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

smacl

recedite wrote: »

I agree. What it has is the beginnings of it; the potential.

A potential to be something amounts to a possibility to become that thing which you are currently not. Thus the potential to be a person, by definition means not yet a person. It is in no way comparable to being a person. A couple who've yet to have sex might have the potential to bring forth a new life, and while the bible might encourage them to go forth and multiply, very few rational people would suggest they're obliged to do so, realising it is entirely their decision. Similarly, until such time as you can unequivocally demonstrate that a pregnant woman is carrying a person rather than a potential person in her womb, the decision to continue with the pregnancy is entirely hers.

A potential person is not a person. Whatever you may have heard, every sperm is not in fact sacred.

I am not saying a foetus has equal consciousness to a new born baby. I would say the shock of the birth process probably stimulates consciousness to a slightly higher level than it was at the day before. If you're going to say the person in a coma has no human rights, or the unborn baby has no human rights, then the onus is on you to say when those rights were extinguished and/or come into being.
I don't have to say, because I'm not the one calling for the destruction of this person/non-person. I'm giving the benefit of the doubt, just in case.

Your 'Just in case' argument is a veritable fart in a hurricane compared to a woman's rights to bodily autonomy. The more I read the pro-life argument, the more I come to the conclusion that it is primarily driven by anti-egalitarian sentiment and is deeply misogynistic. The lack of compassion is astounding, as displayed by continued use of shock tactics outside maternity hospitals.

recedite

alaimacerc wrote: »

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.

You have the burden of proof the wrong way round there.
By that logic, nursing staff get to decide whether the guy in the coma lives or dies. Because there is no doubt that his presence in the ward is an inconvenience to them, giving them extra work.
But his status as a human being with full human rights is apparently in doubt, due to the his human consciousness being "unknown or lacking".

In reality, life support can only be switched off after a qualified person has pronounced (beyond any reasonable doubt) that the potential for a return to consciousness has gone.

Calina

Augustine John wrote: »

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

Abortion is desirable because society under values women who become mothers. It had ostracized them, cut their rights, imposed economic and social costs on women who dare to have children outside defined acceptable terms. Abortion is a symptom of society treating women badly. And demand for it well precedes our throw away society. It is just historically it was risky. Women die from unsafe abortions. Unsafe abortions only exist in societies that throw away women.

[Deleted User]

recedite wrote: »

You have the burden of proof the wrong way round there.

Nope, sorry.
People have provided you lots of different answers with lots of different reasons.

The burden is now on you to take a stand.

The morning after pill. Your buddies claim this is murder. Do you think it's murder?
Yes or no?
Please explain your answer.

alaimacerc

recedite wrote: »

You have the burden of proof the wrong way round there.

Apparently your tactic, when pointed out you're playing absurdly self-dealing burden-of-proof games, is to just blithely ignore this having happened, and triple-down. Always a joy to work with.

By that logic, nursing staff get to decide whether the guy in the coma lives or dies.

No, that would be by wildly different "logic". Do you really think your chances of arguing the validity of this bizarre segue are any higher than that of arguing the original point, as you're evidently so desperate to do? Perhaps if it's zero in either case, you might as well go with the one you think might be the more irritating to other posters... Or go with the strategy of just hopping lightly for assertion to assertion, without ever bothering to actually meaningfully argue any of them.

But his status as a human being with full human rights is apparently in doubt, due to the his human consciousness being "unknown or lacking".

You appear here to be attempting to riff on an earlier complaint about someone else's points, rather than to address what I said. You don't have to defend your vaguely philosophical assertions about human rights, because there's a common law offence of murder? It is, I suppose, a theory. Let me know how it works out for you.

It does of course precisely replicate the Catholic church's reasoning. "We can't say when ensoulment happens, so let's set 'grave matter of sin' at conception, just to be on the 'safe' side." Because it's always 'safer' to err on the side of telling people what to do, especially when Naughty Bits are concerned.

Augustine John

How do you mean ?

aloyisious

end of the road wrote: »

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.

