Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

The point again however is that your limited definition does not include the ones that ARE valid on this thread. I have offered definitions that are valid, but you are still digging down on your nonsense idea that it was the wrong word to use. It is not the wrong word to use. You are just using the wrong definition to negate it's use.

I used the same citation as you. How is continuing something already exists the same as forcing you to do something? You are already doing it, how can I force you to do something in which you are already doing?

You haven't cited any definition that invalidates this, you just simply "don't agree with definitions".

I used the same citation as you.

Here is the definition I cited already which you seem to have missed or ignored "Force: coercion or compulsion, especially with the use or threat of violence.". That one is perfectly congruent with the use of the word "force" in the context of making someone continue a process they otherwise wish to cease being part of.

Why do you respond with such hubris? Why can't you just put forward your point instead of filling up the page with unnecessary text?

Please answer this question, and perhaps it will clear up my apparent misunderstanding.

Is the government forcing the someone to not be a rapist, by outlawing rape?

Yet no one is arguing with the dictionary here but you. In fact you just drew red boxes around the very definitions that make m y point not yours. "An unborn or recently born person"

LOL

What is an unborn person in the context of this definition within the dictionary??

Unborn people don't exist in your world, so why is it in the dictionary??

If the dictionary defines a child as an unborn person, then what does this mean?

It means a person before they were born, which means FETUS. Oh boy.

You are forcing the definition of personhood onto a barely differentiated blob of biological matter. Double fail from you here! Great stuff.

We've already established that personhood is an abstract opinion of what it means to be a human being. An unborn child is a human being in every sense of the word. Your definition of human being is no less arbitrary than mine, even if you say definitions surrounding abstract metaphysical concepts that are scientifically impossible to prove can be more or less equal. Science has told us NOTHING about OBJECTIVE morality.

Agreed. But just because definitions of personhood are subjective does not mean they are equal.

Of course it does. Assigning value based on the consensus of the collective bias of human beings does ZERO to answer the reality of objective morality. It is more an argument for utilitarianism or simply as appeal to the majority.

We can differentiate between them by discussing and evaluating the definitions, their basis, their substance and their content. I have yet to see a coherent definition of any substance that usefully allows a person to describe the contents of a pregnancy from 0-12 weeks, when the majority of abortions by choice actually occur, using the word "person". If you have such a definition that you can render with coherence, by all means present it.

You dont like my definition of "person", a human being. You need to ascribe personhood to given biomarkers based on your own perception of what you deem to be valuable. We just don't agree on this, and that is fine.

Further some points are less "arbitrary" than other when assigning value. For example we can attempt to identify the point in human fetal development when the faculty from which the very concept of "value" even comes from, develops and comes on line.

Is your assertion human value is dependent on the perception of other human beings? If someone is in a comma, and lacks the mental faculties to do anything, are they less valuable? Perhaps not in your opinion, but we are trying not to argue for arbitrary definitions of when someone is valuable.

Oh please do at least try to keep up with the conversation would you? Here is a quick recap:

1) User said to you "I have yet to see one that justifies the prevention of abortion."
2) You replied "I'll happily have that conversation with you though"
3) I said "bring it on" and invited you to actually do that, justify the prevention of abortion.
4) You dodged by merely answering the challenge with a question.

You can either answer the challenge or not. You said you can, so proceed!

I am answering the challenge by beginning with a question. You simply stated you have yet to see anyone justify the prevention of abortion. It wasn't a question. I can begin to tackle the challenge anyway I see fit.

I can start with a thought experiment if I like, or I can start with an assertion. It makes no difference as I am entering into the challenge on a fresh sheet.

To a point yes, but you are still dodging the challenge now. However you can refer to what I said above about arbitrary value here too. Just because there is a subjective attribute to morality that does not mean all subjective moral opinions are equal.

You keep saying this, but it is simply your opinion of what you deem to be worthy of value. It isn't an objective truth.

Some come with arguments, evidence, data and reasoning upon which they are based. Other, like yours so far, come as mere empty assertion with no substance coming with it.

My entire premise is based on deductive reasoning. You have come to a different conclusion. What evidence do you have for human value not being arbitrary without using an appeal to emotion, an appeal to the majority or utilitariansm?

Hand waving the word "opinion" about ignores the fact that morality IS a thing. It is the ongoing conversation between all humans, based on argument, evidence, data and reasoning, for how we can best live together in this word.

Morality ISN'T a thing unless it exists in reality; not imagined or in the mind. Otherwise it is illusory. There are millions of people, and plenty of cultures who disagree with you, and their reality is no less valid than yours in the objective sense.

Oh come on. For all your blabbering on I thought you were a bit smarter than this. Your entire premise for morality is the collective illusory opinion of humans and a biased opinion of what it means to be "better". Are you trying to make a similar argument to Sam Harris here? I can use this same line of reasoning to justify why abortion is "bad", but I won't jump the gun.

And if you want to espouse a position against abortion, and I want to espouse one that does not preclude the choice of abortion, then we can by all means discuss the reasoning behind our opinion.

Twice now you have refused to do so despite declaring yourself capable to. Funny that but, amazingly enough, exactly as I predicted in the first post.

I am not obligated to follow a means argumentation you deem acceptable. I will answer questions when asked, and put forward my own thought experiments when convenient to do so.

Not a position I hold, identify with, use, or live by no.

Ethical nihilism is the rejection of objective morality. You can deny it but you have already admitted you believe it doesn't exist independent of the opinion of man-kind. It isn't wrong to admit this, I might also be a nihilst - I'm not really sure what I believe in that sense. Where we disagree is the optimal implementation of subjective morality that is the fairest it can be.

It is not "my" definition at all. I took it from a recognised and respected source merely to show the simple fact that you keep pretending that the definition for words YOU select to use somehow precludes the others. If you wish to keep doing it, I am happy to keep calling you on it. But I would suggest if you want to save any face you might want to clean up that patently dishonest approach.

As per the definition YOU provided (the definition) if I violently assault someone to relieve my pent up anger and feel better. Is this medicinal?

robarmstrong

Igotadose wrote: »

There's an essay called 'The only moral abortion is my abortion' that talks about this issue. The author talks to abortion providers who have provided abortions to women picketing their clinics, or otherwise were anti-choice. It's a little dated but I imagine the statistics presented still stand up:

"Although few studies have been made of this phenomenon, a study done in 1981[1] found that 24% of women who had abortions considered the procedure morally wrong, and 7% of women who'd had abortions disagreed with the statement, "Any woman who wants an abortion should be permitted to obtain it legally." A 1994/95 survey[2,3] of nearly 10,000 abortion patients showed 18% of women having abortions are born-again or Evangelical Christians. Many of these women are likely anti-choice. The survey also showed that Catholic women have an abortion rate 29% higher than Protestant women. A Planned Parenthood handbook on abortion notes that nearly half of all abortions are for women who describe themselves as born-again Christian, Evangelical Christian, or Catholic.[4]"

http://www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org/articles/anti-tales.shtml

Fantastic read. Thank you.

