Abortion

up for anything · 07-09-2012 12:14AM

tomtherobot wrote: »

There's already been pro-abortionists on here trying to tell me that people who masturbate might need grief counseling because of the loss of potential life.

Any chance you could quote those posts please? I've read just about every post in this thread and as far as I remember you are the only one who is trying to equate masturbation or contraception with abortion,

Esoteric_ · 07-09-2012 12:19AM

Dangerous Man wrote: »

Yes - you should read the thread if you're going to contribute to it!

It's not like AH is the same as PI, where you need to read the entire thread to make relevant posts.

I've read as much of the thread as I wanted to read, because parts were getting a bit ranty for my liking.

tomtherobot · 07-09-2012 12:57AM

up for anything wrote: »

Speak for yourself. Lots of people grieve having to use contraception.

Having a ****, as you so eloquently put it, is the loss of potential life but I don't know many who cry about it or dwell on it afterwards, although I am sure there are some who do.

up for anything wrote: »

Any chance you could quote those posts please? I've read just about every post in this thread and as far as I remember you are the only one who is trying to equate masturbation or contraception with abortion,

Your right, i have misquoted you and i apologize. I wasn't intentionally trying to misrepresent your argument it's just tiredness on my behalf. I just got confused because you had acknowledged that masturbation is the potential loss of life, that some people would cry about it and also that the grief from using contraception was comparable to the grief of the death of an unborn child (which i find as ridiculous as the suggestion that people would grieve over masturbating).

Plenty of people here have equated contraception with abortion. Also, the whole masturbation thing isn't central to my argument, it's off topic and making the same point that's been made in several other ways. How can pro-abortionists say that abortion isn't the death of an unborn child and at the same time demand counseling for it?

As yet nobody has given me a valid answer to this. I've heard plenty of arguments trying to justify killing an unborn child but nothing to show me there isn't an inherent contradiction and hypocrisy in pro-abortionists demanding state-funded counseling.

Morag · 07-09-2012 01:03AM

You haven't proven that there is.

tomtherobot · 07-09-2012 01:04AM

Sharrow wrote: »

You haven't proven that there is.

I haven't proven that there is what?

tomtherobot · 07-09-2012 01:11AM

Sharrow wrote: »

You haven't proven that there is.

I haven't proven there is an inherent contradiction and hypocrisy in pro-abortions demanding state funded counseling?

It's inherent, the proof is in the statement.

If i say there is no harm to abusing drugs how can i say that people that abuse drugs should get state funded counseling

There is an inherent contradiction and hypocrisy in saying that. I am fully willing to debate any of the issues around abortion, but still, inherent, in this case, means the proof is in the statement

Turtwig · 07-09-2012 01:26AM

tomtherobot wrote: »

If i say there is no harm to abusing drugs how can i say that people that abuse drugs should get state funded counseling

There is an inherent contradiction and hypocrisy in saying that. I am fully willing to debate any of the issues around abortion, but still, inherent, in this case, means the proof is in the statement

If i say there is no harm to Procrastination (*insert behaviour or action here*) how can i say that people that abusing procrastination (*insert behavioiur or action here*) should get state funded counseling

You just made an inherently contradictory statement.The hint would be in the word "abusing".

tomtherobot · 07-09-2012 01:33AM

Jernal wrote: »

If i say there is no harm to Procrastination (*insert behaviour or action here*) how can i say that people that abusing procrastination (*insert behavioiur or action here*) should get state funded counseling

You just made an inherently contradictory statement.The hint would be in the word "abusing".

I don't really get your point, is it because of the word abusing, I stands without it surely?

If i say there is no harm to using drugs how can i say that people that use drugs should get state funded counseling

If some people argue there is no harm to domestic violence it is inherently contradictory and hypocritical for them to demand state funded counseling for people beaten by their partners

Corkfeen · 07-09-2012 01:56AM

Plenty of prescribed drugs can be beneficial for the user but require counselling as a result of the side effects. A person who gets an abortion may require counselling for numerous reasons. For some it may be regret or guilt but for many others it's as a result of indirect aspects such as the social stigma. Labelling them as murderers and being unfairly judged by family members and friends is going to have an impact on their mental health. So no it does not mean that their actions were in any way immoral.

Edit: Sentence had entirely different meaning previously...

up for anything · 07-09-2012 07:58AM

up for anything wrote: »

Speak for yourself. Lots of people grieve having to use contraception. I did myself until I was in a position to get pregnant. However, I didn't grieve the loss of potential life from the abortion I had years before that. It is possible without being hypocritical to feel opposing feelings at different times of your life.

