Woman uploads abortion video - goes viral

ryan101 · 10-05-2014 03:34PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

I'm pro choice and offended by the word for one reason. It's the misuse of science to support ones belief. It shares parasitic, symbiotic qualities yes but you could apply that to a living child of a certain age, physical or mental ability if so wished. A fellow scientist uses the term to describe children with disabilities or mental issues. It's a word designed to hurt the other side of the argument and its frankly disgusting.

It's much easier to kill a human life if you consider them a parasite.

steddyeddy · 10-05-2014 03:38PM

Another point I would love to know is why do people create distinctions in abortion. Why was this woman good and the big brother woman bad?

Morag · 10-05-2014 03:39PM

ryan101 wrote: »

Killing another human life, a defenceless child at that, something no one has a 'right' to.

Over 150,000 women who have traveled to the UK for abortions disagree with you.

And so to the majority of Irish people who think we need more rights to an abortion, for a range of reasons.

Turtwig · 10-05-2014 03:40PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

Science is language. It's idiotic and completely messed up to bring the comparison about a foetus and parasite into a debate.

Why is it idiotic? Does a woman when pregnant capable possess the same potential as when she's not pregnant? Would you say that it's unfair to suggest that even the tiniest bit of a foetus/mother relationship is parasitic?

Also, should we start calling people to task for using the words like 'pressure', 'energy' 'work', 'stress' in ways that differ from their scientific meaning? Parasite is an analogy - and not in any scientific sense. It's more a poetic metaphor. Language isn't just scientific.

Dan_Solo · 10-05-2014 03:41PM

ryan101 wrote: »

It's much easier to kill a child if you consider it a parasite.

And it's much easier to abort a foetus if you consider it a bunch of cells.
It looks like soon we will be able to clone from any cell in the body. Will you be screaming murder as people cut their toenails or brush their hair?

Carlos Orange · 10-05-2014 03:41PM

Czarcasm wrote: »

I'm not sure how you think "a man does not become a father until a woman he impregnated gives birth" is in any way an artificial idea?

It seems convenient for men to have no status during the period of the pregnancy and then spring into fatherhood through no action of their own. I guess it is kinda a chicken and egg situation, do men have no status and thus no say in the pregnancy or is it decided that men have no say and thus no status.

A father's right to choose to financially support his child, or not, or be forced to financially support a child he didn't want, is a completely separate argument from a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy or give birth against her will.

Real life doesn't let you separate out intrinsically linked things that neatly.
As for the reduction of fatherhood to a tax on unlucky sex.

ryan101 · 10-05-2014 03:42PM

Morag wrote: »

Over 150,000 women who have traveled to the UK for abortions disagree with you.

And so to the majority of Irish people who think we need more rights to an abortion, for a range of reasons.

I don't know if they do or not, but either way an argumentum ad populum is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or most people believe it.

Morag · 10-05-2014 03:42PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

Another point I would love to know is why do people create distinctions in abortion. Why was this woman good and the big brother woman bad?

That sort of moralising happens all the time.

Good abortions, bad abortions.

Good abortions are ones for the reasons of rape, incest, fatal fetal abnormalities, risk to health or risk to life.

Bad abortions, are the ones were the reason is the woman doesn't want a child, doesn't want another child, doesn't want a child at that point in her live.

It's a way of being mostly pro choice, but not being one of those pro choice people that the other side like to present as monsters.

Muise... · 10-05-2014 03:42PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

Another point I would love to know is why do people create distinctions in abortion. Why was this woman good and the big brother woman bad?

Because everyone has their own opinion based on their own ethical and experiential framework, as they are entitled.

Has anyone actually said that this woman is good and the other bad?

It's like good AIDS and bad AIDS...

ryan101 · 10-05-2014 03:43PM

Dan_Solo wrote: »

And it's much easier to abort a foetus if you consider it a bunch of cells.

We're all 'a bunch of cells'

steddyeddy · 10-05-2014 03:44PM

Muise... wrote: »

Because everyone has their own opinion based on their own ethical and experiential framework, as they are entitled.

Has anyone actually said that this woman is good and the other bad?

It's like good AIDS and bad AIDS...

What?

Muise... · 10-05-2014 03:44PM

Morag wrote: »

That sort of moralising happens all the time.

Good abortions, bad abortions.

Good abortions are ones for the reasons of rape, incest, fatal fetal abnormalities, risk to health or risk to life.

Bad abortions, are the ones were the reason is the woman doesn't want a child, doesn't want another child, doesn't want a child at that point in her live.

It's a way of being mostly pro choice, but not being one of those pro choice people that the other side like to present as monsters.

And the very best abortions of all are the ones where the woman is guilty and sorry about it till her dying day.

Muise... · 10-05-2014 03:44PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

What?

Chris Morris sketch.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFNs2mOkKzc

Turtwig · 10-05-2014 03:45PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

Another point I would love to know is why do people create distinctions in abortion. Why was this woman good and the big brother woman bad?

Distinctions are drawn in everything because each individual experience is different. Regardless of the end result, the process and circumstances by which the result is arrived at, is also wholly important. Hell of a difference between a woman getting an abortion because it's going to permanently destroy her pelvis and one who get's it for reasons of not having their desired gender. Not judging either morally or ethically just pointing out that every individual incident is very different. So distinctions have to drawn.

Having said all that I do believe both women were actually doing bad things. The big brother one being slightly worse because she had prior history of attention seeking and publicity stunts.