"I have done several abortions on women who have regularly picketed my clinics, including a 16 year old schoolgirl who came back to picket the day after her abortion, about three years ago. During her whole stay at the clinic, we felt that she was not quite right, but there were no real warning bells. She insisted that the abortion was her idea and assured us that all was OK. She went through the procedure very smoothly and was discharged with no problems. A quite routine operation. Next morning she was with her mother and several school mates in front of the clinic with the usual anti posters and chants. It appears that she got the abortion she needed and still displayed the appropriate anti views expected of her by her parents, teachers, and peers." (Physician, Australia)

Radicalism at it's finest tbh.

Fuddyduddy wrote: »

I entered this thread simply highlighting the error with the use of "force" instead of "prevent" as common parlance for independently existing conditions. Nothing more, nothing less.

There is a clear distinction that the other posters are having a hard time with.

Nope just you, and you have taken to reversing the burden of proof in your response to me too to try and dig yourself out of that hole. The simple demonstrable by your shift to demanding I show definitions including reference to a constraint when in fact I have shown you definitions ENTIRELY FREE OF IT which work regardless of the constraint in question being present or not.

Which is a clear distinction that you as a single poster are having a hard time with.

Fuddyduddy wrote: »

If you are pregnant, and I say there will be consequences to you killing your child; I am not forcing you to continue with pregnancy. To suggest this is to create a false dichotomy. There is always the third option of killing your child and then facing the consequences.

There is, but no definition of force I have seen, or you have presented, is mediated by that constraint. Bully for you I guess. The simple fact is that one perfectly valid definition of "force" is "coercion or compulsion, especially with the use or threat of violence." and the moment you present the "consequences" to the person in question in your scenario above, THAT use of the word "force" under THAT definition is valid. Where you like the definition or not, it does not magically go away from you.

Fuddyduddy wrote: »

By using "force" onto an independently existing condition

Which is not what they are doing. Anywhere. At all. What they ARE doing is using "force" in relation to being coerced into continuing with that condition. Nothing to do with the origin of the condition or it preexisting or not. The pretence you are using about preexisting things is just that, a pretence, and no definition used so far on this thread is actually constrained by it outside the language you are making up in your own head.

Fuddyduddy wrote: »

It is word manipulation to demonise the government for outlawing aborting your own child.

Forcing personhood into the discussion of something that has no more of the attributes of personhood than a rock, is the real manipulation of words that we should be calling attention to here. And I have. Long before you showed up and started at it yourself.

Fuddyduddy wrote: »

It was more a logical conclusion using deductive reasoning. If there is no objective morality, then I must concede nihilsm

You certainly CAN if you wish but there is no obligation to. For example one definition of that word nihilism is "the rejection of all religious and moral principles, in the belief that life is meaningless.". I believe life is meaningless myself, objectively at least. But I do not reject moral principles at all. I just reject the notion of an EXTERNAL objective morality to us. Much different. So your "deductive reasoning" based on logic already fails from the first step.

Fuddyduddy wrote: »

Personhood is not an objective truth that is observable.

Nor do we require it to be to have this conversation. Your penchant for red herring is palpable.

aloyisious wrote: »

Fuddyduddy. would you include force by law within your definition of force, seeing as how prior to the latest enactment in relation to abortion here, abortion was forbidden by law here? I read how you mentioned consequences following on from actions. If I'm right, the law was used here to prevent actual travel abroad for the purpose of abortion and this use of the law ultimately lead to the change allowing legalization of abortion here. The change in effect is that where in the past one could not have an abortion here with the clear and present sanction of imprisonment as a result to now where one can, with medical approval, have a abortion here.

There was also a very strong possibility that the person concerned would have been taken into state custody for the sole purpose of ensuring that no abortion affecting the foetus in the persons womb could occur. That act of depriving the person of freedom would have been by force of law and by physical restraint with constant watch on the person by custodians.

Hi Aloyisious, thank you for your polite message and sincere questions.

I entered this thread simply highlighting the error with the use of "force" instead of "prevent" as common parlance for independently existing conditions. Nothing more, nothing less.

There is a clear distinction that the other posters are having a hard time with.

If you are pregnant, and I say there will be consequences to you killing your child; I am not forcing you to continue with pregnancy. To suggest this is to create a false dichotomy. There is always the third option of killing your child and then facing the consequences.

If I forcefully prevent you from the act of killing your child, this is not the same thing as saying I am forcing the biological process of your pregnancy to continue. They think it is pedantic, but the word 'prevent' exists for this very reason. By using "force" onto an independently existing condition, it transfers the blame and responsibility of the ongoing condition onto the person that is preventing it from discontinuing.

I can completely understand why they believe it is pedantic. But it matters when we attribute responsibility and accountability to the independently occurring condition. It is word manipulation to demonise the government for outlawing aborting your own child. As I explained before, rape occurs regardless of whether it is legal or not. It being illegal is not forcing a rapist to not do something - to not - rape.

You mentioned how you changed your mind on the issue of [sic: legalization of] abortion here, in that in the past you were Pro-choice. Would you [back before your change of mind] have seen such use of the old law as moral or immoral?

Yes I probably would have.

If it is merely your view on the moral aspect of abortion that has changed in your mind, what lead to your change of moral view during the short years of the campaign to change the law on abortion here? I am assuming it was some morality aspect of abortion that caused your change of heart.

It was more a logical conclusion using deductive reasoning.

If there is no objective morality, then I must concede nihilsm, which means that morality is merely illusory; subjective opinion which differs from person to person. There is no objective or universal right or wrong as people's opinions contradict this.

In order for secular morality to be "universal", it has to applied to all humans beings as to add caveats is to be contradictory.

To give an example of why the law needs to be universally applied and not based on emotional bias.

I would sacrifice a village of random people if it meant saving my own immediate family, because my family is subjectively worth more to me and my existence.

It doesn't mean the law should indulge my emotional bias; it needs to be equally applied to all human beings.

Personhood is not an objective truth that is observable. It is an appeal to the majority that defines human worth, but the same biomarkers can be applied to born humans to justify any number of atrocities.

