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 the Fourth

robindch

...continuing on from previous threads on abortion (abortion part 1, part 2 and part 3).

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

smacl

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Not in general, I didn't say that. In certain circumstances I am OK with it. I'm not happy about it, it is unfortunate, but ultimately it is not up to me, it is up to those who's lives are affected, in my opinion.

Looks like that argument is fishing for an outraged response about killing of innocents as a mechanism to allow a pro-life retort that abortion is also killing of innocents. Utter nonsense of course and I'm of the opinion that your pro-infanticide stance is disingenuous on that basis.

Once a child has been born, either at term or through late termination of pregnancy, it assumes the full human rights, same as any other person and is not liable for the crimes of its parents. In case you were wondering about the difference between this and abortion, a fetus clearly does not have those rights as it is not yet a person, where a pregnant woman clearly does.

nozzferrahhtoo

Kidchameleon wrote: »

You saying I "keep making points by linking videos" is blatantly misrepresenting me.

That would be relevant had I said that. Go back and read it again. I did not say that. Even a little bit. So the misrepresenting is coming from you, yourself, the man in your mirror and theyself. Not from me.

They key word you appear to have decided to ignore there, if you need a little help, was "IF". I said nothing more than I was done with the issue of your citing the video of lies but IF you did so again, you can expect me to call it out again.

The rest, you made up yourself. For shame.

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Firstly I never said a fertilized egg is a human being. I said it was a form of human. I am struggling to find words explain the term "form of human" to you. Actually, I would be wasting my time. You know what I mean.

We are agreed and again you appear to be making my point for me, it IS a waste of time. Using it or discussing it at all is. The term itself, "a kind of human" is a waste of time. It says nothing. It is a non-phrase.

I do believe I know what you mean. You mean, as many other people before you have, that it is "human" in terms of biological taxonomy.

The reason this is a waste of time, a red herring, irrelevant, and misleading is that biological taxonomy appears to have nothing, and from what I can see should have nothing, to do with the moral or ethical issue of abortion. At. All.

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Can I ask you a question? If a child of yours were born at 24 weeks and survived, do you think he or she would be ok in an incubator on their own without the touch of yourself and your partner?

The answer is clear I think, touch has been shown to be beneficial in some situations. I have not denied or refuted that. The issue I have is the point you originally made which you are now using this "touch based therapy" to substantiate. Because it does not substantiate that original position at all.

There are reasons touch is used and can be beneficial. It has NOTHING to do with sentience. You appear to be taking my disagreement about the link between sentience and touch..... as some disagreement with your claim about the benefits of that touch. They are two VERY different things. You will not find me refuting your claims about the latter. What I am refuting is your narrative of "Babies born at 24 weeks are sentient" which you have yet to offer ANYTHING to substantiate at this time.

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Great, its good that we live in a world where people can co exist with different opinions.

Can they though? The attempt to murder a sentient agent for no other fault other than being the victim of a crime is one I would resist through every avenue open to me, from legal to physical. So I am not sure how much co-existing we would actually do where there any chance of such a thing being implemented. I would join actual battle lines to resist the proposal you have made, were it to come to that.

The only reason our opinions may co-exist is that I believe there is ZERO chance of what you are proposing here ever becoming a reality.

osarusan

Kidchameleon wrote: »

At this moment in time, I cannot think of what kind of a time-limit would apply before the victims right is revoked, if at all (this aspect is something that I am still pondering).

At 9 weeks old, 9 months old, 9 years old, 19 years old...a 29 year old parent say...and you are still pondering whether that person's mother would have the right to decide to euthanise them, as they had been conceived through rape 29 years ago?

All through this thread, I keep thinking you are desperately seeking some 'gotcha' moment where you can say to somebody that if they have a certain opinion on X, then why do they have a different opinion on Y.

