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

Kidchameleon

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Do you really believe the poster you responded to is Pro choice?

Im not pro choice, im pro choice+

nozzferrahhtoo

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Do you really believe the poster you responded to is Pro choice?

To be honest I am not convinced but I tend to treat people as they present themselves to be. Not because I care what THEY are, but on a public forum I am responding not to them but everyone they represent, or even just pretend to represent.

As I said before I replied for MONTHS to a user on this very thread who now it appears may possibly allegedly only have been pretending to be quite extremely pro-choice.... supporting termination up to birth in fact because seemingly Mary Robinson told him so..... but who reversed his position magically around the time the referendum was announced.

I now reply to that poster as he NOW presents himself to be. And if he suddenly started presenting as a pro-choicer again.... I would respond to him as one of those again too

So I think I should afford Kidchameleon the same courtesy.

Plumbthedepths

nozzferrahhtoo wrote:

A phrase I always liked is "My right to choose what to do with my fists ends at your face".

Do you really believe the poster you responded to is Pro choice?

nozzferrahhtoo

Kidchameleon wrote: »

It comes down to the woman's choice for me.

A phrase I always liked is "My right to choose what to do with my fists ends at your face".

In other words I too want to maximise the choice of women, as do you. But choice HAS to be curtailed the moment it impacts on the freedoms, well beings, and rights of another sentient agent.

There is nowhere else where we have 100% choice, like with my fists, so why do we need it with abortion? Our choices are ALWAYS curtailed the moment another person with rights is involved.

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Its kind of pointless to discuss labels. If you are against abortion after 12 weeks, you may in the future find yourself on the same side of the fence the pro lifers are on now. I can see a time in the future when there will be a push to extend the window of when abortions are allowed.

And I am happy for it to be extended until such time as it gets extended to the point where we have any reason to suspect the fetus is a sentient agent. Then I will without any reservation or embarrassment join a different battle line.

Bannasidhe

Mod: Gentle reminder. Let that tangent go where it deserves.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Mod: after careful consideration your friendly mod has come to the conclusion that attempts to introduce infanticide into the discussion is little more than an attempt to muddy the waters, inflame the situation, present an extreme so-called 'pro-choice' position and generally drag the entire thread down yet another rabbit hole of semantics, bickering, evasion, and general chaos - much as the use of the term "murder" did previously.

Drop the discussion of infanticide please.

Calina wrote: »

Other posters have objected strongly. Stop pretending we did not.

aloyisious

The educating of a president. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...s-rape-incest/ Donald Trump says he is in favour of abortion laws with exceptions for rape and incest.

followed by his tweet below in the journal.ie

Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump

As most people know, and for those who would like to know, I am strongly Pro-Life, with the three exceptions - Rape, Incest and protecting the Life of the mother - the same position taken by Ronald Reagan. We have come very far in the last two years with 105 wonderful new.....

67.1K
4:37 AM - May 19, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy

25.3K people are talking about this

It seems that he had a different position in 2016 where he thought jail was the place for women who had abortions. One might ask/hope if he's sending a message to the USSC and his appointees there now with his tweet.

aloyisious

On the basis below, the meaning of the label on the can is left to the discretion of the reader.

This has probably been argued out before [cant recall] but to me, some-one saying that he/she agrees that abortion is OK in even a limited set of circumstances and time-limited in law means that that person is Pro-Choice. Whilst the person may nominally be against abortion in general [in his/her mind], giving the thumbs up to women having abortions under the above circumstances and limit thereby means the person can be said to be Pro-Choice.

IMO, the set-up or "right" to defining and labelling who is Pro-Choice or Pro-life is not limited solely to the person after he/she has made the choice to agree with abortion. You can be Pro-Choice up to the time allowed in law or by whatever limit you see as acceptable but it may mean that by you agreeing to/with that limit, you may be seen as - and said to be - Pro-life after that limit is passed IN EXISTENCE by the foetus. One might not like to be labelled Pro-this or that but by personally defining one's choice of limit, one might automatically [corollary-adjectively] fall into another camp without intent and be said to be Pro-this as against Pro-that. This may be argued against by people who may say they and they alone can define what they are and where they stand but words used can INFER further unspoken words.

Kidchameleon

volchitsa wrote: »

..

So your saying that the "pro choice" label may change its meaning over time? That's fine. So I am currently not "pro choice", lets say I am "pro choice+".

Pro life: no abortions
Pro choice: abortions within 12 weeks

Pro choice+: no time limit for abortion

Its all just labels. Call me whatever you want.

volchitsa

Kidchameleon wrote: »

I get what you are saying. Look I am not some baby slaying fetishist. What I propose is actions in very extreme circumstances (of which, as a man, I will never fully understand admittedly). It comes down to the woman's choice for me.

Its kind of pointless to discuss labels. If you are against abortion after 12 weeks, you may in the future find yourself on the same side of the fence the pro lifers are on now. I can see a time in the future when there will be a push to extend the window of when abortions are allowed.