Fuddyduddy wrote: »

Lol I didn't realise it was a "tactic". I thought multiquoting was a more efficient way to address someone's points. I actually find it easier to read but I can stop if you like. No, I have offered you every definition of it; from being the energy behind a movement/action, to coercion/compulsion TO DO something. I even used the citation of the other poster to show this. You haven't cited any definition that invalidates this, you just simply "don't agree with definitions". I didn't see your citation, please show me that force or coercion can be applied to a process that already exists. I can only explain something so many times before I must let you figure it out for yourself. I have been generous with my time. Do you even know what a red herring is? I never once used syntax or the definition of the word force to somehow make an argument for or against abortion. My original comment was always behind the use of the word.

What a hyperbolic nonsense claim that is. EVERY definition? Everyone there ever is everywhere? Come off it, you do not have the capability. I can only explain something so many times before I must let you figure it out for yourself. I have been generous with my time.

The point again however is that your limited definition does not include the ones that ARE valid on this thread. I have offered definitions that are valid, but you are still digging down on your nonsense idea that it was the wrong word to use. It is not the wrong word to use. You are just using the wrong definition to negate it's use. I can only explain something so many times before I must let you figure it out for yourself. I have been generous with my time.

As I explained to you, but you appear to have decided to ignore it here, there is nothing wrong with the definitions you are using. There are other ones however, which I already provided that are valid to use on this thread as the users have. You haven't cited any definition that invalidates this, you just simply "don't agree with definitions". I can only explain something so many times before I must let you figure it out for yourself. I have been generous with my time.

Fuddyduddy wrote: »

All you're doing is throwing out your own definition of force/compulsion/coercion. They all mean TO DO something. Pregnancy is an ongoing independent process ad infinitum.

Which again no one is disagreeing with so you continue to focus your responses on things no one is actually saying. Which is a strange move to make. The issue for your nonsense is that coercing someone to continue with an existing process is just as must "force or coercion" as is getting them into that process in the first place. I can only explain something so many times before I must let you figure it out for yourself. I have been generous with my time.

Here is the definition I cited already which you seem to have missed or ignored "Force: coercion or compulsion, especially with the use or threat of violence.". That one is perfectly congruent with the use of the word "force" in the context of making someone continue a process they otherwise wish to cease being part of. So you fail. I can only explain something so many times before I must let you figure it out for yourself. I have been generous with my time.

Fuddyduddy wrote: »

Just because you don't like definitions doesn't make them not true. I gave both the the etymology of the word (Cild; Old English for fetus) AND the modern definition in both US, British and Medical dictionaries. If you know that the fetal stage of pregnancy begins at 9 weeks, then you must concede that abortions under 12 weeks include unborn children. Argue with the dictionary all you want.

Yet no one is arguing with the dictionary here but you. In fact you just drew red boxes around the very definitions that make m y point not yours. "An unborn or recently born person" for example. YOU drew the red box there not me. And THAT was my point. You are forcing the definition of personhood onto a barely differentiated blob of biological matter. Double fail from you here! Great stuff.

Fuddyduddy wrote: »

Now you are being intentionally obtuse. The word plant has two very different meanings.

Eh duh that was my point. You call my point obtuse and then counter it with the very point I was making. You are no end a source of comedy tonight. The point I was making was that the word "force" has different meanings too. So now you are being intentionally obtuse. Because you are making the very point I am making back at me as if it was somehow a rebuttal. Comedy. Gold.

Fuddyduddy wrote: »

It's an oxymoron. You cannot force something that is independently occurring independent and regardless of your own force, especially when making something illegal doesn't directly prevent it from happening.

Again the point is if you are compelling someone to continue to partake in a process they do not want to be taking part in any more, using coercion, then the definition of "force" I offered you above is valid and applies. Bully for you.

Fuddyduddy wrote: »

This is the entire debate surrounding abortion. Were debating a subjective and abstract concept of personhood which has no objective definition. It is merely an arbitrary point along human development where value is attributed to that human beings life. There is no personhood gene. It is not an objective truth that can be viewed and quantified in isolation. It is merely subjective opinion. Which is the entire point. I believe it is contradictory to apply it to arbitrary biomarkers in the womb as the same biomarkers can be used on born people to justify absence of personhood.

Agreed. But just because definitions of personhood are subjective does not mean they are equal. We can differentiate between them by discussing and evaluating the definitions, their basis, their substance and their content. I have yet to see a coherent definition of any substance that usefully allows a person to describe the contents of a pregnancy from 0-12 weeks, when the majority of abortions by choice actually occur, using the word "person". If you have such a definition that you can render with coherence, by all means present it.

Further some points are less "arbitrary" than other when assigning value. For example we can attempt to identify the point in human fetal development when the faculty from which the very concept of "value" even comes from, develops and comes on line. Using that to ground the discussion is infinently less arbitrary therefore than merely shouting "conception" at people, because it is a pretty looking line in the sand, which is alas the MO of many of the anti abortion speakers we have had on this thread to date.

Fuddyduddy wrote: »

What question did I dodge?

Oh please do at least try to keep up with the conversation would you? Here is a quick recap:

1) User said to you "I have yet to see one that justifies the prevention of abortion."
2) You replied "I'll happily have that conversation with you though"
3) I said "bring it on" and invited you to actually do that, justify the prevention of abortion.
4) You dodged by merely answering the challenge with a question.

You can either answer the challenge or not. You said you can, so proceed!

Fuddyduddy wrote: »

lol you live in some alternate reality where things are happening that no one else sees.

And yet other people have commented on it. Amazing other people are seeing what only I am seeing. Seems the alternative reality is your own here.

Fuddyduddy wrote: »

Okay, then morality is merely opinion.

To a point yes, but you are still dodging the challenge now. However you can refer to what I said above about arbitrary value here too. Just because there is a subjective attribute to morality that does not mean all subjective moral opinions are equal. Some come with arguments, evidence, data and reasoning upon which they are based. Other, like yours so far, come as mere empty assertion with no substance coming with it.

Hand waving the word "opinion" about ignores the fact that morality IS a thing. It is the ongoing conversation between all humans, based on argument, evidence, data and reasoning, for how we can best live together in this word. And if you want to espouse a position against abortion, and I want to espouse one that does not preclude the choice of abortion, then we can by all means discuss the reasoning behind our opinion.

Twice now you have refused to do so despite declaring yourself capable to. Funny that but, amazingly enough, exactly as I predicted in the first post.

Fuddyduddy wrote: »

Anything can be logically justified as you are essentially a nihilst.

Not a position I hold, identify with, use, or live by no.

Fuddyduddy wrote: »

What substance is abortion? Healthcare aims to prolong life, not prematurely end it.