What do you define as very good/serious reasons? Is recedite in agreement with you that there are good reasons for abortion?

aloyisious

Ref the occasional mention of murder when some posters express their opinion in respect of abortion, and the occasional mention of the bible and the 10 commandments as justification for their opinion [God said NO] when killing is mentioned, as the commandments are from the Old Testament can they tell me what rules existed linking killing and murder and abortion as being bad in the Old Testament before Moses came down from the mountain with the two tablets? Can they also provide the name/s of the books, and the specific sections, in the Old Testament [incl Exodus] that links murder, killing and abortion together beyond their own stated opinions?

alaimacerc

smacl wrote: »

The more I read the pro-life argument, the more I come to the conclusion that it is primarily driven by anti-egalitarian sentiment and is deeply misogynistic.

Judging by their efforts in spending eye-watering sums of money, and spamming the airwaves with their Mentally Reserved take on the facts, the electorate as a whole seems to have experienced a fairly similar reaction.

All that frankly ethically dubious effort, and it got them from "this'll never pass the country" to "landslide".

end of the road

aloyisious wrote: »

What do you define as very good/serious reasons?

a threat to the mother's life, a risk of permanent serious injury or disability, FFA, where the baby will not live to term.

aloyisious wrote: »

Is recedite in agreement with you that there are good reasons for abortion?

i believe so, i think where the mother's life is under threat if i remember rightly. but you would have to ask recedite.

alaimacerc

aloyisious wrote: »

What do you define as very good/serious reasons? Is recedite in agreement with you that there are good reasons for abortion?

Or more precisely, is recedite in agreement with endy that recedite thinks there are good reason! Since the roadster's entire post seemed to purport to ventriloquise him.

alaimacerc

end of the road wrote: »

a threat to the mother's life, a risk of permanent serious injury or disability, FFA, where the baby will not live to term.

How big a respective threat and risk? How serious an injury or disability?

Augustine John

It is the sheer scale and number of abortions in countries like the Uk that concerns me . In our post religious world I think we need to stop and think about a few things . Every time a couple have sex there is a possibility that they will create a new life . I agree that no woman ever takes an abortion lightly but how often do people take sex lightly ? We all need a good sex life but is recreational "Ibiza " type sex a good or wise thing at the end of the day ? Is the rampant availability of every conceivable type of pornography good or healthy for our society ? Behind every abortion there is a man . Behind a lot of crisis pregnancies there is a man who didn't want to know . A man who didn't take his responsibility and decided to leave a woman on her own.

[Deleted User]

end of the road wrote: »

a threat to the mother's life, a risk of permanent serious injury or disability, FFA, where the baby will not live to term.

But is that murder or not? Why did you lie?
Why are you ignoring this point?

end of the road

King Mob wrote: »

But is that murder or not? Why did you lie?
Why are you ignoring this point?

because it's irrelevant to the discussion. and when it's irrelevant to the discussion, then i will not discuss it so not to drag the thread off topic.

[Deleted User]

end of the road wrote: »

because it's irrelevant to the discussion. and when it's irrelevant to the discussion, then i will not discuss it so not to drag the thread off topic.

Finally...

And no it's not irrelevant to the discussion when you yourself keep bringing up how you think that people are ignoring stuff or burying their head in the sand.
It's hypocritical.

It's also not irrelevant because your position is undermined by they fact that you're willing to twist and abandon your beliefs if you think it's advantageous.

So again, why did you say abortion wasn't murder and then lied about saying it was multiple times?
Is abortion murder, yes or no?

I am not going to let this pass until you grow a spine and own up to your dishonesty directly.

uptherebels

end of the road wrote: »

because it's irrelevant to the discussion. and when it's irrelevant to the discussion, then i will not discuss it so not to drag the thread off topic.

As has been pointed out to you before you conveniently consider any point you can't or don't want to answer as it undermines your agenda as being irrelevant.
What's hilarious is that you think people can't see right through you.

Cabaal

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

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.

Sort of like Trump does really, spreads lies and misinformation but never has to answer for it

nozzferrahhtoo

recedite wrote: »

In that case, I can only say you are wrong.

Sure, I agree you are right. You CAN "only" say it. You certainly have not substantiated it, so only saying it does indeed appear to be all you can actually do.

And I think a large portion of the reason for that inability comes from the fact that sentences like this one.....

recedite wrote: »

Even a boxer who has been knocked out for 60 seconds has been unconscious for that amount of time.

.... are strong indicators you do not quite even understand what it is you are having said to you.Because that sentence makes my point for me, and in no way rebuts it. So let me repeat the point for you:

A boxer who is knocked UNconscious does not LACK consciousness. It is still there. It's level of operation has changed. The difference I, and others, are explaining to you is between entities that lack the faculty ENTIRELY.... and those who have it but are operating at different levels.