I hope that is what you are doing, rather than genuinely being on the fence about whether a woman should have an effectively limitless power to euthanise a child conceived through rape.

amcalester

splinter65 wrote: »

I’m still here hoping that more people on this forum are going to argue against infanticide but I suppose I’m going to be disappointed. Lots of silence. Very scary stuff but then I remind myself that boards posters are only representative of a tiny tiny proportion of the general population.
Still sends a terrible shiver down the spine though.
On the other hand there’s no point in pretending that this kind of psychotic mentality doesn’t exist. And that’s there’s enough decency and compassion in the world to extinguish it as there ever was.
When we defeated Hitler we proved that.

To be honest I just thought it was just so ridiculous that it isn’t worth replying.

Any response I can think of would probably warrant a banning as well.

I think your previous post that it’s a poor attempt at drawing parallels between late term abortions or something else might be close to correct but the charter prohibits me from saying what I actually think is happening.

Kidchameleon

smacl wrote: »

Looks like that argument is fishing for an outraged response about killing of innocents as a mechanism to allow a pro-life retort that abortion is also killing of innocents. Utter nonsense of course and I'm of the opinion that your pro-infanticide stance is disingenuous on that basis.

Once a child has been born, either at term or through late termination of pregnancy, it assumes the full human rights, same as any other person and is not liable for the crimes of its parents. In case you were wondering about the difference between this and abortion, a fetus clearly does not have those rights as it is not yet a person, where a pregnant woman clearly does.

I am not pro life and you will never see me arguing for it, so you are wrong. I get where you are coming from however.

Nobelium

smacl wrote: »

Please attack the post and never the poster and perhaps reacquaint yourself with the rules of this forum

just a suggestion . . .how about at least attempting to practicing what you preach ?

Mod: Carded for repeating breach of charter. Next one will be a ban.

Kidchameleon

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

They key word you appear to have decided to ignore there, if you need a little help, was "IF". I said nothing more than I was done with the issue of your citing the video of lies but IF you did so again, you can expect me to call it out again.

I misread it, you assumed I ignored it.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I do believe I know what you mean. You mean, as many other people before you have, that it is "human" in terms of biological taxonomy.

Great!

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

There are reasons touch is used and can be beneficial. It has NOTHING to do with sentience.

Links please. Why is it beneficial then?

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

The only reason our opinions may co-exist is that I believe there is ZERO chance of what you are proposing here ever becoming a reality.

Thats why we have democracy. Pro lifers would be equally disgusted by your pro choice stance. We are all on a spectrum.

nozzferrahhtoo

Kidchameleon wrote: »

I misread it, you assumed I ignored it.

I am afraid I am going to have to doubt that. But whether true or not, suffice to say if you are going to make such an accusation.... read more carefully. Especially if you are going to put something in Quotation type marks, that I patently never said.

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Links please. Why is it beneficial then?

I need provide no links. You did it yourself already. Go read your own two links. The value of touch if in the brain responses, and affects on development, they have.

The issues is none of this requires, is a requirement of, nor indicates, sentience. Not in your links, nor in any other link I have seen anywhere.

Kidchameleon

nozzferrahhtoo

What is your definition of sentience?

nozzferrahhtoo

Kidchameleon wrote: »

What is your definition of sentience?

Depends on the context. In the context of a fetus and abortion however I would be happy with definitions like "Sentience is the capacity to feel, perceive or experience subjectively." or " In modern Western philosophy, sentience is the ability to experience sensations."

That there is some chance that the fetus is actually experiencing something would be a core of sentience here. That there is something it is like for that fetus to be what it is, from the perspective of that fetus.

More importantly the fetus has to have the faculty for the above. It does not have this at 12 weeks or 16 weeks or even 20 to our knowledge. A coma patient for example has the FACULTY of sentience even if they are experiencing nothing at all IN the coma. I still see them as a sentient agent with rights.

The fetus does not have this, and never has had.