That is a deflection to another point. The point I was making was merely that your assertion that "Medicine by definition it the treatment and prevention of diseases" was simply a fallacious claim. There are other equally valid definitions of it out there one of which specifically refers to things "other than disease" in direct contradiction of your erroneous and fallacious assertions.

You are flitting on this thread between making up your own definitions of words, and constraining your rhetoric to one definition of words as if there are no others. Both approaches have failed you thus far. Both will likely continue to fail you going forward.

Fuddyduddy wrote: »

If medicine (in the colloquial sense in which you are using it) is simply that which affects well-being, then anything that alleviates suffering would be considered medicine. I could violently assault someone to relieve my pent up anger and feel better. Is this medicinal? According to your definition, yes.

It is not "my" definition at all. I took it from a recognised and respected source merely to show the simple fact that you keep pretending that the definition for words YOU select to use somehow precludes the others. If you wish to keep doing it, I am happy to keep calling you on it. But I would suggest if you want to save any face you might want to clean up that patently dishonest approach.

aloyisious

Fuddyduddy. would you include force by law within your definition of force, seeing as how prior to the latest enactment in relation to abortion here, abortion was forbidden by law here? I read how you mentioned consequences following on from actions. If I'm right, the law was used here to prevent actual travel abroad for the purpose of abortion and this use of the law ultimately lead to the change allowing legalization of abortion here. The change in effect is that where in the past one could not have an abortion here with the clear and present sanction of imprisonment as a result to now where one can, with medical approval, have a abortion here.

There was also a very strong possibility that the person concerned would have been taken into state custody for the sole purpose of ensuring that no abortion affecting the foetus in the persons womb could occur. That act of depriving the person of freedom would have been by force of law and by physical restraint with constant watch on the person by custodians.

You mentioned how you changed your mind on the issue of [sic: legalization of] abortion here, in that in the past you were Pro-choice. Would you [back before your change of mind] have seen such use of the old law as moral or immoral? If it is merely your view on the moral aspect of abortion that has changed in your mind, what lead to your change of moral view during the short years of the campaign to change the law on abortion here? I am assuming it was some morality aspect of abortion that caused your change of heart.

DubInMeath wrote: »

Termination of pregnancy is healthcare, as much as some of the pro life movement want to deny that it is. Even save the 8th doctors described it as such under the previous restrictive terms of protection of life, when they carried out terminations.

As a person who has professed a wish to enter the field of medicine on here you might want to discuss this with your course director.

There is a clear distinction in this case. Under the 8th it was to save the life of a patient. Elective abortion on healthy babies by health mothers is not healthcare, it is an elective procedure that directly ends the life of a human being.

https://www.iep.utm.edu/nihilism/

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Ah I see you have decided to go the route of trying to multiquote the conversation to death. Fair enough, you will find me not illequipped or inexperienced at that tactic either. As you have exacerbated the use of that function by simply using it to repeat yourself and elongate your post, I will not deign to reply to the same things twice and simply edit them out.

Lol I didn't realise it was a "tactic". I thought multiquoting was a more efficient way to address someone's points. I actually find it easier to read but I can stop if you like.

No you have given us what YOU want it to be. You have not to my knowledge cited one, certainly not in the posts I actually responded to.

No, I have offered you every definition of it; from being the energy behind a movement/action, to coercion/compulsion TO DO something. I even used the citation of the other poster to show this.

You haven't cited any definition that invalidates this, you just simply "don't agree with definitions".

You see the problem here is your definition is a perfectly valid one. And I am not seeing anyone dispute that as yet. Under YOUR definition it is indeed wrong to use that word on this thread.

However YOUR definition is not "the" definition. There is no "the" definition. There are several. There are many equally valid and useful ways to use the word. I directly cited some of them. And by THOSE definitions the use of the word is perfectly valid.

I didn't see your citation, please show me that force or coercion can be applied to a process that already exists.

And for my second time (because I do not pre-cop out of conversations with declarations of finality)

I can only explain something so many times before I must let you figure it out for yourself. I have been generous with my time.

the attribute you describe here is a red herring and entirely irrelevant.

Do you even know what a red herring is? I never once used syntax or the definition of the word force to somehow make an argument for or against abortion. My original comment was always behind the use of the word.

The focus of the word "force" is the coercion involved (remember the word coercion? Right there in one of the definitions you are pretending does not exist) in having someone CONTINUE to be pregnant.

This is an oxymoron lol

You are not coercing me to grow in height by not prematurely ending my life. I am growing independent to your will or desire. I only cease to grow when you physically enact force on me.

Coercion and force by law or other means to have someone continue to do an action is just as much force and coercion as forcing someone to become pregnant. The delimiter you are using here between the two is an artificial one of your own invention that simply does not exist in ANY definition I have found on the internet so far.

All you're doing is throwing out your own definition of force/compulsion/coercion. They all mean TO DO something. Pregnancy is an ongoing independent process ad infinitum.

No one is killing a child, they are terminating a fetus. If you can not get basic language correct here, you have no basis for the sheer pedantry in your attempts to comment on the usage of it by others.

Just because you don't like definitions doesn't make them not true. I gave both the the etymology of the word (Cild; Old English for fetus) AND the modern definition in both US, British and Medical dictionaries.

If you know that the fetal stage of pregnancy begins at 9 weeks, then you must concede that abortions under 12 weeks include unborn children.

Argue with the dictionary all you want.

It means something entirely different in physics. Appealing to a completely different use of the word in a completely different context is really just showing your complete desperation here at this point.

No, every derivation of the word comes from it's literal meaning. Coercion, compulsion, means TO DO something.

Your move here is as nonsense and desperate as if you had tried to use the word "plant" to describe a flower and I instead presented you the definition of "plant" in terms of positioning something. This is the English Language we are speaking of where, for better or worse, we have many words with identical spellings but ENTIRELY different meanings. If you can not even get THAT simple fact straight, it is entirely clear why you are so wrong, so often, when presuming to dictate linguistics to others.

Now you are being intentionally obtuse. The word plant has two very different meanings. The word force maintains its sentiment in every definition. Please cite otherwise.

MY point exactly,thank you for making it for me. And the usage being employed on this thread is that of compelling someone TO DO the continuation of a pregnancy by coercion legal and other. Again the pre-existence of that pregnancy is a linguistic delimiter you are inventing out of nowhere and acting like it is one we are beholden to.

Haha "forcing someone TO DO the continuation"..

The government is not forcing me to doing the continuation of growing by outlawing intentional homicide.:pac:

It's an oxymoron. You cannot force something that is independently occurring independent and regardless of your own force, especially when making something illegal doesn't directly prevent it from happening.

