Abortion/ Note Thread Closing Shortly! ! !

Bannasidhe · 31-08-2012 02:00PM

christmas2012 wrote: »

Theres no need to get hysterical asking me to stop,i didnt twist anything,you posed a scenario,you are in effect arguing for abortion for all and using emergency abortion as the scenario,ive read many of your posts and it seems no matter what the circumstance you are very pro abortion.

let me ask you have you ever had an abortion,or had close friends who have had abortions,i can tell you ones who have had,would not describe having an abortion as a positive experience(its a painful procedure,with risk of infection).Full stop.

christmas, if you think someone politely asking you to stop twisting their words and trying to claim they hold a position they do not hold and have never said they hold is getting hysterical then there is little I can do about that.

Now - what is this supposed scenario I am meant to have posed? I am responding to a scenario posed by Sin.

Please refrain from using me and your incorrect assessment of my stance to further your agenda.

What do you mean exactly by abortion on demand? The term is too broad and ill defined for me to comment until I know what you mean by it.

Improbable · 31-08-2012 02:00PM

Sin City wrote: »

Give me a chance I have to answer everyones else question

Again , for me its conflicting answer. my wife or my child

or a nameless mother and her child.

Honestly I dont know (I woud like to think the child in the namless one though)

Wait wait. Am I reading this right? You would consider the abortion if it was YOUR wife to be saved, but if it was somebody else, you'd lean toward killing the mother to save the child?

Sin City · 31-08-2012 02:01PM

doctoremma wrote: »

Then you'll have to prospectively forgive my husband for knocking at your door with shotgun...;)

bada BOOOM:D

Seriously though its a tough choice that I hope I (or anyone else) has to make

Sin City · 31-08-2012 02:04PM

Improbable wrote: »

Wait wait. Am I reading this right? You would consider the abortion if it was YOUR wife to be saved, but if it was somebody else, you'd lean toward killing the mother to save the child?

I might consider it, its gets emotional so logic might loose out. Its easy to say one thing here when we talk hypotheicly, yet if I found myself in this scenario my actions might be different I dont know to be honest. Itl be like you being a pacifist and abhor violence and killing and tell others how wrong it is etc but if someone rapes and kills your wife/child all that goes out the window and you kill the rapist/murderer

seamus · 31-08-2012 02:09PM

Sin City wrote: »

and if its the cancer sceanrio?

Could live or the cancer could come back?

Mother's choice.
I know of people who've had to make that decision. Some go one way, some go t'other.
My choice, depends on the variables and the type of cancer. Cancer's not simple, remission and survival rates vary.
It's a scenario where a definite answer is impossible to give because it's not a definite scenario.

oldrnwisr · 31-08-2012 02:10PM

Sin City wrote: »

Both are alive albeit one isnt born but still very much alive will breath when its born in moments. The mother could have another child (would if this would leave her unable to have children change your mind btw?) The child when mature will also have the potential to give birth

The child wouldnt be left orphaned has a father (who isnt around atm so cant eb asked and a good family support structure) again hypotheticly

OK, a couple of points here.

First of all, you keep refining your hypothetical to the point that it's getting further and further from the actual debate. So, I still choose the mother. So what? How is this relevant in the context of the overall debate.

You're heading down a bad road with this hypothetical. It seems to me that you're prioritising the right to life above everything else, that we should be talking about the unborn child's right to life. The thing is though, there is a much bigger picture to be considered, one you've conveniently airbrushed out of your hypothetical. It's not just life that's important in this debate but the quality of life that would result. It so happens that this morning I was going over some abortion statistics because there is a good chance that eventually someone of a religious persuasion will wander in here with the usual bad stock arguments. Anyway, long story short, in 2010 in the UK there were 2290 abortions performed under category E (physical or mental deformity or handicap). Now some of these abortions might have resulted in live births had they not been performed but you have to ask what kind of quality of life would these children have had, what kind of suffering might they have endured. Life may not always be the compassionate choice.

Bannasidhe · 31-08-2012 02:11PM

Sin City wrote: »

I might consider it, its gets emotional so logic might loose out. Its easy to say one thing here when we talk hypotheicly, yet if I found myself in this scenario my actions might be different I dont know to be honest. Itl be like you being a pacifist and abhor violence and killing and tell others how wrong it is etc but if someone rapes and kills your wife/child all that goes out the window and you kill the rapist/murderer

Here's where we differ. I don't see this a purely academic debate where we discuss hypothetical scenarios. I see this as a real world issue.

doctoremma · 31-08-2012 02:11PM

Sin City wrote: »

I might consider it, its gets emotional so logic might loose out. Its easy to say one thing here when we talk hypotheicly, yet if I found myself in this scenario my actions might be different I dont know to be honest.