The error I think you make when looking at something like a birth at 24 weeks and making the proclamations you did about it...... is similar to an error another user made when posting a study about fetal tongue movements. Or the error people make when they post images of a very early stage fetus reacting to a needle.

Reaction to a stimulus is NOT indicative of sentience/consciousness/experience. Reaction to a stimulus is in fact very common. Even an amoeba can do this.

Kidchameleon

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Depends on the context. In the context of a fetus and abortion however I would be happy with definitions like "Sentience is the capacity to feel, perceive or experience subjectively." or " In modern Western philosophy, sentience is the ability to experience sensations."

That there is some chance that the fetus is actually experiencing something would be a core of sentience here. That there is something it is like for that fetus to be what it is, from the perspective of that fetus.

More importantly the fetus has to have the faculty for the above. It does not have this at 12 weeks or 16 weeks or even 20 to our knowledge. A coma patient for example has the FACULTY of sentience even if they are experiencing nothing at all IN the coma. I still see them as a sentient agent with rights.

The fetus does not have this, and never has had.

The error I think you make when looking at something like a birth at 24 weeks and making the proclamations you did about it...... is similar to an error another user made when posting a study about fetal tongue movements. Or the error people make when they post images of a very early stage fetus reacting to a needle.

Reaction to a stimulus is NOT indicative of sentience/consciousness/experience. Reaction to a stimulus is in fact very common. Even an amoeba can do this.

OK well why do you think most countries in the world do not allow abortion on demand at 24 weeks? Or even some weeks before that... The fetus is as much a clump of cells at 24 weeks as it is at 12 week no? Do you support abortion on demand at 24 weeks?

nozzferrahhtoo

Kidchameleon wrote: »

OK well why do you think most countries in the world do not allow abortion on demand at 24 weeks? Or even some weeks before that... The fetus is as much a clump of cells at 24 weeks as it is at 12 week no? Do you support abortion on demand at 24 weeks?

Another good question. I think conversation of this sort is much more functional between us, do you reckon? Lots of answers to that but I do not want to write a novel.

I think much of the reasons however are historic. Our knowledge about sentience, its pre-requisites, and it's development is incomplete. But it has been getting much better as time goes on. However much of the 24 weeks comes from a historic time when our ignorance was greater.

However people like arbitrary numbers too and 24 weeks is a nice round number divisible by 4. And we think of months as being around 4 weeks too. So 24 is a comfortable number.

There is also the psychological impact on the woman, rather than the fetus, which is taken into account. As this article states "It is 24 weeks, where doctors believe there is a risk to the "physical or mental health" of the pregnant woman or her existing children.". So in fact the 24 weeks has less to do with the fetus at all, and more to do with the woman herself!

There is also the fact that any abortion, even very early stages, is a medical intervention and EVERY medical intervention is a risk. However the risks to the women go UP in relation to the age of the fetus too. If you look at tables showing injury or even death as a compliation of abortion you find that 24 weeks is also around the time when the elevation becomes steep in that regard.

So the answer to your question is manifold. But I would also add one of my own. Requirement. Nearly the totality of all CHOICE based abortion happens by week 16. 96-98%. So there is simply no requirement for much more than 16 very often. And one POLITICAL truth is if you want something, do not ask for more than you ACTUALLY need because the more you ask for the less chance you will get it. So 24 weeks is a nice compromise between actual requirements, and the political will to attain them.

[Deleted User]

splinter65 wrote: »

I’m still here hoping that more people on this forum are going to argue against infanticide but I suppose I’m going to be disappointed. Lots of silence. Very scary stuff but then I remind myself that boards posters are only representative of a tiny tiny proportion of the general population.
Still sends a terrible shiver down the spine though.
On the other hand there’s no point in pretending that this kind of psychotic mentality doesn’t exist. And that’s there’s enough decency and compassion in the world to extinguish it as there ever was.
When we defeated Hitler we proved that.