Having a ****, as you so eloquently put it, is the loss of potential life but I don't know many who cry about it or dwell on it afterwards, although I am sure there are some who do.

tomtherobot wrote: »

Your right, i have misquoted you and i apologize. I wasn't intentionally trying to misrepresent your argument it's just tiredness on my behalf. I just got confused because you had acknowledged that masturbation is the potential loss of life, that some people would cry about it and also that the grief from using contraception was comparable to the grief of the death of an unborn child (which i find as ridiculous as the suggestion that people would grieve over masturbating).

Plenty of people here have equated contraception with abortion. Also, the whole masturbation thing isn't central to my argument, it's off topic and making the same point that's been made in several other ways. How can pro-abortionists say that abortion isn't the death of an unborn child and at the same time demand counseling for it?

As yet nobody has given me a valid answer to this. I've heard plenty of arguments trying to justify killing an unborn child but nothing to show me there isn't an inherent contradiction and hypocrisy in pro-abortionists demanding state-funded counseling.

There is still an element of misrepresentation going on. Nowhere did I say that "the grief from using contraception was comparable to the grief of the death of an unborn child". I did say that many people grieve over having to use contraception which they do. I did not say to what extent or give comparisons.

As for feeling grief and sadness after masturbation - I am sure there are quite a few men out there who are not in a position to have children or have fertility problems who need the physical relief provided by masturbation but once the act is over, rail and cry against the fate which leaves them unable to aid in starting a new life in much the same way a woman who has difficulty in becoming pregnant due to fertility issues or where it simply takes some time cries bitter tears when she finds that first spot of blood on her knickers which heralds her period arriving.

I will however say that I know someone who falls apart each month when her period arrives and that I know someone else who went to pieces when she miscarried at 14 weeks. Their sadness and sense of loss at these events is not measurable, quantifiable or comparable. It just is.

You are probably never going to get the valid answer you require because what one person sees as a valid answer is another person's straw horse.

lugha · 07-09-2012 08:27AM

tomtherobot wrote: »

As yet nobody has given me a valid answer to this. I've heard plenty of arguments trying to justify killing an unborn child but nothing to show me there isn't an inherent contradiction and hypocrisy in pro-abortionists demanding state-funded counseling.

I would agree that your question (if abortion is a routine procedure why the need for counselling) has not been satisfactorily answered. Presumably your inferred argument is that pro-choicers know full well that abortion IS very different? In which case you should be accusing them of being disingenuous rather than hypocritical.

But that works both ways. You said earlier that a rape victim should not be forced to give birth to an unwanted child, a position taken by what might be called the moderate pro-lifers. But does this not belie their assertion that a foetus is a human being, every bit at much as a post-birth child is? How can you justify the killing of an innocent human being, no matter what the circumstances might be?

I would suggest that to argue that a foetus equates to a human being is as disingenuous as arguing that a foetus is “a bunch of cells”. For most of us, and despite what we publicly argue, this is rather a grey area, and few really do take one extreme view or the other.

tomtherobot wrote: »

That's one reason why i don't use the term pro-choice.

As to the meaning of pro-abortion V pro-choice, well of course, anyone can decide for themselves how they might interpret and assign such labels. For me, pro-abortion means that you would personally be prepared to make the decision to avail of an abortion where as pro-choice simply means that you allow others to make such a decision, even if you yourself would not.

I would be pro-choice in this sense though I am finding it increasingly difficult to personally justify abortion. And for me, there is something rather unsatisfactory about this stance, quite a popular one amongst pro-choicers I think.

Is there any other situation where some, possibly a majority, would vehemently assert something to be unethical or morally wrong but be content not to have this view enshrined in the laws of society?

There isn’t even a consistency in the realm of conception / pregnancy. I don’t think many pro-choicers would demand that couples who go the IVF route should only be bound by their own personal ethics. And similarly with surrogacy.

Thus we (pro-choicers) will afford people the freedom to personally decide on the ethics, but only on the singular, isolated question of abortion. On all other grave matters, you must be bound by societal rules. Surely this anomaly is a testament to our capacity for rationalisation? (This of course be is a question for someone on the other side of the fence)

gozunda · 07-09-2012 08:43AM

I believe that this issue has been fully dealt with previously in the epic movie - The Meaning of Life....

