Abortion debate thread

PDN · 28-11-2012 06:27PM

Obliq wrote: »

You're welcome. The rolleyes was really to indicate that I don't believe it will clarify my stance at all, with PDN in any case!

Well, it hasn't, because your post is utterly confusing. I'm not sure if you have a problem with using the quote function - but I really can't make head or tail of which views belong to whom. Some of it seems to be bits and pieces posted from another Forum.

Sorry, not trying to be awkward here - but I would think a discussion would work better if we politely answered each other's questions. Unfortunately the subject seems to be too emotional for that to happen without accusations getting flung around the place.

I'd still like to know what makes it more OK to kill an unborn person than to kill a recently born person. Your previous answers seemed to point to their weakness and dependency (being unable to survive outside the womb) but that seemed to cause a firestorm when I mentioned it. So, if that's not the issue, then what is?

if one is not religious, then one cannot consider it sacred actually

Actually, you can. Without wanting to get into a bunch of semantics, the word 'sacred' simply means 'consecrated or 'set apart'. It can be used in a religious sense, or also in a secular sense to denote that something is highly valued or devoted to a specific purpose.

If someone says they view human life as sacred, then that need not carry any religious connotations at all. It simply means that human life is special, and should not be treated lightly or taken away except in the most extreme and unusual circumstances.

Obliq · 28-11-2012 07:19PM

PDN wrote: »

Well, it hasn't, because your post is utterly confusing.

I'm not sure if you have a problem with using the quote function

Yeah, a bit tbh

- but I really can't make head or tail of which views belong to whom. Some of it seems to be bits and pieces posted from another Forum.

Yes. That, I made quite clear at the beginning.

Sorry, not trying to be awkward here - but I would think a discussion would work better if we politely answered each other's questions. Unfortunately the subject seems to be too emotional for that to happen without accusations getting flung around the place.

When you stick to your own recommendations to be respectful, I shall follow, as I am doing now. I was doing that, but became fed up with the obfuscation, so tried a little obfuscating for myself. Liked it?

I'd still like to know what makes it more OK to kill an unborn person than to kill a recently born person. Your previous answers seemed to point to their weakness and dependency (being unable to survive outside the womb) but that seemed to cause a firestorm when I mentioned it. So, if that's not the issue, then what is?

This is the only question you've asked here that's worth answering. I have answered it before (somewhere), and my opinion goes a little like this: Before 12 weeks approx, the human embryo is no more complex than the typical mammal embryo. If we don't place humans on such an almighty pedestal (pun intended), there is no difference whatsoever in killing one or the other before this point.

As we (humans) become more attached to unborn humans the nearer to term they get, there is much more difficulty in feeling it's ok, especially if pain can be felt by the unborn during their death (although we allow for a few moments of pain when killing animals for food - just throwing that into the moral equation for your impressions on it?). However, as we can go on to produce more humans, and we can eliminate the pain during death, I don't see the big problem up to the point of independent viability outside the womb.

I have stated before that I have a moral problem with abortions of healthy fetuses over the age where they could survive outside the womb independently, but in cases of severe fetal abnormalities, I consider it would be a kindness sometimes. My moral take on whether it is right to kill a healthy fetus of this age is based on the fact that if a pregnant woman gets that far into an unwanted pregnancy, and then wants to abort, she clearly has some serious problems and should be cared for by the relevant authorities. I support time limits of 24 weeks in cases where the fetus is healthy.

Btw, the firestorm was all your own making.

Actually, you can. Without wanting to get into a bunch of semantics, the word 'sacred' simply means 'consecrated or 'set apart'. It can be used in a religious sense, or also in a secular sense to denote that something is highly valued or devoted to a specific purpose.

If someone says they view human life as sacred, then that need not carry any religious connotations at all. It simply means that human life is special, and should not be treated lightly or taken away except in the most extreme and unusual circumstances.

In the secular sense, human life is special because we humans have made it so. When we set it apart from other animals, it is because we recognise humanity in each other and hold it more important than other life. I do that too, because I identify with humans. Obviously.

Wikipedia: sa·cred/ˈsākrid/
Adjective:
Connected with God (or the gods) or dedicated to a religious purpose and so deserving veneration: "sacred rites".
Religious rather than secular.