The thread isn't a discussion on infanticide, and the argument is one to try and equate abortion with infanticide, something that a lot of pro life posters do and as such is being ignored.

As you have previously stated that we should bring back mother and baby homes to lock up unmarried mothers and that people who are on social welfare should be sterilized rather than receiving children's allowance, I would say such a view could be seen as representing an even smaller sample of the Irish people than boards itself and one that some would see as frightening.

Plumbthedepths

splinter65 wrote:

Iâ€™m still here hoping that more people on this forum are going to argue against infanticide but I suppose Iâ€™m going to be disappointed. Lots of silence. Very scary stuff but then I remind myself that boards posters are only representative of a tiny tiny proportion of the general population. Still sends a terrible shiver down the spine though. On the other hand thereâ€™s no point in pretending that this kind of psychotic mentality doesnâ€™t exist. And thatâ€™s thereâ€™s enough decency and compassion in the world to extinguish it as there ever was. When we defeated Hitler we proved that.

Only one poster here seems to be okay with infanticide as it was there suggestion that a child should be killed if the mother sought it. Personally I think the person in question is against abortion but is trying to present the most extreme Pro choice possible. Wonder why.

Kidchameleon

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Only one poster here seems to be okay with infanticide

Well only one poster is able to admit it, who knows what others are thinking?

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

that a child should be killed if the mother sought it.

Your leaving out the rather horrendous scenario that would lead up to it. I am not suggesting there should be a baby killing spree any time soon.

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Personally I think the person in question is against abortion but is trying to present the most extreme Pro choice possible. Wonder why.

I wonder why people keep suggesting that even though it is clearly not the case for everyone to see. I'm satisfied that the 8th was repealed, not to the extent that I was dancing around Dublin Castle, just satisfied that women have control over their own bodies.

Plumbthedepths

Kidchameleon wrote:

I wonder why people keep suggesting that even though it is clearly not the case for everyone to see. I'm satisfied that the 8th was repealed, not to the extent that I was dancing around Dublin Castle, just satisfied that women have control over their own bodies.

Personally I think you are anything other than Pro choice.

Kidchameleon

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Personally I think you are anything other than Pro choice.

Anyone who does not support late term abortions is not pro choice by the strictest definition of the word. From the Oxford dictionary:

pro-choice

adjective

Advocating the legal right of a woman to choose whether or not she will have an abortion.
‘a pro-choice demonstration’

smacl

Kidchameleon wrote: »

I am not pro life and you will never see me arguing for it, so you are wrong. I get where you are coming from however.

You post extremist Ben Shapiro pro life videos you find favourable and suggest you're ok with killing born children in some circumstances as it is agreeable with your pro-choice stance. It seems entirely reasonable to question your motives and actual position on that basis.

Kidchameleon

smacl wrote: »

You post extremist Ben Shapiro pro life videos you find favourable

You used a plural there but I have only posted one video. I never said I found it favorable. In fact, I have said on a number of occasions that I find Shapiro annoying. I also stated a couple of days ago that I did not agree with everything he said in the video.

smacl wrote: »

suggest you're ok with killing born children in some circumstances as it is agreeable with your pro-choice stance.

"Killing" is not the word I used, I hope your not trying to make it out to more emotive that it is

. The term I used was "euthanize". And yes, I believe there are some cases where such an act, however horrible that may be, is justified. Things like that happen every day unfortunately. I gave examples of viable fetuses being terminated to save the life of the mother etc. It is part of life. The animal kingdom is full of examples of mothers sacrificing their young for the greater good. Chimps, rats, bears and dogs to name a few have all been observed doing it.

smacl wrote: »

It seems entirely reasonable to question your motives and actual position on that basis.

I have already told you I understand that you may come to that conclusion.

smacl

Kidchameleon wrote: »

"Killing" is not the word I used, I hope your not trying to make it out to more emotive that it is . The term I used was "euthanize". And yes, I believe there are some cases where such an act, however horrible that may be, is justified.

