Why we can't have a rational conversation about abortion

Mardy Bum · 05-05-2013 04:45PM

Whistlingmilk wrote: »

Honest question: why do you generalize/accuse so much whenever someone expresses disagreement with your point of view?

Inability to argue coherently usually results in this.

I Heart Internet · 05-05-2013 11:13PM

Arpa wrote: »

Just because you posted something in another thread and reposted it here, doesn't add gravitas to it or make it right. To make such a statement that anybody who thinks the Church has no role in political debate doesn't understand democracy is purile. It's an opinion...it differs from yours...but is no less valid an opinion... Yes in a perfect world everybody would be sound of mind, body and have the best intentions of society in general at heart and in that case everybody should be allowed to make their voice heard. However it's not a perfect world. When people who believe in magic men in the sky can have an impact on a serious issue then we have to re-evaluate.

What has North Korea got to do with anything? That's a schoolyard playground argument. "If you don't agree with something maybe you should go to North Korea." And why particularly North Korea? Do you know so little of world politics that you could only name a country that has been plastered all over the news recently?

My argument is simple. We don't need the Church involved in our politics...in fact it should by the very nature of democracy have no influence over anything in our State. The Church is a state unto itself. It has it's own rules, but they are not the rules of the people of Ireland. Let them play awya there, with their masses and big pompous ceremonies and robes and lovely hats...but no way should they have influence over the issues of our nation. Too long have the poisoned the minds of Irish people, and had them in a vice like grip, following blindly on hands and knees. Why would you want to give such people a voice? They had their chance, failed...now we can, thoise of us who want to, stop believing in fairytales and get on with making our Nation a better place.

Sorry Arpa. Your whole argument can be summarised into "I don't like the church so I think anyone associated with it can and should be discriminated against in the realm of public debate."

I'll say it again - whether you like it or not, the strength of civil society is in including as many different viewpoints as possible, including those you absolutely don't agree with.

If you don't value a free, civil society perhaps North Korea, China or (to a lesser extent) Azerbaijan or Kazakhstan would suit you better. I chose North Korea because it's perhaps the best example of a closed society with near non-existent civil society. Perfect for people who like to exclude opposing points of view.

Phill Ewinn · 06-05-2013 12:01AM

Quote of the week. Ted Nugent gun lobbyist, rock star.

" abortion, not guns, is what's eliminating the inner-city population. The facts, however interesting, are irrelevant when they get in the way of a leftist agenda"

Mardy Bum · 06-05-2013 12:06AM

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Quote of the week. Ted Nugent gun lobbyist, rock star.

" abortion, not guns, is what's eliminating the inner-city population. The facts, however interesting, are irrelevant when they get in the way of a leftist agenda"

That is one of the stupidest things I have ever read. Am I surprised? No.

Dyr · 06-05-2013 12:14AM

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Quote of the week. Ted Nugent gun lobbyist, rock star.

" abortion, not guns, is what's eliminating the inner-city population. The facts, however interesting, are irrelevant when they get in the way of a leftist agenda"

even back in prehistory when he was selling lorryloads of records nugent was never a rock star, just a skidmark

Frito · 06-05-2013 12:17AM

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Quote of the week. Ted Nugent gun lobbyist, rock star.

" abortion, not guns, is what's eliminating the inner-city population. The facts, however interesting, are irrelevant when they get in the way of a leftist agenda"

The lack of organ donation is what's eliminating the inner-city population. But facts, however interesting, are irrelevant when they get in the way of any agenda. (Me, just now)

Mortality is caused by many things.

Czarcasm · 06-05-2013 12:27AM

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Quote of the week. Ted Nugent gun lobbyist, rock star.

" abortion, not guns, is what's eliminating the inner-city population. The facts, however interesting, are irrelevant when they get in the way of a leftist agenda"

I'd no idea who Ted Nugent was, so I had a quick google.

Now seriously Phil, are you seriously aligning your opinions with this assclown?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Nugent

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/05/03/fox-nation-highlights-ted-nugents-claim-that-ab/193907

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/04/18/ted-nugents-craziest-quotes/

Cody Pomeray · 06-05-2013 12:45AM

What I don't understand is how Catholics and other pro-life individuals can live with the principle behind abortion already being in existence.