Remember every sperm is sacred!

And our preconceptions ( ironic I know!) are a huge left over from the catholic morality that was forcefed to us for the last thousand years ( but especially in the Dev epoch)

Pregnancy (& staying away from the at best ambigous "baby or "unborn child) can either terminate naturally or by artificial means. Every sperm is not sacred and not every pregnancy will be necessarily carried to term. Religous bias on reproduction previously saw miscarried fetuses thrown into communal pits as the church did not see them as a full "person"- so called angel plots without any identification of the remains interned there. Now the same bunch are jumping up and down and insisting everything is sacred....give me a break.

I believe that people must make choices sometimes - responsible choices. Raming doctrine down an individuals neck will not help.

Zulu · 07-09-2012 09:24AM

Millicent wrote: »

Well I'm very sorry you feel sorry for me. I'm more concerned about people who have been born that those who haven't. I must be a tyrant. :rolleyes:

Apologies, I misread your post. I took it to mean that these children would prefer to be dead, I see now that you were simply saying that they regret the resentment they faced from their parents. (Is that correct?) Eitherways, it's not really answering the question I asked: would they prefer to be dead? Which by-and-large, I think most people would say no.
I guess conclusive proof to the contrary would be high rates of suicides in "surprise" children.

lugha wrote: »

I would agree that your question (if abortion is a routine procedure why the need for counselling) has not been satisfactorily answered. Presumably your inferred argument is that pro-choicers know full well that abortion IS very different? In which case you should be accusing them of being disingenuous rather than hypocritical.

Indeed, it's disingenuous to suggest it's equivalent to removing an appendix or such.

How can you justify the killing of an innocent human being, no matter what the circumstances might be?

I don't think you can tbh.

I would suggest that to argue that a foetus equates to a human being is as disingenuous as arguing that a foetus is “a bunch of cells”.

Indeed, it is disingenuous semantics. A foetus is a human alright, by definition. It's also a child, by definition. The question raised is whether it should be given human rights (or perhaps wheither by "law" it should be considered a human being).

I would be pro-choice in this sense though I am finding it increasingly difficult to personally justify abortion. And for me, there is something rather unsatisfactory about this stance, quite a popular one amongst pro-choicers I think.

Pro-choice is a fallacy. It only concerns itself with the choice of the mother. It's not pro the choice of the father. It's not pro the choice of the child.

Morag · 07-09-2012 09:33AM

People who have heart surgery get counseling as do those who develop a range of conditions.

So if someone becomes diabetic due to their life choices should their counselor not be funded by tax payers?

gozunda · 07-09-2012 09:42AM

Zulu wrote: »

...pro-choice is a fallacy. It only concerns itself with the choice of the mother. It's not pro the choice of the father. It's not pro the choice of the child.

Well we can't be having that then...I mean she is only a woman after all and even though is legally responsible for the child in the first degree can't be expected to be able to make any decision that will effect her. I know let's ask the fetus / collection of cells or how about we have a referendum. - no? Didn't we already have a couple of them - yes that's right and last time I checked abortion still wasn't legal here SO what the hell are we discussing this bizarre proposition for - its not like we are actually dealing with any of the underlying issues...

Khannie · 07-09-2012 09:58AM

lugha wrote: »

Is there any other situation where some, possibly a majority, would vehemently assert something to be unethical or morally wrong but be content not to have this view enshrined in the laws of society?

This is something that also puzzles me. "Oh, I think it's morally wrong myself, but I think people should be allowed do it". Why? Murder is morally wrong so we don't allow people to choose to do it. Stealing is wrong so we don't allow people to do it, even if they want to. I don't see this as any different. You think it's morally wrong? Enshrine it in law.

The other one I see bandied about is "it's my body", well....it's that childs body too. You'd consider it murder at 8 months...why allow it before then? At what magical second does it cease being reasonable to kill the child?

OldNotWIse · 07-09-2012 10:00AM

Stark wrote: »

Which is the only scenario that the legislation being drawn up will deal with. Anything more is expressly forbidden by the Constitution. It's only the nut cases who would prefer the mother to die in a threat to life scenario or be sent to England where she'll be "out of sight, out of mind" who have anything to worry about.

Oh come off it, thin edge of the wedge anyone? Do you really think they will stop at that?

07-09-2012 10:09AM

Khannie wrote: »

I don't see this as any different. You think it's morally wrong? Enshrine it in law.