And you are welcome to test my knowledge of the subject at your leisure. Again you will not find me ill equipped. But as I said, predicted, and you make my point for me here you are not offering a single definition of "person" that warrants it's use in the context of a termination in or before week 12. You, like many before you, are merely trying to force that word into the conversation in order to attribute more to the process than is at all warranted. It simply has NONE of the characteristics anyone generally associates with person hood.

This is the entire debate surrounding abortion. Were debating a subjective and abstract concept of personhood which has no objective definition. It is merely an arbitrary point along human development where value is attributed to that human beings life.

There is no personhood gene. It is not an objective truth that can be viewed and quantified in isolation. It is merely subjective opinion. Which is the entire point. I believe it is contradictory to apply it to arbitrary biomarkers in the womb as the same biomarkers can be used on born people to justify absence of personhood.

The problem is there are OTHER valid uses of it which YOU do not like. So I can only let you know that: Just because you don't like the definitions of words doesn't make it true.

Please provide one definition that invalidates what I said about TO FORCE from the very beginning.

I can accept that in common parlance people will say you forced me NOT TO DO something (even though no actual force took place), but it is simply a case of passing the blame when applied to a preexisting condition that only exists independent of the government.

Ah the old dodge of answer a question with a question huh? Not having it. You said to the user above you are able to have the conversation of arguments against abortion. You either can do this or you can not. Have at it if you can. But the deflection here is as weak as they come.

What question did I dodge? Please point out below where there is a question in the text I replied to:

"Oh. Bring. It. On.

Hope you can do better than your cohort on this thread though. You will not find me unprepared. But forgive me if I do not hold my breath on the premise that after months in fact decades of seeking an argument against abortion from multiple sources than suddenly you are going to be the first to magically come up with one all of a sudden. I remain open..... an agog..... but rather deeply sceptical."

I simply began by asking YOU a question. I wasn't responding to any existing argument.

That said however, since I am not as prone to dodging as you are,

lol you live in some alternate reality where things are happening that no one else sees.

welcome to the Atheist Forum where you will find I, and many if not most others, do not at all subscribe to the notion of an "objective morality" no.

Okay, then morality is merely opinion. So I will promote my illusory subjective morality and you will advocate for yours. Neither you nor I are objectively correct in our opinions.

Anything can be logically justified as you are essentially a nihilst.

Ethical nihilism or moral nihilism rejects the possibility of absolute moral or ethical values. Instead, good and evil are nebulous, and values addressing such are the product of nothing more than social and emotive pressures. Existential nihilism is the notion that life has no intrinsic meaning or value, and it is, no doubt, the most commonly used and understood sense of the word today.

Not for the first time on this thread you have taken A VALID definition of a word and acted like it is THE definition of that word. This is the stolperstein upon which you will continue to fall and fail.

And once again an error that a VERY quick google BEFORE you make a fool of yourself would have prevented. Here are OTHER definitions of the word valid in the context of this thread:

In fact for the sake of comedy observe closely the second of the definitions I give you here, where I will add some bold to help you along, as it directly refutes your error here.

MEDICINE (source mer-web)

"something that affects well-being"
"a substance (such as a drug or potion) used to treat something other than disease"

What substance is abortion? Healthcare aims to prolong life, not prematurely end it.

If medicine (in the colloquial sense in which you are using it) is simply that which affects well-being, then anything that alleviates suffering would be considered medicine. I could violently assault someone to relieve my pent up anger and feel better. Is this medicinal? According to your definition, yes.

[Deleted User]

Fuddyduddy wrote: »

Medicine by definition it the treatment and prevention of diseases; it is health care. Pregnancy isn't a disease.

The glaringly obvious difference between operating on your own body or removing a tumour is that there is only one human being involved. You aren't ending a human beings life by removing a tumour of performing heart surgery.

Pregnancy isn't merely a process involving tissue, it is a process of a growing human.

To reiterate; it is a false equivalency. If someone is forcefully handcuffed to you, you cannot intentionally kill them to remove them. Bodily autonomy entails autonomy over your entire body.

Termination of pregnancy is healthcare, as much as some of the pro life movement want to deny that it is. Even save the 8th doctors described it as such under the previous restrictive terms of protection of life, when they carried out terminations.

As a person who has professed a wish to enter the field of medicine on here you might want to discuss this with your course director.

Igotadose

robarmstrong wrote: »

I’m guessing a dormant pro-life poster has posted nonsense and eotr has gone and thanked every single one of their posts most likely without actually reading the content but more than likely due to their shared belief.

A lot of pro-life people are pro-life until either they’re in a crisis pregnancy (due to rape, incest, etc) or someone very close to them is.

Then you’ll get the sigh of relief that thankfully they (or their close female relative/partner/friend) can legally have an abortion here in Ireland due to people with actual morals and sense vehemently disagreeing with their outdated beliefs and opinions.

But of course they’d never admit it.

There's an essay called 'The only moral abortion is my abortion' that talks about this issue. The author talks to abortion providers who have provided abortions to women picketing their clinics, or otherwise were anti-choice. It's a little dated but I imagine the statistics presented still stand up:

"Although few studies have been made of this phenomenon, a study done in 1981[1] found that 24% of women who had abortions considered the procedure morally wrong, and 7% of women who'd had abortions disagreed with the statement, "Any woman who wants an abortion should be permitted to obtain it legally." A 1994/95 survey[2,3] of nearly 10,000 abortion patients showed 18% of women having abortions are born-again or Evangelical Christians. Many of these women are likely anti-choice. The survey also showed that Catholic women have an abortion rate 29% higher than Protestant women. A Planned Parenthood handbook on abortion notes that nearly half of all abortions are for women who describe themselves as born-again Christian, Evangelical Christian, or Catholic.[4]"

http://www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org/articles/anti-tales.shtml

uptherebels

Fuddyduddy wrote: »

Medicine by definition it the treatment and prevention of diseases; it is health care. Pregnancy isn't a disease.

The glaringly obvious difference between operating on your own body or removing a tumour is that there is only one human being involved. You aren't ending a human beings life by removing a tumour of performing heart surgery.

Pregnancy isn't merely a process involving tissue, it is a process of a growing human.

To reiterate; it is a false equivalency. If someone is forcefully handcuffed to you, you cannot intentionally kill them to remove them. Bodily autonomy entails autonomy over your entire body.

Pregnancy can cause a number of short and long term injuries and other problems/health issues.
So abortion as a means of prevention of the above is preventing a disease

Ah I see you have decided to go the route of trying to multiquote the conversation to death. Fair enough, you will find me not illequipped or inexperienced at that tactic either. As you have exacerbated the use of that function by simply using it to repeat yourself and elongate your post, I will not deign to reply to the same things twice and simply edit them out.