The principle of abortion, as I see it, is that it is unjust to use the body of an individual for the purposes of saving or safeguarding the life of any second individual, without the agreement of that first individual.

Most pro-life people feel it would be wrong for the parents of a child to be forcibly operated upon in order that they might donate an organ (say, a kidney), to their offspring.

So if you really do treat the unborn as an individual human being, why should the same principle of parental liberty not apply?

If a baby is viable alone (say, around 23 weeks) then that's fantastic.

But if not, that individual - yes, even a child - or an agent of the (unborn) child acting on the child's behalf, cannot resort to the courts to forcibly compel a parent to use her liberty, and her organs, to safeguard another individual's life.

Even where that individual is her child.

I Heart Internet · 06-05-2013 12:50AM

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

What I don't understand is how Catholics and other pro-life individuals can live with the principle behind abortion already being in existence.

The principle of abortion, as I see it, is that it is unjust to use the body of an individual for the purposes of saving or safeguarding the life of any second individual, without the agreement of that first individual.

Most pro-life people feel it would be wrong for the parents of a child to be forcibly operated upon in order that they might donate an organ (say, a kidney), to their offspring.

So if you really do treat the unborn as an individual human being, why should the same principle of parental liberty not apply?

If a baby is viable alone (say, around 23 weeks) then that's fantastic.

But if not, that individual - yes, even a child - or an agent of the (unborn) child acting on the child's behalf, cannot resort to the courts to forcibly compel a parent to use her liberty, and her organs, to safeguard another individual's life.

Even where that individual is her child.

I haven't the faintest, remotest iota of an idea what you're talking about.

Honestly, I can't follow the point you're trying to make....can you?

Cody Pomeray · 06-05-2013 12:53AM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

I haven't the faintest, remotest iota of an idea what you're talking about.

Honestly, I can't follow the point you're trying to make....can you?

Yes- the principle of abortion already exists, and is widely accepted.

That is, we do not force parents of born children to use their bodies to safeguard their children's lives.

If the unborn life is equal to the life of those born individuals, or notwithstanding that fact, why should parents of the unborn be forced to use their bodies to safeguard their children's lives?

I Heart Internet · 06-05-2013 01:01AM

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Yes- the principle of abortion already exists, and is widely accepted.

That is, we do not force parents of born children to use their bodies to safeguard their children's lives.

If the unborn life is equal to the life of those born individuals, or notwithstanding that fact, why should parents of the unborn be forced to use their bodies to safeguard their children's lives?

OK. I see what you're getting at.

Parents are obliged by law to protect, nourish, house and support their children. They can be sent to jail for neglecting those obligations.

The argument that one can't force a person to donate a kidney to save a child (so why would one insist that a mother must provide a womb for the unborn?) is one that's regularly trotted out. It ignores the uniqueness of pregnancy. Pregnancy is more akin to someone holding a rope at the top of a cliff with a person hanging over the edge who could easily be pulled back to safety. In this case there is no wiggle room. Let go of the rope and the other person dies.

murraykil · 06-05-2013 01:16AM

The reason that there cannot be a rational conversation about abortion is because many people are simply not rational.

So many use the bible and the old THOU SHALT NOT KILL line as the bible stating that abortion is muder. This exact quote has been used on the Christianity forum and no dissenting voice is allowed. I had posts deleted which did not fit with their narrow, self-serving interpretations of the bible.

Some laughed at the killing in the bible saying it was a different time and not that bad compared to the killing in the Colleseum for example.

The quote from Exodus really didn't go down well but was quickly deleted:

And Moses said, "Thus says the LORD: About midnight I will go forth in the midst of Egypt;

and all the first-born in the land of Egypt shall die, from the first-born of Pharaoh who sits upon his throne, even to the first-born of the maidservant who is behind the mill; and all the first-born of the cattle.

And there shall be a great cry throughout all the land of Egypt, such as there has never been, nor ever shall be again.

But against any of the people of Israel, either man or beast, not a dog shall growl; that you may know that the LORD makes a distinction between the Egyptians and Israel.

At midnight the LORD struck down all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh who sat on his throne to the firstborn of the prisoner who was in the dungeon, and all the firstborn of the livestock.