For example a Recedite that is asleep and a Recidite that is awake and thinking...... both have the same faculty of consciousness. They are simply operating differently in each case. But they are both equally THERE.

A fetus at 10 weeks gestation however, not so. The faculty is not there, has never been there, and is a distinct period of time from ever being there. It simply is not comparable to boxers and coma patients. It is like comparing a completely empty garage......... to a garage that has a car that has it's motor running or not running. You can talk all you like about whether a car is more a car when the engine is running, or somehow stops being a car, or as much a car, when the engine stops. But such a conversation would be ENTIRELY different to one where the car simply is not there at all.

recedite wrote: »

You have the burden of proof the wrong way round there.

Considering you offered a theist based argument to me about the presence of sentience and consciousness in the fetus, and then ran away from the discussion when you were called on it..... I have to doubt your pedestal from which you choose to admonish others on the subject of the burden of proof.

Because you got it EXACTLY backwards when you suggested that I had to in some way prove that it was NOT present in a 10 week old fetus, rather than the onus being on you to show it is. (Links to discussion available on request).

nozzferrahhtoo

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 " .

Quite the opposite for me. Abortion for me is a sign that our society is just adding nuance, consideration, philosophy, thought, specifics and detail to questions of value.

It is the result of people exploring the simple questions about WHAT it is we value and WHY we value it and WHICH implications flow from those conclusions.

For example I believe that rights, morality and ethics should be solely in the business of considering the freedoms and well being of sentient agents.

A pregnant woman is such an agent. A 10 week old fetus is not. As such I see no reason to curtail the choices, freedoms and well being of the former in deference to the latter.

Augustine John wrote: »

It is the sheer scale and number of abortions in countries like the Uk that concerns me

Why? Why is scale important? If abortion is murder, or immoral then even ONE should be a concern. However if you can not show abortion to be murder or immoral (and lets face it no one, including yourself, has done so on this thread) then what matter if it happens once, 100 times or 100000?

I think the scale is a concern too, I must add. I am just wondering if your reasoning for being concerned is as clear as my own. So I am not disagreeing with you as to why scale is a concern, just wondering WHY you think it is.

Augustine John wrote: »

I agree that no woman ever takes an abortion lightly but how often do people take sex lightly ?

That is a valid concern however, and one that I think we can address in many ways. I think one of those ways is more comprehensive, extensive and wide ranging sexual education and philosophy in schools. And EARLIER in the curriculum too. I think we bring sex education to children much later than we should be.

Interestingly however the people who seem most to disagree with earlier AND more comprehensive sex education in schools are the people who are also against abortion. A weirdness I have no explanation for other than a few ideas bordering on conspiracy theory at this time.

Augustine John wrote: »

Is the rampant availability of every conceivable type of pornography good or healthy for our society ?

That conflates too useful questions. That of the wide availability of it (which I think is a good thing in most ways, though I think people should be paying for their porn more often)..... and that of the content of it (much of which is good and much of which is not).

Augustine John wrote: »

Behind every abortion there is a man . Behind a lot of crisis pregnancies there is a man who didn't want to know . A man who didn't take his responsibility and decided to leave a woman on her own.

Which is only ONE of the MANY narratives that occur around crisis pregnancy and abortion. Why you feel the need to focus on one of the multitude of narratives and attitudes that occur around abortion and crisis pregnancy, specifically that of a disinterested man........ is as yet unclear but it is certainly red flagging the existence of a narrative here that you intend to push.

Cabaal

This is what pro-life people want in Ireland when it comes to GP's and pharmists

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44591528

An Arizona woman has said she was left "in tears and humiliated" after a staff member at US pharmacy chain Walgreens refused to give her prescription medication to end her pregnancy - even though her doctor had said she would ultimately have a miscarriage.

"I left Walgreens in tears, ashamed and feeling humiliated by a man who knows nothing of my struggles but feels it is his right to deny medication prescribed to me by my doctor," she wrote.

Ms Mone said she was sharing her story as she didn't want other women to endure similar experiences when they were "vulnerable and already suffering".

Yep....they love women.

Cabaal

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 what were mother and baby homes then?
A symptom of our tolerance and care towards women and children?

What about the dumping of born baby's into a septic tank, was that the church "caring" (in the mafia sense) for baby's?