Webster:Definition of SACRED

1
a : dedicated or set apart for the service or worship of a deity <a tree sacred to the gods>
b : devoted exclusively to one service or use (as of a person or purpose) <a fund sacred to charity>
2
a : worthy of religious veneration : holy
b : entitled to reverence and respect
3
: of or relating to religion : not secular or profane <sacred music>
4
archaic : accursed
5
a : unassailable, inviolable
b : highly valued and important <a sacred responsibility>
— sa·cred·ly adverb
— sa·cred·ness noun

Ok, I stand corrected. In Webster's - definition 2 b) and 5 a) & b), fair enough - I take your point. To be quite clear though, the secular stance on sacredness (which most commonly has a religious connotation) comes directly from the value WE place on life, not as directed from a god.

YoungIreland · 28-11-2012 07:30PM

Firstly, I'd like to say that my sincerest sympathies are with Savita's family at this very difficult time. In my opinion, I believe that the in-fighting among pro-lifers has contributed to the position that we are in today. How can we reason with the pro-choice lobby if we can't get our own house in order. With that in mind, I have a couple of proposals as to how we can fix this. Feedback is more than welcome and you can submit your own proposals if you want.

http://tellingitasitisirl.blogspot.ie/2012/11/reshaping-irish-pro-life-movement.html

Irishchick · 28-11-2012 07:49PM

Before 12 weeks approx, the human embryo is no more complex than the typical mammal embryo.

How is it not complex? It is fully formed. Not a mere bunch of cells

Obliq · 28-11-2012 08:07PM

Irishchick wrote: »

How is it not complex? It is fully formed. Not a mere bunch of cells

Probably should have said 10 weeks, as that is where embryonic development ends and the fetal development begins. Dr. Emma??? In da house?

Well, I never said a bunch of cells, so no putting words in my mouth please. And even at 12 weeks, as I said, it's no more complex than any other mammal embryo of a related stage. It's between 1 and 3 inches long btw. Ever seen a newborn rabbit pup? Nearly exactly the same size and look!

georgieporgy · 29-11-2012 12:48AM

Irishchick wrote: »

How is it not complex? It is fully formed. Not a mere bunch of cells

cute little rabbit, almost like a potential human.

Lingua Franca · 29-11-2012 09:58AM

That's a very nice drawing. An artist's imagining, for sure.

Got a photo? I have. http://babydickey.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/12_Week_Fetus.jpeg Hrm, the drawing looks a lot more fully formed, how odd.

doctoremma · 29-11-2012 11:02AM

A couple of notes (on phone so won't quote):
1. A 10-12 week embryo is not 'fully-formed'. After all, if it were fully-formed, 10 week miscarriages wouldn't happen and women would be giving birth at this point. The embryonic body plan is almost complete (you can see a head, eyes, limbs etc), but the differentiation of individual parts is incomplete (and in some cases, hasn't even begun). For example, at this stage, the embryo's heart is pretty much finalised but brain differentiation is only just starting. Of course, I recognise the emotion of the statement (the embryo has a face, and that's a very emotive part of physiology) but it's a statement that is misrepresentative at best, sheer propaganda at worst.
2. Embryonic .v. fetal period defines the boundaries between specification and differentiation, in very broad terms. To go back to my house analogy, the walls are built, the rooms defined and now it's time to start putting furniture in each. It's not quite an arbitrary threshold to apply but, in my opinion, it's not a threshold that has significance in this debate.

doctoremma · 29-11-2012 01:02PM

Obliq wrote: »

This is the only question you've asked here that's worth answering. I have answered it before (somewhere), and my opinion goes a little like this: Before 12 weeks approx, the human embryo is no more complex than the typical mammal embryo. If we don't place humans on such an almighty pedestal (pun intended), there is no difference whatsoever in killing one or the other before this point.

I think it's quite natural, even a biological imperative, for humans to think that other humans are more special than (most) other animals. I definitely think it (with the caveat that my thinking gets a little woolly when I consider kinship with other primates). That's not to say I think we are more special in absolute terms, but we are more special to each other in a group. I suspect speciesism is innate; it's almost certainly an evolutionary advantage for a cooperative species. Therefore. I'm not sure you'll get much joy from comparing the killing of a human being to the killing of a rabbit, no matter how early in development. If some implausible scenario came to pass, most humans would willingly stomp on a rabbit's head to save another human. A lion would willingly chow down on you to save another lion. And if it were remotely plausible, I have to suspect that a rabbit would kill a human to protect it's babies (although rabbits aren't prey species so it gets a bit weird there).