As it stands, women have a choice - with stipulations. They are still not free to do whatever they want with their own bodies. For example, a woman does not have a free choice to abort at 13 weeks (when the fetus is as non viable as it was at 12 weeks)

So, this is the kind of argument that makes it seem that you have so little understanding of the basic prochoice views that you cannot genuinely be prochoice yourself.

People who support abortion up to 12 weeks do not actively oppose it at 13 "because it's killing babies" - they have merely concluded that 12 weeks seems a reasonable compromise to set a limit given our current understanding of fetal development.

If that changes, either way, there is nothing stopping those people from adapting their stance accordingly. They would still be prochoice. Why would you imagine that they would refuse to modify the 12 week limit if there was good reason to do so? It's just a legal age limit, like the age of consent or the voting age, because the law needs clear time limits to function.

(ETA: And just to avoid anyone "misreading" this, no I'm not saying that therefore we should extend from 12 weeks: there are very good reasons to ensure that women having abortions have them as early as possible. Since well over 90% of all terminations take place before 12/13 weeks even in the UK where there is no legal pressure to do so by that date, it seems that this is a suitable compromise. If that changes, then prochoicers can adapt their preferred dates accordingly.)

Calina

splinter65 wrote: »

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....

Other posters have objected strongly. Stop pretending we did not.

Kidchameleon

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

But in general I think that there is a reason when only one person supports a particular proposition and no one else does. And in general I do not think that reason is "because everyone else cant admit it".

I get what you are saying. Look I am not some baby slaying fetishist. What I propose is actions in very extreme circumstances (of which, as a man, I will never fully understand admittedly). It comes down to the woman's choice for me.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Giving someone a choice with restrictions is STILL giving them a choice. The idea that you only really give someone a choice if it is actually a freedom to do anything they want, any time they want, is simply not supported by the etymology there.

Its kind of pointless to discuss labels. If you are against abortion after 12 weeks, you may in the future find yourself on the same side of the fence the pro lifers are on now. I can see a time in the future when there will be a push to extend the window of when abortions are allowed.

As it stands, women have a choice - with stipulations. They are still not free to do whatever they want with their own bodies. For example, a woman does not have a free choice to abort at 13 weeks (when the fetus is as non viable as it was at 12 weeks)

nozzferrahhtoo

Kidchameleon wrote: »

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

I do like to think most posters who bother to post are honest about their positions. Especially given posting here is A) Optional and

Anonymous. So it makes rare sense that anyone would bother posting on a topic they actually do not want to talk openly about.

That said though I have been bitten by that assumption when it has been proven false.

For example we had a poster who posted here for a long time, on the earlier instances of this thread in fact, claiming not just to be pro-choice but right up to the point of birth. That the infant had no rights at all until it travelled down the birth canal when suddenly magically it attained all it's rights.

His argument supporting that position? Well nothing much really.... just his claim that Mary Robinson agreed with him. That was literally all I got supporting the position when I asked.

Suddenly though when the referendum was actually announced said user pretty much over night became one of the "abortions are not warranted ever" posters on the other extreme of the spectrum. Which merely leads me to question my own assumptions about how open people are being here.

But in general I think that there is a reason when only one person supports a particular proposition and no one else does. And in general I do not think that reason is "because everyone else cant admit it".

Kidchameleon wrote: »

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

Not really. The definitions, including the one you cited, merely suggest we are offering them a choice.

Nothing in that definition requires it be an entirely unrestricted choice, with no limits at all. That is not, any to my knowledge of the entire history of our language has never been, what giving someone a choice has ever meant.

Giving someone a choice with restrictions is STILL giving them a choice. The idea that you only really give someone a choice if it is actually a freedom to do anything they want, any time they want, is simply not supported by the etymology there.

smacl

splinter65 wrote: »

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....

Mod: Fair point. In the interests of civil debate, can we please refer to the groups on either side of this debate by their own preferred labels. i.e. pro-life and pro-choice, no more use of anti-choice or pro-abortion. Thanks.

smacl

splinter65 wrote: »

It’s the silence from the other posters that’s disturbing.

I certainly don't find the stance adopted by that poster to be credible and have already posted to that effect.

smacl

splinter65 wrote: »

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

The picture of a dead baby and the spiel on Kermit Gosnell primarily. He is taking an extreme example of the illegal activity of one person and implying it is somehow representative of abortion, which it clearly is not. Basing your position on appeal to emotional outrage using pictures and cases that are not just atypical but entirely exceptional is extremist. He's not alone in the use of this tactic, but it is so old now I don't think anyone believes it is honest at this point in time.

Bannasidhe

Mod: after careful consideration your friendly mod has come to the conclusion that attempts to introduce infanticide into the discussion is little more than an attempt to muddy the waters, inflame the situation, present an extreme so-called 'pro-choice' position and generally drag the entire thread down yet another rabbit hole of semantics, bickering, evasion, and general chaos - much as the use of the term "murder" did previously.

Drop the discussion of infanticide please.

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.

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

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.

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....

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

[Deleted User]

Ruraldweller56 wrote: »

I am a twat.

Fixed your post for you.

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]

[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?

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.

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.

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 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: »

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

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’