Pharaoh arose in the night, he and all his officials and all the Egyptians; and there was a loud cry in Egypt, for there was not a house without someone dead.

So here God is killing innocent children, even innocent children born of slaves into slavery, just because of the deeds of a Pharoah!

I wonder how God dealth with the women who were pregnant with their first children on this night?

Did God also commit abortion or was he very literal and only killed the innocent children who were already born?

Did any poor, unfortunate woman go into labour that night and and was God there waiting for her to deliver so he could kill the innocent child as soon as they breached?

I guess they have that one covered too, that child could not be innocent, the poor fecker is born a sinner.

An all poweful God and he goes after innocent children and leaves the Pharoah in place.

Innocent children being hurt, hierarchical figures left untouched, hmm, this has a familiar ring to it . . .

Even a bit of racism thrown in there too "know that the LORD makes a distinction between the Egyptians and Israel".

Ah but sure it was different time back then, smear a bit of blood on the door and ye'll be grand!

Cody Pomeray · 06-05-2013 01:16AM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

The argument that one can't force a person to donate a kidney to save a child (so why would one insist that a mother must provide a womb for the unborn?) is one that's regularly trotted out. It ignores the uniqueness of pregnancy. Pregnancy is more akin to someone holding a rope at the top of a cliff with a person hanging over the edge who could easily be pulled back to safety.

Except the test for abortions in Ireland is not one whereby one a baby be "easily" safeguarded.

The test for abortion in Ireland is where the mother will die.

There can be a deleterious risk to a mother's health to the point where she could be permanently incapacitated, and yet she will be ineligible for abortion. Most pro life people argue that this is acceptable.

So your rope analogy, with the test of 'an easy rescue' does not apply.

Clearly, there can be a very high price to pay for maternal health in terms of carrying an unborn baby to term and the state does not take account of that cost.

Whereas, when it comes to general anaesthetic and reasonably routine donor surgery to save a baby's life after birth, the state suddenly stops making demands of the parent. Most pro life people argue that this is acceptable.

This is a logical inconsistency that the pro life lobby never satisfactorily address.

Frito · 06-05-2013 01:20AM

I Heart Internet, I think your analogy is flawed. A foetus is on the end of an umbilical cord within the womb but it is still relying on the maternal organs. And said use of the organs is a critical point.

Phill Ewinn · 06-05-2013 11:05AM

Czarcasm wrote: »

I'd no idea who Ted Nugent was, so I had a quick google.

Now seriously Phil, are you seriously aligning your opinions with this assclown?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Nugent

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/05/03/fox-nation-highlights-ted-nugents-claim-that-ab/193907

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/04/18/ted-nugents-craziest-quotes/

Anyone but the pro-choice thousands of dead, womens body, lets kill for mo reason assclowns TBF.

Czarcasm · 06-05-2013 11:41AM

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Anyone but the pro-choice thousands of dead, womens body, lets kill for mo reason assclowns TBF.

Phil I get what you're saying- "enemy of thine enemy is my friend" kind of thing, but really, Ted Nugent is nothing but an attention seeker who will say anything he thinks will gain him an audience amongst ignorant people. There's plenty of them around, but I'm sure Phil if you had tried, you could've come up with far better and more well educated anti-abortion advocates than jumping into bed with an ignorant mouthpiece. Would you blame people for being unable to take you seriously when you align yourself with the likes of Ted Nugent?

Phil nobody who is advocating a woman's right to have an abortion is claiming that they actually want any woman to have one. I think we'd all prefer if they didn't have to have them, but for whatever reason personal to themselves, when a woman elects to have an abortion, it's not a decision that's taken lightly, and it's not a decision that's made any easier by the fact that she has very little in the way of a support system when she comes back from abroad.

It's not killing for no reason Phil, there's always a reason, but to find that reason you need to show some understanding and compassion, not this "baby killaars!" nonsense. Where has that gotten anyone? Only kept it under the radar, leading to back street and home abortions and in some cases new born babies being abandoned in black bin liner bags because of the fear women feel in society (this is FAR from just an "influence of the catholic church" issue, it's one that goes right to the heart of who we are as a society!).

I'd like to see nobody die either Phil, but aligning yourself with some redneck shìt stirring muppet does nothing to further your cause to have anyone take you seriously.