This might be interesting:

"The only moral abortion is my abortion"
http://mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/anti-tales.html

Lingua Franca · 31-08-2012 02:13PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Here's where we differ. I don't see this a purely academic debate where we discuss hypothetical scenarios. I see this as a real world issue.

I'm also wondering why we're getting into bizzare and increasingly unreaslitic hypotheticals when it's a real issue requiring real legislation to help real women.

Sin City · 31-08-2012 02:17PM

oldrnwisr wrote: »

OK, a couple of points here.

First of all, you keep refining your hypothetical to the point that it's getting further and further from the actual debate. So, I still choose the mother. So what? How is this relevant in the context of the overall debate.

You're heading down a bad road with this hypothetical. It seems to me that you're prioritising the right to life above everything else, that we should be talking about the unborn child's right to life. The thing is though, there is a much bigger picture to be considered, one you've conveniently airbrushed out of your hypothetical. It's not just life that's important in this debate but the quality of life that would result. It so happens that this morning I was going over some abortion statistics because there is a good chance that eventually someone of a religious persuasion will wander in here with the usual bad stock arguments. Anyway, long story short, in 2010 in the UK there were 2290 abortions performed under category E (physical or mental deformity or handicap). Now some of these abortions might have resulted in live births had they not been performed but you have to ask what kind of quality of life would these children have had, what kind of suffering might they have endured. Life may not always be the compassionate choice.

I keep refining my hypothetical because people keep saying its unrealistic so then I am asking them one time then change a few paramenetrs to basicly see if there is anyway they might consider the rights of the child to life

As was debated before about fetal rights to life and personhood and when those rights apply to them and when the agreed last point of abortion is passed is there any change in behaviour of fetal rights to become person rights

(I know my hypothetical was unrealistic btw)

As for statisics as I said I didnt want to use them in an argument as then it becomes a who can find the better stat for each side

If a religious person comes in I dount youll get them to see your point of view over the bibles/churches etc , look at evolution swept under the carpet or trying to discredit it. No chance of convincing them of anything else

Sin City · 31-08-2012 02:18PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Here's where we differ. I don't see this a purely academic debate where we discuss hypothetical scenarios. I see this as a real world issue.

I understand that , but I feel emotion can bias the decision and therefore not arrive at a truly just outcome for all. if you know what I mean.

Not saying your wrong in your beliefs btw

Sin City · 31-08-2012 02:20PM

doctoremma wrote: »

This might be interesting:

"The only moral abortion is my abortion"
http://mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/anti-tales.html

Ill read it later when I have more time but I get the gist of it

Sin City · 31-08-2012 02:21PM

seamus wrote: »

Mother's choice.
I know of people who've had to make that decision. Some go one way, some go t'other.
My choice, depends on the variables and the type of cancer. Cancer's not simple, remission and survival rates vary.
It's a scenario where a definite answer is impossible to give because it's not a definite scenario.

I know, but the more information I give the more Im told Im moving the goal posts

Lets say the survival rate is 50/50

As in it could come back but it might not

Bannasidhe · 31-08-2012 02:25PM

Sin City wrote: »

I understand that , but I feel emotion can bias the decision and therefore not arrive at a truly just outcome for all. if you know what I mean.

Not saying your wrong in your beliefs btw

Emotions impacting on decisions is a fact of life. Is your instinct to save a 'PP' over an 'AP' (actual person) completely logical or has an emotive instinct played a role in how you feel about abortion?

Daftendirekt · 31-08-2012 02:28PM

dharma200 wrote: »

Why would anyone have an opinion on a completely unrealistic scenario. If the scenario is totally impossible then the opinon is totally pointless imho

To be fair, those kind of thought experiments can be a useful way of seeing how a person's ethics translate into action, or spotting inconsistencies in their position. They can be pretty far-fetched sometimes, but they can also be quite revealing.

Sin City · 31-08-2012 02:31PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Emotions impacting on decisions is a fact of life. Is your instinct to save a 'PP' over an 'AP' (actual person) completely logical or has an emotive instinct played a role in how you feel about abortion?