Fuddyduddy wrote: »

I gave the definition of force

No you have given us what YOU want it to be. You have not to my knowledge cited one, certainly not in the posts I actually responded to.

You see the problem here is your definition is a perfectly valid one. And I am not seeing anyone dispute that as yet. Under YOUR definition it is indeed wrong to use that word on this thread.

However YOUR definition is not "the" definition. There is no "the" definition. There are several. There are many equally valid and useful ways to use the word. I directly cited some of them. And by THOSE definitions the use of the word is perfectly valid.

Fuddyduddy wrote: »

For the last time, the CONDITION OF PREGNANCY ALREADY EXISTS

And for my second time (because I do not pre-cop out of conversations with declarations of finality) the attribute you describe here is a red herring and entirely irrelevant. The focus of the word "force" is the coercion involved (remember the word coercion? Right there in one of the definitions you are pretending does not exist) in having someone CONTINUE to be pregnant. Coercion and force by law or other means to have someone continue to do an action is just as much force and coercion as forcing someone to become pregnant. The delimiter you are using here between the two is an artificial one of your own invention that simply does not exist in ANY definition I have found on the internet so far.

Fuddyduddy wrote: »

Pregnancy is independently happening in real time regardless of what happens after you kill your child

No one is killing a child, they are terminating a fetus. If you can not get basic language correct here, you have no basis for the sheer pedantry in your attempts to comment on the usage of it by others.

Fuddyduddy wrote: »

Actually no, it's the actual definition of the word. What do you think force means in physics?

It means something entirely different in physics. Appealing to a completely different use of the word in a completely different context is really just showing your complete desperation here at this point. Your move here is as nonsense and desperate as if you had tried to use the word "plant" to describe a flower and I instead presented you the definition of "plant" in terms of positioning something. This is the English Language we are speaking of where, for better or worse, we have many words with identical spellings but ENTIRELY different meanings. If you can not even get THAT simple fact straight, it is entirely clear why you are so wrong, so often, when presuming to dictate linguistics to others.

Fuddyduddy wrote: »

Yes, to force something means to compel someone TO DO something.

MY point exactly,thank you for making it for me. And the usage being employed on this thread is that of compelling someone TO DO the continuation of a pregnancy by coercion legal and other. Again the pre-existence of that pregnancy is a linguistic delimiter you are inventing out of nowhere and acting like it is one we are beholden to.

Fuddyduddy wrote: »

Yes, the etymology of the word means fetus. An embryo becomes enters the fetal stage in the 9th week. So in your own breath children are being killed before 12 weeks. No it isn't, it's literally the definition of the word. Just because you don't like the definition doesn't make it not true. If you knew anything about pregnancy you would know the embryonic stage ends when the fetal stage begins at the 9th week.

And you are welcome to test my knowledge of the subject at your leisure. Again you will not find me ill equipped. But as I said, predicted, and you make my point for me here you are not offering a single definition of "person" that warrants it's use in the context of a termination in or before week 12. You, like many before you, are merely trying to force that word into the conversation in order to attribute more to the process than is at all warranted. It simply has NONE of the characteristics anyone generally associates with person hood.

Fuddyduddy wrote: »

You haven't said anything that anybody else hasn't already said. Just because you don't like the definitions of words doesn't make it true.

Then take your own advice because the only people suffering from that are you, yourself, and you. Because I did not point to a single definition and "not like it" or even negate or disagree with it. As I said in the Opening of THIS very post in fact I think your use of the word entirely valid. So the accusation inherent in your "advice" above can be based on nothing but an out right straw man of my position and points. For shame you.

The problem is there are OTHER valid uses of it which YOU do not like. So I can only let you know that: Just because you don't like the definitions of words doesn't make it true.

Fuddyduddy wrote: »

Do you believe in objective morality? If not, where does morality come from?

Ah the old dodge of answer a question with a question huh? Not having it. You said to the user above you are able to have the conversation of arguments against abortion. You either can do this or you can not. Have at it if you can. But the deflection here is as weak as they come.

That said however, since I am not as prone to dodging as you are, welcome to the Atheist Forum where you will find I, and many if not most others, do not at all subscribe to the notion of an "objective morality" no.

Fuddyduddy wrote: »

Medicine by definition it the treatment and prevention of diseases

Not for the first time on this thread you have taken A VALID definition of a word and acted like it is THE definition of that word. This is the stolperstein upon which you will continue to fall and fail.

And once again an error that a VERY quick google BEFORE you make a fool of yourself would have prevented. Here are OTHER definitions of the word valid in the context of this thread:

In fact for the sake of comedy observe closely the second of the definitions I give you here, where I will add some bold to help you along, as it directly refutes your error here.

MEDICINE (source mer-web)

"something that affects well-being"
"a substance (such as a drug or potion) used to treat something other than disease"

volchitsa wrote: »

Grand. So how is that fact relevant then? As someone else said, does the fact that a cancer is facilitated by your own body make it any less acceptable to cut it out of your body?

What about heart surgery when the heart is just naturally defective - isn't that the natural condition for that person? Or hip replacements when it's just natural wear and tear? We intervene to block or reverse all sorts of natural processes, and nobody would think that was a good argument for not doing so.

Not nowadays anyway, except for a few extremists of various hues, anti vaxxers and the like.

Medicine by definition it the treatment and prevention of diseases; it is health care. Pregnancy isn't a disease.

The glaringly obvious difference between operating on your own body or removing a tumour is that there is only one human being involved. You aren't ending a human beings life by removing a tumour of performing heart surgery.

Pregnancy isn't merely a process involving tissue, it is a process of a growing human.

To reiterate; it is a false equivalency. If someone is forcefully handcuffed to you, you cannot intentionally kill them to remove them. Bodily autonomy entails autonomy over your entire body.

Fuddyduddy wrote: »

Okay, I can concede this. I used in the same vein that "force" is being used.

Conception is caused and pregnancy is facilitated by her own body.

Grand. So how is that fact relevant then? As someone else said, does the fact that a cancer is facilitated by your own body make it any less acceptable to cut it out of your body?

What about heart surgery when the heart is just naturally defective - isn't that the natural condition for that person? Or hip replacements when it's just natural wear and tear? We intervene to block or reverse all sorts of natural processes, and nobody would think that was a good argument for not doing so.

Not nowadays anyway, except for a few extremists of various hues, anti vaxxers and the like.

volchitsa wrote: »

No I'm not, you are. "welcoming" is not a neutral word to use, and it's a classic example of anthropomorphism (ie attaching human emotions to an object) to use it in the way you just did.

Okay, I can concede this. I used in the same vein that "force" is being used.