Cody Pomeray · 06-05-2013 12:13PM

Czarcasm wrote: »

Phil I get what you're saying- "enemy of thine enemy is my friend" kind of thing, but really, Ted Nugent is nothing but an attention seeker who will say anything he thinks will gain him an audience amongst ignorant people.

This really has nothing to do with the guy's point.

If there is a point to be made about inner city abortion rates, then that's a point that deserves to be rebutted, independently and regardless of who is making it.

Personally I have no problem in recognizing foetuses as human beings, just (usually) non-viable human beings. Although I think the consequences of forcing women to act as life support machines for babies they cannot mentally or physically afford anyway are far more deleterious to her than terminating her pregnancy. On a social level, the effects of forcing all women to carry their pregnancies through to delivery could be profoundly damaging to society.

To link this back to the OP: the reason why we cannot have a rational discussion on abortion is often because participants willingly resort to character-painting arguments..."Jospephine/ The Cardinal/ Ted Nugent is a nut... you don't want to align yourself with him, do you?"

Why not just answer the point rationally, it isn't a very good one anyway.

Ruudi_Mentari · 06-05-2013 12:47PM

Why don't we just abort, the topic altogether it is a risk to my life...

I will kill myself; I swear!!

Corkfeen · 06-05-2013 12:52PM

squod wrote: »

Whereas people like you want fuhken thousands. A disgusting disrespect for human life. I'd be happy if the government legislated and gave a clear understanding to doctors et al.

This requires you to ignore the fact that many Irish people avail of abortions in England so plenty of abortion are happening, it just requires a plane journey.

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Quote of the week. Ted Nugent gun lobbyist, rock star.

" abortion, not guns, is what's eliminating the inner-city population. The facts, however interesting, are irrelevant when they get in the way of a leftist agenda"

Ahh yes, the rockstar where I get all my insights from. :pac: You're using a man who is simply trying to dodge the issue of gun control where he blames it all on a liberal bias. You do realise how absurdly idiotic to pluck a quote from a man who has such arguments as.

"The whole world sucks, but America still sucks less," - He is so insightful.... :rolleyes:

Czarcasm · 06-05-2013 01:16PM

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

This really has nothing to do with the guy's point.

If there is a point to be made about inner city abortion rates, then that's a point that deserves to be rebutted, independently and regardless of who is making it.

To link this back to the OP: the reason why we cannot have a rational discussion on abortion is often because participants willingly resort to character-painting arguments..."Jospephine/ The Cardinal/ Ted Nugent is a nut... you don't want to align yourself with him, do you?"

Why not just answer the point rationally, it isn't a very good one anyway.

Cody it has everything to do with the Phil's point. He quoted some redneck assclown's diversionary tactics (trying to use the issue of abortion to divert the focus from gun crime) and then Phil said he would agree with anyone who doesn't want the killing of thousands.

I have to be honest Cody I find Phil easier to follow than yourself. You should always consider the source of a person's opinion when they make a point, otherwise we would indeed be drawn into strawmans about inner city abortions, following on from the opinion of a guy who couldn't give a fcuk about abortion, but only uses it to distract from the effects of his main agenda.

People questioning what they're being told to believe, is the reason why we cannot have a rational discussion about abortion. Nobody likes when it's pointed out to them that their source upon which they've formed their opinion might just actually be flawed.

Cody Pomeray · 06-05-2013 01:20PM

Czarcasm wrote: »

You should always consider the source of a person's opinion when they make a point

No you shouldn't.

You should consider the point on its own rationale and merit.

Dismissing it on the basis of who said it is the definition of an ad hominem.

Nodin · 06-05-2013 01:24PM

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Anyone but the pro-choice thousands of dead, womens body, lets kill for mo reason assclowns TBF.

...more rhetoric phill?

Are you going to lay out your own position now, or are you just going to hang around sniping at other peoples?

philewinn wrote:

Many people abusing UKs abortion laws. Making a nice few quid doing it too.
Theres no evidence the 4,000 terminations of Irish unborn fetouses are all
legitimate or warranted..

Would you care to make an estimate as to how many are or aren't "legitimate or warranted"?

For further clarity, do please explain what you classify as being "legitimate" and "warranted".

(edited)

Czarcasm · 06-05-2013 01:32PM

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

No you shouldn't.