Obliq wrote: »

In the secular sense, human life is special because we humans have made it so. When we set it apart from other animals, it is because we recognise humanity in each other and hold it more important than other life. I do that too, because I identify with humans. Obviously.

And from ^^^, we are obviously in agreement. So given that we are discussing an issue which isn't limited to the biological, but includes discussions of what humanity/personhood/etc mean, I'm not convinced that appealing to strict biology in a "we're all animals and we happily eat rabbits so why do we care so much about human babies?" sense will be fruitful.

Obliq · 29-11-2012 01:33PM

doctoremma wrote: »

I think it's quite natural, even a biological imperative, for humans to think that other humans are more special than (most) other animals. I definitely think it (with the caveat that my thinking gets a little woolly when I consider kinship with other primates). That's not to say I think we are more special in absolute terms, but we are more special to each other in a group. I suspect speciesism is innate; it's almost certainly an evolutionary advantage for a cooperative species. Therefore. I'm not sure you'll get much joy from comparing the killing of a human being to the killing of a rabbit, no matter how early in development. If some implausible scenario came to pass, most humans would willingly stomp on a rabbit's head to save another human. A lion would willingly chow down on you to save another lion. And if it were remotely plausible, I have to suspect that a rabbit would kill a human to protect it's babies (although rabbits aren't prey species so it gets a bit weird there).

Thanks for that. Yes, I completely agree with you - and wasn't at all expecting to get either much joy or agreement from comparing killing other animals to us. I was using that analogy really to explain that as we humans readily find it morally ok (in the main) to kill animals for food, that it's a purely emotional response (in secular terms anyway) to have such a hugely hysterical reaction to the killing of an unborn human through abortion.

Many people seem to be able to moralise for the killing of born humans through siding with any particular side in a religious war, for example. I would find that extremely difficult, as I identify with the hugely important human experience of that person "killed in the name of (insert God of choice)" and their family/social group's emotional reaction to that.

I find it much less difficult to moralise for the death of an embryo in an unwanted pregnancy situation - in fact, I have as little/as much difficulty with that as I do with killing a chicken by my own hand (and I find that very hard actually, as it is a product of my own selfish human desire to eat meat).

And from ^^^, we are obviously in agreement. So given that we are discussing an issue which isn't limited to the biological, but includes discussions of what humanity/personhood/etc mean, I'm not convinced that appealing to strict biology in a "we're all animals and we happily eat rabbits so why do we care so much about human babies?" sense will be fruitful.

I'm giving it a go to point out a certain level of hypocrisy in people's moral reasoning. While I accept that the emotional response to killing an unborn person quite often stems from the notion of "personhood" of a tiny embryo, it is more akin to anthropomorphising animals than the notion of "personhood" is in the born human where a personality has actually developed.

I don't think for a minute it'll be fruitful either, but "The unexamined life is not worth living for a human being"

No harm in presenting a different view to a situation I think a lot of people are completely over reacting to.

Fanny Cradock · 29-11-2012 02:17PM

Obliq wrote: »

I'm giving it a go to point out a certain level of hypocrisy in people's moral reasoning. While I accept that the emotional response to killing an unborn person quite often stems from the notion of "personhood" of a tiny embryo, it is more akin to anthropomorphising animals than the notion of "personhood" is in the born human where a personality has actually developed.

How do you anthropomorphize (not sure if that's a real word) a person? I'm confused by the distinction you appear to be drawing between a person and pershonhood. All people have personhood because personhood is a function of being a person.

If you want to deny that the foetus is a person (specifically a person in the foetal stage of life) then that is fine. Indeed, from your copy/ paste response to me that seems to be the position you take. However, your above post seems to say otherwise. But perhaps you can clarify this for me? I think that this is exactly what PDN was having trouble with as well.

BTW, it isn't obvious that the only standard we have to judge personhood is personality.

To help me understand perhaps your position a little better perhaps you could explain to me what you think personhood is, who or what has this property and when it can be said to begin.

Obliq · 29-11-2012 02:48PM

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

How do you anthropomorphize (not sure if that's a real word) a person? I'm confused by the distinction you appear to be drawing between a person and pershonhood. All people have personhood because personhood is a function of being a person.