Conception is caused and pregnancy is facilitated by her own body.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

They do not. They have the ability to seek the termination of a fetus. For someone who just made a series of posts being extremely pedantic about the definition of the word "Force" without actually citing a definition at all..... you appear quite willing to dilute the meaning of words when it suits yourself in the same way.

I gave the definition of force and even responded to the other poster's own link where it is described as:

"to force someone TO DO something"

For the last time, the CONDITION OF PREGNANCY ALREADY EXISTS independent of the law. Saying to you there will be legal consequences if you kill your child is not forcing you not to kill your child, the same way it isn't actively "forcing" you to remain pregnant; you are already pregnant independent of the desires of the law. It's like saying I'm forcing a flower to grow by not cutting it; it was already on it's own independent trajectory of growth, it's simply bad use of the word.

But you are simply wrong on BOTH counts so let us take one at a time.

Firstly the word "force". You appear to be selecting ONE NARROW definition of it and attempting to falsify the use of the word by anyone using other, but equally valid, definitions of it.

You did this comically enough while pointing out "Saying there will be consequences is not the same as forcing" but in fact one of the first definitions you will find for "force" is in fact "coercion or compulsion" or "make (someone) do something against their will.".

Pregnancy is independently happening in real time regardless of what happens after you kill your child, nothing is being forced for this biological process to continue.

Your definition where "Force requires being the impetus behind an action." is one of your own invention really and it does not invalidate, overrule, or exclude the perfectly valid uses of the word from the users of this thread so far.

Actually no, it's the actual definition of the word. What do you think force means in physics?

Further out of nowhere you seem to think that the word can only apply if it can be applied to the initial transition into a state. You used the example of slavery, where the person was "forced" to become a slave but the woman was not "forced" to become pregnant but did so willingly. This initial condition setting appears to be one you have extracted from an orifice not normally associated with communication however. A person can willingly walk up and ask to be made a slave...... and a woman can be force through rape to become pregnant. But the word "force" on this thread in BOTH contexts is not being applied to that, it is being applied to the coercion through law,

Yes, to force something means to compel someone TO DO something.

and more recently now that the law is changed through underhand tactics and lies, to continue to remain pregnant. And if the slave ASKED to be a slave but is then later refused permission to STOP being a slave, then that slave is being forced every bit as much as the next one. Forced to remain a slave, or forced to remain pregnant, is still force.

I addressed this. It is simply a matter of the word force. If I physically stop you from killing your child, I am forcefully preventing you from killing your child. I am not "forcing" the continuation of pregnancy; the pregnancy is a pre-existing condition. Call me a pedant if you wish but it matters when we talk about who bears the burden of responsibility for individual actions.

If I say there are consequences that will happen IF you kill your child, there is nothing forceful stopping you from killing your child, but you will be accountable for the consequences.

Secondly since we are on definitions the definition of the word "child" or "children" is "a young human being below the age of puberty or below the legal age of majority." "an immature or irresponsible person." "an unborn or recently born person" "a young person especially between infancy and youth" and so on.

Yes, the etymology of the word means fetus. An embryo enters fetal stage in the 9th week. So in your own breath children are being killed before 12 weeks.

However the vast majority, in fact the near total majority, of abortions by choice happen in or before the 12th week of pregnancy. Trying to force the word "child" onto this fetus or "person" is quite the stretch that.

No it isn't, it's literally the definition of the word. Just because you don't like the definition doesn't make it not true. If you knew anything about pregnancy you would know the embryonic stage ends when the fetal stage begins at the 9th week.

as I said, comically requires the exact OPPOSITE extreme of pedantry that you chose to apply to others using the word "force".

So linguistically it seems, the level of honesty you are offering us here is one in which you seem to operate under one rule for you, and one for everyone else. For this condition I can only prescribe a heavy dose of get over yourself.

You haven't said anything that anybody else hasn't already said. Just because you don't like the definitions of words doesn't make it true.

I can accept that in common parlance people will say you forced me NOT TO DO something (even though no actual force took place), but it is simply a case of passing the blame when applied to a preexisting condition that only exists independent of the government.

Oh. Bring. It. On.

Hope you can do better than your cohort on this thread though. You will not find me unprepared. But forgive me if I do not hold my breath on the premise that after months in fact decades of seeking an argument against abortion from multiple sources than suddenly you are going to be the first to magically come up with one all of a sudden. I remain open..... an agog..... but rather deeply sceptical.

Do you believe in objective morality? If not, where does morality come from?

Fuddyduddy wrote: »

You're attaching human emotions to a pregnancy. "Welcoming" is merely facilitating the process of pregnancy. The endometrium directly adapts to facilitate implantation.

No I'm not, you are. "welcoming" is not a neutral word to use, and it's a classic example of anthropomorphism (ie attaching human emotions to an object) to use it in the way you just did.

King Mob wrote: »

So in your opinion some murders are not worth investigating. Gotcha.

You really need to pay attention to definitions. Spontaneous death is not the same as murder; in fact it's not even the same as intentional homicide.

Some death is an unavoidable part of life. Having a spontaneous heart attack is not the same as me actively and intentionally ending your life, as is the case with abortion.

end of the road wrote: »

yes . perhapse some of them will have been abortions but certainly not all or even a majority.

Indeed. So?

perhapse. however in a case like shipmans there had been nothing at first to my knowledge that there was anything that should have made anybody suspicious of his actions. it was always going to be the case that evidence of his actions would begin to come to the fore at some stage hence thankfully they were able to stop him.

Again, so what, in this context? How many people died whose deaths could have been prevented, if the assumption hadn't been that the deaths were natural?

Amd when it was discovered, there were all sorts of investigations into why nobody had noticed earlier or put a stop to it earlier. So how does that justify continuing to make the same assumptions about miscarriage/abortion?

unless evidence comes to the fore that an abortion actually took place then one has to reasonably assume that it was a natural misscarriage.

If you don't look for it, how will you find it? That's exactly what happened with Shipman.

volchitsa wrote: »

What's with the anthropomorphism? If a woman becomes pregnant after a rape, would you really think to tell her that her body "welcomed and facilitated" the pregnancy?

What does that even mean? How does a body "welcome" something that the person herself clearly finds to be not just unwelcome but a violent invasion of her body? Is she wrong?

You're attaching human emotions to a pregnancy. "Welcoming" is merely facilitating the process of pregnancy. The endometrium directly adapts to facilitate implantation.

Bring. It. On.

Indeed, and since Fuddy duddy originally addressed that "laters" proposal to me, I'd like to say that I'd be very happy to have that conversation too.

Whenever the poster wants.