At the moment factual as I know I wont be in that position to make that call and never have been.
This is not me saying ohhhhhhhh an ickle baby etc

This is just a right to life stand point

Everyone knows the mother has a right to life, I was debating the fetal/baby right to life, more than abortion itself .

Yes emotions are going to play a role in this debate (Look at 90% of the debaters against me are women, some of which have had expierence with abortion so are emotionally involed in the debate,) I am trying to argue logically. Of course others are against me and arguing a bit too logically for my likeing (Not looking at any one dr Em)

Bannasidhe · 31-08-2012 02:33PM

Sin City wrote: »

I know, but the more information I give the more Im told Im moving the goal posts

Lets say the survival rate is 50/50

As in it could come back but it might not

You were told you were goal post shifting once ya 'ol drama queen.

Sure the goal post are long gone, there's a ghost estate on the playing pitch now.

:pac:

Sin City · 31-08-2012 02:37PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

You were told you were goal post shifting once ya 'ol drama queen.

Sure the goal post are long gone, there's a ghost estate on the playing pitch now.

:pac:

You say move goalposts I say add realism or at least add in more variables:P

Bannasidhe · 31-08-2012 02:44PM

Sin City wrote: »

At the moment factual as I know I wont be in that position to make that call and never have been.
This is not me saying ohhhhhhhh an ickle baby etc

This is just a right to life stand point

Everyone knows the mother has a right to life, I was debating the fetal/baby right to life, more than abortion itself .

Yes emotions are going to play a role in this debate (Look at 90% of the debaters against me are women, some of which have had expierence with abortion so are emotionally involed in the debate,) I am trying to argue logically. Of course others are against me and arguing a bit too logically for my likeing (Not looking at any one dr Em)

I am not convinced that logic does dictate that a PP's potential for life takes precedence over an AP's existing life. I would say that logic would dictate that the person already here has the greater claim to life if it was a straight either/or choice.

I also don't think it is fair to say that the 89% (we are excluding Dr E

) are responding emotively here which you seem to be implying (please correct me if I have misinterpreted you). What most of the women have done is laid out their reasoning.

I certainly don't think when a woman says a woman's right to control her own body is inviolate that statement can be described as emotive. I take that as self-evident and am amazed that people have an issue with that statement.

31-08-2012 02:44PM

Sin City wrote: »

Yes emotions are going to play a role in this debate (Look at 90% of the debaters against me are women

That's not even close to true

Sin City · 31-08-2012 02:46PM

28064212 wrote: »

That's not even close to true

That was tongue in cheek, not a fact backing up my point

Sin City · 31-08-2012 02:48PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I am not convinced that logic does dictate that a PP's potential for life takes precedence over an AP's existing life. I would say that logic would dictate that the person already here has the greater claim to life if it was a straight either/or choice.

I also don't think it is fair to say that the 89% (we are excluding Dr E ) are responding emotively here which you seem to be implying (please correct me if I have misinterpreted you). What most of the women have done is laid out their reasoning.

I certainly don't think when a woman says a woman's right to control her own body is inviolate that statement can be described as emotive. I take that as self-evident and am amazed that people have an issue with that statement.

Sorry I re read my post and for the women debaters I meant to put a smiley in afterwards . Logic I used the word loosely what I meant was just not living emotion factor and by that did I mean that all other points argued were not as valid as mine in any way.

christmas2012 · 31-08-2012 02:50PM

I think the fact a lot of abortion advertisers like to confuse abortion,ie the termination of a life with civil rights is abominable - its a tool used for emotive value and to manipulate a womans mind to think abortion is synonymous with rights and bodily integrity.When you get pregnant its not just your life you are sharing your body with another being,this is why i think foetal integrity should not be overlooked because abortion advetisers like to confuse rights with abortion..

Abortion is not something to take on lightly,to a lot of people its STILL just a word,an academic debate,and is very 2 dimensional,as they havent experienced the realness and horror and pain of abortion.The risk of infection etc..The fact that there is no aftercare,you are on a plane back home and if the gp is off hours you have to wait until the morning and join the queue,my friend who got an infection had to wait another couple of days for the antibiotics as the chemists in ireland didnt even have them stocked..

Each story of abortion has its own story - and there not positive experiences,those who say they are havent got a clue.

doctoremma · 31-08-2012 02:55PM

christmas2012 wrote: »

Abortion is not something to take on lightly,to a lot of people its STILL just a word,an academic debate,and is very 2 dimensional,as they havent experienced the realness and horror and pain of abortion....
Each story of abortion has its own story - and there not positive experiences,those who say they are havent got a clue.