I said that conferring personhood to an embryo was akin to anthropomorphising animals. We're bringing our own personal experience of emotions and life to bear on a being that hasn't any capability to understand them, when we do that. It's an emotional reaction to potential, rather than the reality. Realistically, an embryo has less understanding or individual characteristics than a newborn chicken.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/personhood
per·son·hood (pûrsn-hd)
n.
The state or condition of being a person, especially having those qualities that confer distinct individuality

If you want to deny that the foetus is a person (specifically a person in the foetal stage of life) then that is fine. Indeed, from your copy/ paste response to me that seems to be the position you take. However, your above post seems to say otherwise. But perhaps you can clarify this for me? I think that this is exactly what PDN was having trouble with as well.

BTW, it isn't obvious that the only standard we have to judge personhood is personality.

To help me understand perhaps your position a little better perhaps you could explain to me what you think personhood is, who or what has this property and when it can be said to begin.

I don't deny that the fetus is human, but I can't attribute any personal qualities to it, as per the definition I included above. If I did, I would be doing the same as the artist who gave a 12 week old fetus an expression on it's face (in recent post).

Personhood develops with experience of life. It's not a good basis for moralising about killing an unborn human.

I don't understand your line in bold?

Fanny Cradock · 29-11-2012 03:16PM

Obliq wrote: »

I said that conferring personhood to an embryo was akin to anthropomorphising animals. We're bringing our own personal experience of emotions and life to bear on a being that hasn't any capability to understand them, when we do that. It's an emotional reaction to potential, rather than the reality. Realistically, an embryo has less understanding or individual characteristics than a newborn chicken.

OK, so you said akin.

What I'm still confused about is whether you believe that an embryo is a person or not. From the below quote I thought you were categorically stating as much.

While I accept that the emotional response to killing an unborn person quite often stems from the notion of "personhood" of a tiny embryo, it is more akin to anthropomorphising animals than the notion of "personhood" is in the born human where a personality has actually developed.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/personhood
per·son·hood (pûrsn-hd)
n.
The state or condition of being a person, especially having those qualities that confer distinct individuality

I don't deny that the fetus is human, but I can't attribute any personal qualities to it, as per the definition I included above.

OK, so it appears as if you are now saying that a human foetus is not a person. Do you see why I am getting confused? Anyway, the definition of personhood you gave is so nebulous that it could be applied to a human foetus quite easily.

Personhood develops with experience of life. It's not a good basis for moralising about killing an unborn human.

So are you saying that a one year old baby is less of a person than an eighty year old by virtue of their levels of experience? What about someone who has has lived a cloistered life? Is their personhood quantitatively less than somebody who has done it all (relatively speaking, of course)?

I don't understand your line in bold?

You said "the notion of "personhood" is in the born human where a personality has actually developed". I don't accept that personhood is a simply a function of personality nor do I see any reason to accept such a claim. Beside, I'm not sure how you would determine if a personality had "developed". In fact, I don't think that there is much evidence of personality on display in a newborn.

But perhaps we are using the word "personality" in different ways.

georgieporgy · 29-11-2012 03:29PM

Obliq wrote: »

That is distinct from a woman with an unviable pregnancy, where the decision to abort (when the baby was wanted) must be much more traumatic, and in my opinion, a particularly ethical stance where the baby may suffer much more through birth and/or the following days of life than a pain-free death through abortion. (I have listed any number of reasons where a woman might be in immense distress over an unwanted pregnancy, but I omitted previously to mention abortions that are needed by women carrying unviable fetuses/babies. I make the distinction here between fetuses and babies, as some fetuses die in the womb whereas, in cases of fatal abnormalities, the born baby in this case might live for a few dreadful days, etc.)

OH! you mean abortion is pain free for the baby? (potential baby/whatever)

Obliq · 29-11-2012 03:32PM

I just don't see that the weight of the term "personhood" can be brought to bear on an unborn "person" (if you like) that has no more "personality" than a chicken. It shouldn't really come down to semantics, and what we mean by person, human, embryo, fetus, baby. It really comes down to the emotional investment we individually give to a tiny unknowing entity that may or may not (given the chance) develop into an autonomous entity.

When that tiny unknowing entity in me was developing (on both occasions) I invested an emotional attachment because I wanted a baby. If I hadn't wanted a baby, there's nothing intrinsically WRONG in feeling it isn't of enough value to invest in emotionally. Realistically, there were a million individuals that could have been (at the moment of conception) and there are millions more potential individuals that could happen at a later date, had I had an abortion.

I don't understand the emotionally loaded guns that are fired all the time at the notion of doing away with a fetus that is not wanted.