You should perhaps look up the meaning of euthanasia here because what you're talking about is execution of an innocent. Personally, i don't find what you say to be credible. My opinion is that by claiming to be pro choice and coming up with this blatantly incendiary nonsense your intent is to tar the pro choice position. As rhetoric goes, it is weak.

Kidchameleon

smacl wrote: »

You should perhaps look up the meaning of euthanasia here because what you're talking about is execution of an innocent. Personally, i don't find what you say to be credible. My opinion is that by claiming to be pro choice and coming up with this blatantly incendiary nonsense your intent is to tar the pro choice position. As rhetoric goes, it is weak.

Again, as I have said, I can see where you get that idea from. You are wrong however. We will only go around in circles with this so I am going to leave it there. That is not a cop out, if you want I will continue with my "rhetoric", no problem. I hope you will note that there are plenty of people out there who would find your stance on abortion to be as reprehensible as you find mine. It is all a matter of subjectivity.

Nobelium

smacl wrote: »

You post extremist Ben Shapiro pro life videos you find favourable and suggest you're ok with killing born children in some circumstances as it is agreeable with your pro-choice stance. It seems entirely reasonable to question your motives and actual position on that basis.

when are you going to start dealing with actual the points in the posts instead of attacking the poster ?

Mod: Nobelium is taking a wee holiday to give he/she/they an opportunity to reflect on mod instructions to attack the post not the poster.

[Deleted User]

[HTML][/HTML]

Nobelium wrote: »

when are you going to start dealing with actual the points in the posts instead of attacking the poster ?

Where is the attack on the poster?

Timberrrrrrrr

Ruraldweller56 wrote: »

I think a defenceless child with no voice or ability to defend itself is a legitimate target for other people's selfishness and deserves to die.

I also believe a human beings geographical location should determine the validity of their life.

I am your Liberal twat.

The only part of your idiotic post that makes sense in my opinion

[Deleted User]

Ruraldweller56 wrote: »

I am a twat.

Fixed your post for you.

Turtwig

Ruraldweller56 wrote: »

I think a defenceless child with no voice or ability to defend itself is a legitimate target for other people's selfishness and deserves to die.

I also believe a human beings geographical location should determine the validity of their life.

I am your Liberal twat.

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

The only part of your idiotic post that makes sense in my opinion

Mod:
Easy folks.
Less of the implying that people who hold certain opinions are twats.

Be civil

splinter65

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Only one poster here seems to be okay with infanticide as it was there suggestion that a child should be killed if the mother sought it. Personally I think the person in question is against abortion but is trying to present the most extreme Pro choice possible. Wonder why.

It’s the silence from the other posters that’s disturbing. It’s as if people are afraid to speak in case they’re labeled “anti choice” . It’s akin to being called a racist transphobic homophobe really....

splinter65

smacl wrote: »

You post extremist Ben Shapiro pro life videos you find favourable and suggest you're ok with killing born children in some circumstances as it is agreeable with your pro-choice stance. It seems entirely reasonable to question your motives and actual position on that basis.

Just out of interest, in what way do you find Shapiro “extremist”? He’s just pro life.

Plumbthedepths

splinter65 wrote:

Itâ€™s the silence from the other posters thatâ€™s disturbing. Itâ€™s as if people are afraid to speak in case theyâ€™re labeled â€œanti choiceâ€ . Itâ€™s akin to being called a racist transphobic homophobe really....

Maybe other posters didn't think that a ridiculous suggestion warrants a reply. I certainly didn't address with him. This is an anonymous internet forum, I doubt people are afraid to voice their opinion.

splinter65

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Maybe other posters didn't think that a ridiculous suggestion warrants a reply. I certainly didn't address with him. This is an anonymous internet forum, I doubt people are afraid to voice their opinion.

Maybe so. I certainly hope so.