The church is in no position to comment on what is moral or no.

alaimacerc

end of the road wrote: »

because it's irrelevant to the discussion. and when it's irrelevant to the discussion, then i will not discuss it so not to drag the thread off topic.

It's relevant to the discussion when some anti-abortion types assert that it's exactly the same as murder; whereas others, that however much of a sad it gives them, it shouldn't even be a criminal offence. Be nice to know what position it is we're being asked to deal with.

And of course, when some people try to pull off running with the hare, and hunting with the hounds, and get caught out badly.

alaimacerc

Augustine John wrote: »

I agree that no woman ever takes an abortion lightly but how often do people take sex lightly ?

I think this is a clear-cut case of what advocates of reproductive rights have been saying for a long time. Abortions laws have very little indeed to do with the inalienable rights of blastocysts. It's all about sitting in judgement on other people's lives. Other people's sex lives, triply so.

alaimacerc

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 " .

Thus we should do what any doctor would do... completely ignore the underlying "disease", and set about criminalising the "symptom"?

Not sure you've really thought this metaphor through, as a line of argument.

aloyisious

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

That is a valid concern however, and one that I think we can address in many ways. I think one of those ways is more comprehensive, extensive and wide ranging sexual education and philosophy in schools. And EARLIER in the curriculum too. I think we bring sex education to children much later than we should be.

Interestingly however the people who seem most to disagree with earlier AND more comprehensive sex education in schools are the people who are also against abortion. A weirdness I have no explanation for other than a few ideas bordering on conspiracy theory at this time.

Probably the ancient view that sex is God's plan for procreation solely and teaching kids on how to deal with situations where two people feel horny, have a quick shag and walk away from each other afterwards without considering the possible consequences and take precautions is not part of the bigger plan. Failure to use their willpower to control a base instinct is all their's. The fact that children engage in risky learning ventures is not of interest to the people with such views as they think sex education knowledge is dangerous and against the plan.

aloyisious

Augustine John wrote: »

It is the sheer scale and number of abortions in countries like the Uk that concerns me . In our post religious world I think we need to stop and think about a few things . Every time a couple have sex there is a possibility that they will create a new life . I agree that no woman ever takes an abortion lightly but how often do people take sex lightly ? We all need a good sex life but is recreational "Ibiza " type sex a good or wise thing at the end of the day ? Is the rampant availability of every conceivable type of pornography good or healthy for our society ? Behind every abortion there is a man . Behind a lot of crisis pregnancies there is a man who didn't want to know . A man who didn't take his responsibility and decided to leave a woman on her own.

On the basis that having sex is a natural instinct for humans, would you agree that humans should practice safe sex not merely to avoid STD's but also the more than likely after effect that that sexual encounter will produce a pregnancy [wanted or not] AND would you have any objection to children being taught proper sex education, incl pregnancy-avoidance measures, in a classroom forum rather than one learned, with avoidable results, behind the changing rooms?

Do you support, or refuse to support, proper sex education in schools to children in order to reduce the abortion figures you are concerned about? It's a telling factor that x amount of the Irish females going to the UK for abortions are not women but also school-age early teenage girls.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

alaimacerc

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Up this coming week. There's been a preliminary ruling on a (whale) fishing exercise by one of the applicants.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/high-court/abortion-referendum-challenger-fails-in-bid-to-get-voter-registers-1.3539229

recedite

antiskeptic wrote: »

...I'm reminded of the sense you get of mechanical warfare: brute machinery dispensing with humans. Abortion staff talking about having to count the limbs to ensure all has been evacutated - before flushing the bits down the sink. Or the picture of a writhing baby, neatly fitting in the abortionists palm, being prodded at as a soldier would prod at mortally wounded enemy.
- how medical abortions appear to sanitize the process. Yet the brutality merely switches mechanical warfare for chemical warfare. Detaching the embryo from the uterus wall prior to flushing it out. For all the talk of pills and GP led services, the best advice to someone obtaining this kind of abortion appears to be "don't look" at what comes out.

smacl wrote: »

.... a veritable fart in a hurricane compared to a woman's rights to bodily autonomy. The more I read the pro-life argument, the more I come to the conclusion that it is primarily driven by anti-egalitarian sentiment and is deeply misogynistic. The lack of compassion is astounding, as displayed by continued use of shock tactics outside maternity hospitals.

A juxtaposition of two opposite points of view.

Is there any other topic in which people with such diametrically opposite views can both claim the high moral ground?