Obliq · 29-11-2012 03:36PM

georgieporgy wrote: »

OH! you mean abortion is pain free for the baby? (potential baby/whatever)

Well it should be. That, I am very certain of. And before you throw a bunch of examples at me where it may not have been, I will categorically state here and now, that if there is ever abortion in Ireland, I would fight tooth and nail for the same respect for a living thing being put down as is afforded to our family pets, (at the stage of where a fetus can feel pain of course) - so don't jump on your high-horse, I'm not a monster.

doctoremma · 29-11-2012 05:00PM

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

You said "the notion of "personhood" is in the born human where a personality has actually developed". I don't accept that personhood is a simply a function of personality nor do I see any reason to accept such a claim. Beside, I'm not sure how you would determine if a personality had "developed". In fact, I don't think that there is much evidence of personality on display in a newborn.

I find it sometimes difficult to convey what I personally mean by "personhood" and usually end up going for four or five different words, separated by /s. So something like consciousness/subjective experience/awareness/etc and hope that the person I'm talking to "gets it".

However, I have no difficulty stating that, however mixed up my definition of personhood can be, nothing I ascribe as part of the personhood definition can be achieved without cognitive function, without a brain. Where there's a brain, there's a chance of cognitive function. In my opinion, only then there's the possibility of personhood.

So, who or what creatures don't have personhood, by my definition? To be honest, I probably err on the side of caution here. The only humans I'd be sure of not applying my definition of personhood to are those who have no brain i.e. foetuses before certain stages. (Or, I guess, a victim of some bizarre accident that is left alive yet brainless). Where there's a brain, no matter how poorly we can assess its function or how poorly the person can communicate its function, they have personhood (by my definition) and should have the appropriate spectrum of rights available to them.

I don't advocate the killing of newborns or the mentally-handicapped. I am fiercely anti-capital punishment. I am pro-person.

Aiel · 29-11-2012 05:20PM

For yer consideration,appologies if its been posted already,a short little Pro Life film:

http://www.180movie.com/

fatmammycat · 29-11-2012 06:19PM

180, produced by Ray 'the banana, ergo' God Comfort? Oh this should be good. And by good I mean truly terrible.

Morbert · 29-11-2012 11:27PM

georgieporgy wrote: »

OH! you mean abortion is pain free for the baby? (potential baby/whatever)

Not only is it pain free, there is not even the presence of a cognitive entity that has the potential to feel pain. Remember that in most countries abortion is restricted to the first weeks of pregnancy (Usually up to 18 weeks), and the vast majority of abortions happen very early. Heck, even Ireland allows abortifacients at the very very early stages. Pro-choice does not mean pro-choice up to week 40.

georgieporgy · 30-11-2012 12:33AM

Morbert wrote: »

Not only is it pain free, there is not even the presence of a cognitive entity that has the potential to feel pain. Remember that in most countries abortion is restricted to the first weeks of pregnancy (Usually up to 18 weeks), and the vast majority of abortions happen very early. Heck, even Ireland allows abortifacients at the very very early stages. Pro-choice does not mean pro-choice up to week 40.

I'm more convinced by the arguments made by experts in the field regarding foetal pain
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5NtOLyXN7A

http://www.slideshare.net/sacody/zielinski-fetal-pain-11105813#btnNext

Pro-choice can mean quite a variety of things depending how one feels at any given time. Take Canada for example, where there are no restrictions to abortion on demand at any time during pregnancy, you can kill the newborn child if it manages to survive the attempts to kill it in the womb.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/491-babies-born-alive-after-failed-abortions-left-to-die-in-canada-statscan

doctoremma · 30-11-2012 11:58AM

GP, do you have academic references for the experts you quote? I can't find anything for one of them on NCBI and only Google searches to show a few papers written some 30 years ago.

HellFireClub · 30-11-2012 01:59PM

Morbert wrote: »

Pro-choice does not mean pro-choice up to week 40.

Oh, why not? I'm anti-abortion but to me, pro-choice is pro-choice because so much of the language behind being pro-choice, revolves around an unshakable belief that a woman should have an absolute right to do whatever she wants with her own body?

PDN · 30-11-2012 06:33PM

Obliq wrote: »

When you stick to your own recommendations to be respectful, I shall follow, as I am doing now. I was doing that, but became fed up with the obfuscation, so tried a little obfuscating for myself. Liked it?

It's more a case of wondering why you're being so antagonistic, rather than whether I like something or not.