Though like you I'm dubious that it will ever happen, going from past experience here. But let's be optimistic, maybe this prolife poster will be different to all the other prolife posters.

end of the road

volchitsa wrote: »

Well, that's not what they think in several prolife countries in South America where dozens if not hundreds of women have been sentenced for what they often claimed were miscarriages but which doctors concluded were attempted, or completed, abortions.

Are they being too zealous,

yes . perhapse some of them will have been abortions but certainly not all or even a majority.

volchitsa wrote: »

and isn't your assumption of natural death exactly what allowed Harold Shipman to murder so many old people?

perhapse. however in a case like shipmans there had been nothing at first to my knowledge that there was anything that should have made anybody suspicious of his actions. it was always going to be the case that evidence of his actions would begin to come to the fore at some stage hence thankfully they were able to stop him.

volchitsa wrote: »

Going by numbers of abortions, it's far more likely that a self induced abortion will be passed off as a miscarriage than that a doctor will be killing his patients. But you're happy to just assume that the former just never happens?

unless evidence comes to the fore that an abortion actually took place then one has to reasonably assume that it was a natural misscarriage.

Fuddyduddy wrote: »

Anyway, just wanted to comment on that tired old mantra of "being forced. Women have the privilege of killing their children on home soil now.

They do not. They have the ability to seek the termination of a fetus. For someone who just made a series of posts being extremely pedantic about the definition of the word "Force" without actually citing a definition at all..... you appear quite willing to dilute the meaning of words when it suits yourself in the same way.

But you are simply wrong on BOTH counts so let us take one at a time.

Firstly the word "force". You appear to be selecting ONE NARROW definition of it and attempting to falsify the use of the word by anyone using other, but equally valid, definitions of it. You did this comically enough while pointing out "Saying there will be consequences is not the same as forcing" but in fact one of the first definitions you will find for "force" is in fact "coercion or compulsion" or "make (someone) do something against their will.". Your definition where "Force requires being the impetus behind an action." is one of your own invention really and it does not invalidate, overrule, or exclude the perfectly valid uses of the word from the users of this thread so far. Further out of nowhere you seem to think that the word can only apply if it can be applied to the initial transition into a state. You used the example of slavery, where the person was "forced" to become a slave but the woman was not "forced" to become pregnant but did so willingly. This initial condition setting appears to be one you have extracted from an orifice not normally associated with communication however. A person can willingly walk up and ask to be made a slave...... and a woman can be force through rape to become pregnant. But the word "force" on this thread in BOTH contexts is not being applied to that, it is being applied to the coercion through law, and more recently now that the law is changed through underhand tactics and lies, to continue to remain pregnant. And if the slave ASKED to be a slave but is then later refused permission to STOP being a slave, then that slave is being forced every bit as much as the next one. Forced to remain a slave, or forced to remain pregnant, is still force.

Secondly since we are on definitions the definition of the word "child" or "children" is "a young human being below the age of puberty or below the legal age of majority." "an immature or irresponsible person." "an unborn or recently born person" "a young person especially between infancy and youth" and so on. However the vast majority, in fact the near total majority, of abortions by choice happen in or before the 12th week of pregnancy. Trying to force the word "child" onto this fetus or "person" is quite the stretch that, as I said, comically requires the exact OPPOSITE extreme of pedantry that you chose to apply to others using the word "force".

So linguistically it seems, the level of honesty you are offering us here is one in which you seem to operate under one rule for you, and one for everyone else. For this condition I can only prescribe a heavy dose of get over yourself.

Fuddyduddy wrote: »

I'll happily have that conversation with you though, although the 8th has been repealed so I'm not sure you'll want to bother if you're content with your current understanding.

Oh. Bring. It. On.

Hope you can do better than your cohort on this thread though. You will not find me unprepared. But forgive me if I do not hold my breath on the premise that after months in fact decades of seeking an argument against abortion from multiple sources than suddenly you are going to be the first to magically come up with one all of a sudden. I remain open..... an agog..... but rather deeply sceptical.

end of the road wrote: »

there is nothing to address.
investigating acts of biology is neither viable or practical. it would and could never be possible to gather any kind of evidence to even trigger such an investigation never mind bring a case. even if there was it's ridiculous to be investigating what was a very tragic biological action that was nobody's fault.

Well, that's not what they think in several prolife countries in South America where dozens if not hundreds of women have been sentenced for what they often claimed were miscarriages but which doctors concluded were attempted, or completed, abortions.

Are they being too zealous, and isn't your assumption of natural death exactly what allowed Harold Shipman to murder so many old people?

Going by numbers of abortions, it's far more likely that a self induced abortion will be passed off as a miscarriage than that a doctor will be killing his patients. But you're happy to just assume that the former just never happens?

amcalester

volchitsa wrote: »

What's with the anthropomorphism? If a woman becomes pregnant after a rape, would you really think to tell her that her body "welcomed and facilitated" the pregnancy?

What does that even mean? How does a body "welcome" something that the person herself clearly finds to be not just unwelcome but a violent invasion of her body? Is she wrong?

I wonder if that poster would feel the same about cancer if his body welcomed and facilitated it.

No thanks Doctor, no chemo for me. My body welcomed and facilitated this.

robarmstrong

I’m guessing a dormant pro-life poster has posted nonsense and eotr has gone and thanked every single one of their posts most likely without actually reading the content but more than likely due to their shared belief.

A lot of pro-life people are pro-life until either they’re in a crisis pregnancy (due to rape, incest, etc) or someone very close to them is.

Then you’ll get the sigh of relief that thankfully they (or their close female relative/partner/friend) can legally have an abortion here in Ireland due to people with actual morals and sense vehemently disagreeing with their outdated beliefs and opinions.

But of course they’d never admit it.

[Deleted User]

end of the road wrote: »

there is nothing to address.
investigating acts of biology is neither viable or practical. it would and could never be possible to gather any kind of evidence to even trigger such an investigation never mind bring a case. even if there was it's ridiculous to be investigating what was a very tragic biological action that was nobody's fault.

So in your opinion some murders are not worth investigating. Gotcha.

end of the road

King Mob wrote: »

But you said they have the same right to life. Why would you treat their death differently?
Why not investigate it as a potential case of murder or child endangerment?
As, by your definition, that's what it would be.

You guys make these grand proclamations about life, but you tend to run away when the practicalities are asked about.

End of the road was faced with this exact problem and ran away from the point.
If he'd like to actually rejoin the discussion and address it now...

there is nothing to address.
investigating acts of biology is neither viable or practical. it would and could never be possible to gather any kind of evidence to even trigger such an investigation never mind bring a case. even if there was it's ridiculous to be investigating what was a very tragic biological action that was nobody's fault.