You should consider the point on its own rationale and merit.

Dismissing it on the basis of who said it is the definition of an ad hominem.

Cody stop it with the big words will you, I had to google ad hominem to be sure the definition hadn't changed since I was at school. The source of Phil's post, was the opinion of quite frankly an attention seeking idiot looking to further his own agenda and using the issue of abortion to do so.

If I were to take Phil's post on it's own merit and NOT google who Ted Nugent was, and the context of his opinion, then we'd be still stuck at discussing abortion vs gun crime statistics in inner cities. I'd rather not get bogged down and sidetracked by that discussion tbh. It's not an opinion I'd consider even worth discussing.

Sarky · 06-05-2013 01:36PM

Nodin wrote: »

What did you mean by "dark ages" and how does abortion get us there?

Was it not squod who claimed that? Either way, how many times have you asked that now without a response?

Nodin · 06-05-2013 01:37PM

Sarky wrote: »

Was it not squod who claimed that? Either way, how many times have you asked that now without a response?

Jaysus you're right. Phills dodging an entirely different set of questions.

Loads.

nozzferrahhtoo · 06-05-2013 03:18PM

Foxhound38 wrote: »

Why can't we have a rational conversation about this in this country?

I think there is a very clear reason for this.

I learned it when I decided to look at the issue myself. I had always been pro-choice without knowing why so I decided it was time to really explore the issue and pick a side.

Part of that journey involved going into those people who campaign against it on the streets of dublin, with their pictures and stalls and so forth. I simply went down and in a non-confrontational ways asked them what their arguments for their side were.

Basically they pointed at the photos they had of aborted fetuses. The ones they see fit to hang in front of the general public of all ages. "Look at the pictures man!" one of them said. I pressed a little more asking what their actual moral arguments or thinking was and I just got "Just look at the pictures maaaaaan!".

It has not improved any since. I think the reason you can not get a rational and coherent discussion on the issue is that the anti abortion side is made up ENTIRELY of "arguments from emotion". The lack of any intellectual content to their side of the issue therefore leads to very fast... and as threads like this show, very emotional.... break downs in communications on both sides and the resulting farce is rarely pretty.

Even Christopher Hitchens who I was clearly a fan of had a poor basis for his pro choice position in that it was purely linguistic. He decided basically he likes the term "Unborn child" and if that term is to hold any meaning then that entails protecting the fetus. A leap of "reasoning" that was uncharacteristically egregious on his part.

I would be all for having a coherent intellectual conversation on the issue were they to start presenting some cogent arguments, evidence, data and reasoning to support their positions. But if hanging up bloody photos and rebranding "pro choice" as "pro death" is the best they have to offer... then they can take up someone elses time.

Obliq · 06-05-2013 03:24PM

It's unfortunate that they aren't just taking up our time, they are in the position of trying to hang onto the dreadful 8th amendment and impede any attempt to address this in the public and political arena.

PopePalpatine · 06-05-2013 08:54PM

I've just caught up with this thread, and...

WindSock wrote: »

As for the 'educated' in commas and I am not sure why, I suppose it is because educated people have more media exposure from blogs to Twitter and even boards.ie sometimes, so you are most likely going to be reading their shit, y'all.

Typically, the extreme (note the emphasis) pro-lifers like to use the middle-to-upper-class, university-educated stereotype against their opponents to portray their opponents as elitists who are far removed from the average Irish person. I come from a working class family, I managed to get into college due to a range of grants and yet I am strongly pro-choice.

Electric Sheep · 06-05-2013 09:24PM

Nodin wrote: »

...more rhetoric phill?

Are you going to lay out your own position now, or are you just going to hang around sniping at other peoples?

Would you care to make an estimate as to how many are or aren't "legitimate or warranted"?

For further clarity, do please explain what you classify as being "legitimate" and "warranted".

(edited)

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that Legitimate and Warranted means "not Phill's Mom, girlfriend or sister." That is the usual hypocrisy.

padd b1975 · 06-05-2013 09:36PM

Sarky wrote: »

Was it not squod who claimed that? Either way, how many times have you asked that now without a response?

Dude is obviously on their ignore lists.:)

Why we can't have a rational conversation about abortion

Comments