very clear indeed that some were never entertained, even in the most maximal fantasies of the the foetal-personhood.

So, absolutely not "100% at implantation".

Augustine John

I've Justin joined Boards tonight . I was hoping for some reasoned discussion. It seems about the same level as the Chris Barry show on FM 104

alaimacerc

Augustine John wrote: »

I've Justin joined Boards tonight . I was hoping for some reasoned discussion. It seems about the same level as the Chris Barry show on FM 104

And evidently you're intent on dragging it further down! Not seeing any evidence at all of "lighting a candle" on your part. Just railing at the day not being not-quite-dazzling enough for your liking.

[Deleted User]

alaimacerc wrote: »

The 8th bestowed (yes, not "recognised") precisely one right on a blastocyst.

And even that was only a partial one, as that right only went as far as the border and was overruled by the persons right to travel.

end of the road

King Mob wrote: »

That's a dodge on your part. You're the one who believe that people who do have 100% human rights should have their right to bodily autonomy revoked.

it's not a dodge, nor does he believe that people who do have 100% human rights should have their right to bodily autonomy revoked. however he believes that someone should not be able to kill in the name of exercising that bodily autonomy, or their right to such bodily autonomy, unless there is a very very good/serious reason for it.

[Deleted User]

end of the road wrote: »

it's not a dodge

So is abortion murder? Why did you claim it wasn't, then lied about all the times you said it was?

Otherwise, you can't really comment on who is and isn't dodging questions.

alaimacerc

end of the road wrote: »

it's not a dodge

Nah, it was a dodge. I already precisely taxonomised what type of dodge. Here's an explainer: https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/222/Shifting-of-the-Burden-of-Proof

With a side of a sort of especially muddled mix of the appeal to nature and an argument from -- an ever-moving -- status quo. "Ah sure, the zygote will grow to be an adult, if only it's let alone," as another such partisan put it during #8ref.

Cabaal

King Mob wrote: »

So is abortion murder? Why did you claim it wasn't, then lied about all the times you said it was?

Otherwise, you can't really comment on who is and isn't dodging questions.

This is a total farce, he'll do everything he can to dodge answering this question.

Timberrrrrrrr

Cabaal wrote: »

This is a total farce, he'll do everything he can to dodge answering this question.

It's annoying how he is constantly allowed to do this over the years, persistently copies/paste lies in every thread then avoids/dishes any questions when pulled up about his lies.