That would assume that there should be a one to one mapping between morality and law. I do not really think there should be. For example many would argue that it is morally wrong to lie. I do not see many people suggesting we make lying generally illegal though, except of course in situations like a court room.

There should be a divide between personal morality and society morality too. I might decide that something is precluded me by my personal morality but also recognise I see no reason to force that morality onto others.

I think abortion should be one of those things myself. If a persons personal morality tells them not to consider having an abortion then by all means that person should not have an abortion. If however they want to enshrine that in law or dictate to others that THEY should not have an abortion then I want to hear their moral, legal and philisophical arguments for that position. Alas this does not really seem to be forthcoming from the people I have engaged with on the subject.

Stark · 07-09-2012 10:29AM

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Oh come off it, thin edge of the wedge anyone? Do you really think they will stop at that?

And how do you propose they're going to get round the Constitution? And what's your rationale for not legislating for the X-case?

Khannie · 07-09-2012 10:30AM

Deleted User wrote: »

That would assume that there should be a one to one mapping between morality and law. I do not really think there should be. For example many would argue that it is morally wrong to lie. I do not see many people suggesting we make lying generally illegal though, except of course in situations like a court room.

It's exactly the same thing. Personal morality dictates that lying is wrong, but so minor that it's generally irrelevant (except in some circumstances as you point out). So the morality here is that it shouldn't be punished under law (and therefore it's not).

Deleted User wrote: »

There should be a divide between personal morality and society morality too. I might decide that something is precluded me by my personal morality but also recognise I see no reason to force that morality onto others.

The only divide between personal morality and societal morality is majority or not. Of course you force your morality on other people all the time. You would happily keep some things illegal that others would like to do. The death penalty for example. Some people who have been the subject of a horrendous crime (having a loved one murdered for example) might feel that the death penalty is a great idea. You probably disagree. We all voted on it. No death penalty. Personal morality on a grand scale -> societal morality. That's how a democracy works. Majority don't feel that telling a lie warrants being enshrined in law? it doesn't happen. Majority feel that it's OK to drink alcohol? it happens. Majority don't feel that abortion's good for society? no abortion. Majority feel that it is? abortion.

I don't see why abortion should be given the free ride of "well, I don't agree with it, and I'll enforce my morality everywhere else, but not in this case".

Deleted User wrote: »

If however they want to enshrine that in law or dictate to others that THEY should not have an abortion then I want to hear their moral, legal and philisophical arguments for that position. Alas this does not really seem to be forthcoming from the people I have engaged with on the subject.

It's incredibly simple. I think it's killing a child. To me it's morally wrong on a fairly serious level. I Therefore it should be legislated for.

Other things that I think are wrong that should be legislated for: <insert more or less the entire statute books here>.

gozunda · 07-09-2012 10:30AM

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Stark wrote: »

Which is the only scenario that the legislation being drawn up will deal with. Anything more is expressly forbidden by the Constitution. It's only the nut cases who would prefer the mother to die in a threat to life scenario or be sent to England where she'll be "out of sight, out of mind" who have anything to worry about.

Oh come off it, thin edge of the wedge anyone? Do you really think they will stop at that?

Are you saying that legislation is the thin edge ? Don't quite get your meaning...

Khannie · 07-09-2012 10:31AM

Stark wrote: »

And how do you propose they're going to get round the Constitution? And what's your rationale for not legislating for the X-case?

I think we should alter the constitution or legislate for X personally.

Zulu · 07-09-2012 10:35AM

gozunda wrote: »

Well we can't be having that then...I mean she is only a woman after all...

I don't understand, what's wrong with a woman?

I find it interesting that you'd choose to play the "sexist" card while completely dismissing the father. I guess men don't count, except when they are used to represent the "she is only a woman after all" attitude. Frankly this speaks volumes about your own prejudices.

I know let's ask the fetus / collection of cells ...

Is there a case, at all, where a living person who can not speak for themselves is assumed to want to die by the state? AFAIK, the state tends to take the position that life is to be protected, and for good reason.

Zulu · 07-09-2012 10:43AM

Khannie wrote: »

It's exactly the same thing.

It's incredibly simple. I think it's killing a child. To me it's morally wrong on a fairly serious level. I Therefore it should be legislated for.

Other things that I think are wrong that should be legislated for: <insert more or less the entire statute books here>.

Indeed. I can't understand how someone can take the position: well I don't agree with it, but it's not my choice!