I had thought we had agreed to be respectful, and not to misrepresent each other's views. Since then I've asked you several polite questions in order to try to get some clarity as to what it is you are actually arguing.

Meanwhile you accused me of misrepresentation because I answered a direct question by Zombrex on the precise basis that he specified. When I asked you what I had done wrong, you laughed it off with a 'Jaysus lad, I'm not that upset!' post.

Then, because I had asked a polite question to get clarification, you accused me of being deliberately obtuse and of trolling.

So I've asked you another polite question for clarification, and now you're accusing me of obfuscation.

I think there's an important discussion to be had here, which you had indicated that you wanted, but it's a bit hard to conduct that discussion when you appear to be having these online mood swings.

I have some honest questions about some of the statements you've made - but I'm really not sure if it's worth bothering if you're going to throw a strop each time I ask a question.

Morbert · 30-11-2012 07:20PM

HellFireClub wrote: »

Oh, why not? I'm anti-abortion but to me, pro-choice is pro-choice because so much of the language behind being pro-choice, revolves around an unshakable belief that a woman should have an absolute right to do whatever she wants with her own body?

The semantics doesn't particularly interest me. If you want to define pro-choice in this manner, fine. But then much of the western world isn't "pro-choice". This is why I find such euphemisms unhealthy. I tend to prefer the phrases "pro abortion rights" and "anti abortion rights".

PDN · 30-11-2012 07:29PM

Morbert wrote: »

The semantics doesn't particularly interest me. If you want to define pro-choice in this manner, fine. But then much of the western world isn't "pro-choice". This is why I find such euphemisms unhealthy. I tend to prefer the phrases "pro abortion rights" and "anti abortion rights".

Closer, but not quite there. Using 'rights' in that way is, I think, pejorative to one side.

"Pro-abortion legislation" and "Anti-abortion legislation" might be fairer - no?

Morbert · 30-11-2012 07:30PM

georgieporgy wrote: »

I'm more convinced by the arguments made by experts in the field regarding foetal pain
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5NtOLyXN7A

http://www.slideshare.net/sacody/zielinski-fetal-pain-11105813#btnNext

That's an odd thing to say. You say you're more convinced by the arguments made by experts, and then post experts who overwhelmingly agree that pain cannot even begin to be felt before week 18.

To echo doctoremma, I cannot find any more detail on the outliers claiming it happens around week 8-12.

Pro-choice can mean quite a variety of things depending how one feels at any given time. Take Canada for example, where there are no restrictions to abortion on demand at any time during pregnancy, you can kill the newborn child if it manages to survive the attempts to kill it in the womb.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/491-babies-born-alive-after-failed-abortions-left-to-die-in-canada-statscan

These are partial birth abortions, and are not something anyone here is arguing for (I would image, but invite anyone who is to say so). The vast vast majority of abortions (99.83% in the US) aren't of this type. The vital part of the abortion debate in Ireland revolves around the time when the majority of abortions would occur.

Morbert · 30-11-2012 07:35PM

PDN wrote: »

Closer, but not quite there. Using 'rights' in that way is, I think, pejorative to one side.

"Pro-abortion legislation" and "Anti-abortion legislation" might be fairer - no?

The hyphens get even trickier then. (I would be pro pro-abortion legislation?).

The pejorative nature is debatable, and I suppose it comes down to personal taste. I have no problem with defining myself as being opposed to the right to own slaves, for example.

lmaopml · 30-11-2012 11:24PM

Morbert wrote: »

The hyphens get even trickier then. (I would be pro pro-abortion legislation?).

The pejorative nature is debatable, and I suppose it comes down to personal taste. I have no problem with defining myself as being opposed to the right to own slaves, for example.

Would you be opposed to knowing that owning another person as a slave was always wrong?

Elysian · 01-12-2012 07:02PM

HellFireClub wrote: »

Oh, why not? I'm anti-abortion but to me, pro-choice is pro-choice because so much of the language behind being pro-choice, revolves around an unshakable belief that a woman should have an absolute right to do whatever she wants with her own body?

I'm pro-choice and I do believe women should have the right to bodily integrity. However this right, like all rights, ends when it infringes on the rights of others. Personally, I think that when a fetus has developed to a point where it is possible for it to survive outside the womb with or without help, then it should be treated as a separate person and inherit the rights associated with this. Prior to this however, it is just another part of the mother and as such the mother should have the choice as to whether she wants to go through with the pregnancy or not.

Abortion debate thread

Comments