Christmas, is it your position that one cannot have a meaningful opinion until one has experienced an abortion?

Improbable · 31-08-2012 02:56PM

christmas2012 wrote: »

I think the fact a lot of abortion advertisers like to confuse abortion,ie the termination of a life with civil rights is abominable - its a tool used for emotive value and to manipulate a womans mind to think abortion is synonymous with rights and bodily integrity.When you get pregnant its not just your life you are sharing your body with another being,this is why i think foetal integrity should not be overlooked because abortion advetisers like to confuse rights with abortion..

Abortion is not something to take on lightly,to a lot of people its STILL just a word,an academic debate,and is very 2 dimensional,as they havent experienced the realness and horror and pain of abortion.The risk of infection etc..The fact that there is no aftercare,you are on a plane back home and if the gp is off hours you have to wait until the morning and join the queue,my friend who got an infection had to wait another couple of days for the antibiotics as the chemists in ireland didnt even have them stocked..

Each story of abortion has its own story - and there not positive experiences,those who say they are havent got a clue.

Presumably excluding those people who do have abortions and feel that it was a positive experience insomuch as it was the lesser of 2 evils.

fatmammycat · 31-08-2012 02:57PM

christmas2012 wrote: »

Each story of abortion has its own story - and there not positive experiences,those who say they are havent got a clue.

You don't get to speak for everyone else or tell them what their experiences are.

christmas2012 · 31-08-2012 02:59PM

fatmammycat im not SPEAKING for others,im speaking from a place as a witness to the event.. 1. what is so positive about going through a horribly invasive procedure 2. having to wait 3 hours yes 3 hours to get into that abortion room 4. to only get one paracetemol tablet to manage pain in the aftermath of abortion...Tell me again what is so positive about this???????

fatmammycat · 31-08-2012 03:01PM

christmas2012 wrote: »

fatmammycat im not SPEAKING for others,im speaking from a place as a witness to the event.. 1. what is so positive about going through a horribly invasive procedure 2. having to wait 3 hours yes 3 hours to get into that abortion room 4. to only get one paracetemol tablet to manage pain in the aftermath of abortion...Tell me again what is so positive about this???????

That's your friend's experience, it is not the experience of everyone else, as has been pointed out to you again and again on this thread.

Bannasidhe · 31-08-2012 03:01PM

christmas2012 wrote: »

I think the fact a lot of abortion advertisers like to confuse abortion,ie the termination of a life with civil rights is abominable - its a tool used for emotive value and to manipulate a womans mind to think abortion is synonymous with rights and bodily integrity.When you get pregnant its not just your life you are sharing your body with another being,this is why i think foetal integrity should not be overlooked because abortion advetisers like to confuse rights with abortion..

Abortion is not something to take on lightly,to a lot of people its STILL just a word,an academic debate,and is very 2 dimensional,as they havent experienced the realness and horror and pain of abortion.The risk of infection etc..The fact that there is no aftercare,you are on a plane back home and if the gp is off hours you have to wait until the morning and join the queue,my friend who got an infection had to wait another couple of days for the antibiotics as the chemists in ireland didnt even have them stocked..

Each story of abortion has its own story - and there not positive experiences,those who say they are havent got a clue.

christmas, with the greatest of respect going by what you have written it is not something you have experienced either.

Women who have experienced abortions have contradicted you time and time and time again yet you continue to insist that because your friend had a negative experience in a clinic you helped her select that this means all abortions are carried out in the manner you describe. These women, who have lived through the experience first hand, are blue in the face from telling you, who was a bystander in someone else's experience, that YOU don't know what you are talking about.

Most of what you describe is based on what your friend told you, not on what you witnessed yourself.

And yes - a woman's right to exercise control over her own body is very much a civil rights issue.

doctoremma · 31-08-2012 03:02PM

christmas2012 wrote: »

fatmammycat im not SPEAKING for others,im speaking from a place as a witness to the event.. 1. what is so positive about going through a horribly invasive procedure 2. having to wait 3 hours yes 3 hours to get into that abortion room 4. to only get one paracetemol tablet to manage pain in the aftermath of abortion...Tell me again what is so positive about this???????

Christmas, is it your position that one cannot have a meaningful opinion until one has experienced an abortion?

Abortion/ *Note* Thread Closing Shortly! ! !

Comments

Abortion/ Note Thread Closing Shortly! ! !