Frankly it's your civic duty to stand against what you believe is wrong. It's your democratic responsibility as a member of a society to vote for what you believe.

I see it as killing defenseless people at a lower stage of development. I wouldn't like the execution of adolescents, or pre-adolescents children, nor children, or toddlers, or infants, or babies would are born premature, or those about to be born. So I can't justify killing those 4 weeks before birth, or 8 weeks, or 16 weeks. I err on the side of caution (considering a life is at stake).

daisybelle2008 · 07-09-2012 10:52AM

Dangerous Man wrote: »

This debate has nothing to do with religion. I'm an atheist and am pro-life. If my beliefs run in accord with what some religious institutes preach / believe - it's not because I believe in that religion or some god / deity. Forget about religion - focusing on it won't get you anywhere.

My point is about imposing your beliefs on other people (religious or not).
The poster said that pro-choice people, if they believe abortion was the just removal of a ‘bunch of lifeless cells’, should have 'courage of your convictions' and they have a duty to tell people grieving over a miscarriage that they haven't lost a child just a 'life form' it's ok to kill.

I was pointing out how ridiculous his argument was by putting it in the context of another belief that happened to be religious.

I believe it is social conditioning that makes us ‘greive’. I don’t believe grieving is ‘right or wrong’. Some cultures celebrate death as it is passage into eternal bliss. Personally abortion or miscarriage and in most cases death would not be a grieving matter for me. But I respect people feel that. It does not make me cold and heartless that I do not feel ‘sad’ over death. I cannot create an emotion I don’t feel to satisfy other people or societies sensibilities. It is inevitable and grieving or celebrating it makes no sense to me. But I would not dream of imposing that belief on other people the way tomtherobot suggests it’s ‘my duty’.

Khannie · 07-09-2012 10:53AM

Zulu wrote: »

I wouldn't like the execution of adolescents, or pre-adolescents children, nor children, or toddlers, or infants, or babies would are born premature, or those about to be born. So I can't justify killing those 4 weeks before birth, or 8 weeks, or 16 weeks.

That more or less sums up my position too. I asked myself "Is it ok as the baby's just about to pop?" Obviously not. "What about a day before that? Definitely not either. Then I just kept repeating that "one day earlier?" thing over and over and the final conclusion for me was....well it just seems like a bad idea basically. I find it hard to reconcile this with thinking that the MAP is grand for example when I get down to the nitty gritty of it all. Certainly I think someone who has been raped should be given the MAP for example. I think the hard core pro-lifers might disagree with that though. I'm not generally hard core anything.

Khannie · 07-09-2012 10:57AM

daisybelle2008 wrote: »

I believe it is social conditioning that makes us ‘greive’.

Disagree. I don't think my 2.5 year old has been socially conditioned to grieve for example, but if I died she would definitely grieve. On a recent work trip I have seen how my absence for a prolonged period affected her. I think grief is built into humans. You don't grieve? Grand of course. I think it's unusual though and nothing to do with conditioning (else you would be subject to the same conditioning).

Zulu · 07-09-2012 11:00AM

Khannie wrote: »

I find it hard to reconcile this with thinking that the MAP is grand for example when I get down to the nitty gritty of it all.

I don't really. The MAP is taken at a point in time before the egg implants itself in the uterus. AFAIK, there's arguably a greater chance of the egg not taking than taking, so I'm happy enough at that point.

Gurgle · 07-09-2012 11:26AM

Khannie wrote: »

I find it hard to reconcile this with thinking that the MAP is grand for example when I get down to the nitty gritty of it all.

I think there's a lot of misinformation knocking around on the morning after pill. The hard-core conservative Catholics are to blame, the ones who object to every form of contraception including condoms.

It is categorically NOT an abortion pill. It prevents fertilization if taken in time and does nothing if fertilization has already happened.

wikipedia entry

Emergency contraceptive pills (ECPs) are not to be confused with mifepristone (RU486, Mifeprex), which is used as an "abortion pill". The term "emergency contraceptive pill" does not refer to mifespristone, which is most commonly used in 200- or 600-mg doses as an abortifacient.

Khannie · 07-09-2012 11:36AM

Nice one. Well that clears that up. I had actually thought it might have had an effect on a fertilised egg so that is good to know. Pretty sure that perception came from an abortion discussion in tLL many moons ago, which prompted me to swear that I would never engage in another abortion discussion ever again in the history of the universe. This one has been fairly pleasant all round though.

Abortion

Comments