Morag · 10-05-2014 03:47PM

ryan101 wrote: »

I don't know if they do or not, but either way an argumentum ad populum is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or most people believe it.

And yet we live in a democracy, our abortion laws are going to change.
I wonder how many will up sticks and move to live in Malta then.

steddyeddy · 10-05-2014 03:48PM

Turtwig wrote: »

Why is it idiotic? Does a woman when pregnant capable possess the same potential as when she's not pregnant? Would you say that it's unfair to suggest that even the tiniest bit of a foetus/mother relationship is parasitic?

Also, should we start calling people to task for using the words like 'pressure', 'energy' 'work', 'stress' in ways that differ from their scientific meaning? Parasite is an analogy - and not in any scientific sense. It's more a poetic metaphor. Language isn't just scientific.

Yes there is some links between a parasite and a foetus but with the difference that humans get to spread their genes. It's for our benefit to have a baby. It definitely isn't a one sided thing from an evolutionary perspective.

A baby (living) also shares parasitic qualities. It's true but I feel like a d1xk for saying it.

steddyeddy · 10-05-2014 03:49PM

Turtwig wrote: »

Distinctions are drawn in everything because each individual experience is different. Regardless of the end result, the process and circumstances by which the result is arrived at, is also wholly important. Hell of a difference between a woman getting an abortion because it's going to permanently destroy her pelvis and one who get's it for reasons of not having their desired gender. Not judging either morally or ethically just pointing out that every individual incident is very different. So distinctions have to drawn.

Having said all that I do believe both women were actually doing bad things. The big brother one being slightly worse because she had prior history of attention seeking and publicity stunts.

They both want to have an abortion because a baby would impact on their quality of life. They're the exact same in my book. Except when done for health reasons such as pelvic damage.

ryan101 · 10-05-2014 03:49PM

Morag wrote: »

And yet we live in a democracy, our abortion laws are going to change.

And that democracy involves a referendum.

A whatever the result, a democratic vote in favour of killing human life still won't make it right.

Turtwig · 10-05-2014 03:50PM

Morag wrote: »

Over 150,000 women who have traveled to the UK for abortions disagree with you.

And so to the majority of Irish people who think we need more rights to an abortion, for a range of reasons.

What exactly is the point here? The majority disagree with Ryan? How exactly does that negate is his/her ethical framework. Both him* and you believe human rights have a strong moral claim on ye. He just sees the rights of foetus as different to the way you view it. Pointing out majorities seems pointless.

gctest50 · 10-05-2014 03:51PM

ryan101 wrote: »

Killing another human life, a defenceless child at that, something no one has a 'right' to.

So, now you are accusing women who get ("legal") abortions of murder ?

ryan101 wrote: »

......... a defenceless child at that................

here is a little fun game, you can find your fallacy

:

http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com

steddyeddy · 10-05-2014 03:52PM

Turtwig wrote: »

What exactly is the point here? The majority disagree with Ryan? How exactly does that negate is his/her ethical framework. Both him* and you believe human rights have a strong moral claim on ye. He just sees the rights of foetus as different to the way you view it. Pointing out majorities seems pointless.

Indeed. It's opinion on where life or humanity starts at the end of the day. Mob rule doesn't hold sway.

Muise... · 10-05-2014 03:52PM

Turtwig wrote: »

What exactly is the point here? The majority disagree with Ryan? How exactly does that negate is his/her ethical framework. Both him* and you believe human rights have a strong moral claim on ye. He just sees the rights of foetus as different to the way you view it. Pointing out majorities seems pointless.

Well ryan did say he thought there was a case for some women to be punished for it. That's a step beyond private conscience.

Morag · 10-05-2014 03:52PM

Turtwig wrote: »

What exactly is the point here? The majority disagree with Ryan? How exactly does that negate is his/her ethical framework. Both him* and you believe human rights have a strong moral claim on ye. He just sees the rights of foetus as different to the way you view it. Pointing out majorities seems pointless.

It's not as the anti abortion lobby in this country tries to paint themselves as being the majority and the moral majority and they are not.

But them promoting this has mean people who are pro choice and those of us who have had abortions have been frankly afraid to speak up.

So that impression needs to be challenged.

If Ryan thinks something is wrong then they shouldn't do it.

steddyeddy · 10-05-2014 03:54PM

I can't believe how much the pro-choice side scare me considering I am pro choice :S

ryan101 · 10-05-2014 03:55PM

gctest50 wrote: »

So, now you are accusing women who get ("legal") abortions of murder ?

No, that would involve complete and deliberate knowledge of what their action is. Though the likes of Josie Cunningham would be close to it.

ryan101 · 10-05-2014 03:56PM

Muise... wrote: »

Well ryan did say he thought there was a case for some women to be punished for it. That's a step beyond private conscience.

If you want a rational discussion, I'd like you to quote me properly please. Thanks.

Morag · 10-05-2014 03:57PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

I can't believe how much the pro-choice side scare me considering I am pro choice :S

How so?

Turtwig · 10-05-2014 03:57PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

Yes there is some links between a parasite and a foetus but with the difference that humans get to spread their genes. It's for our benefit to have a baby. It definitely isn't a one sided thing from an evolutionary perspective.

A baby (living) also shares parasitic qualities. It's true but I feel like a d1xk for saying it.

Lemme, put this from another perspective it's in humanity's interest to produce babies, but is it in a baby's individual interest to be produced? It get's no say on the matter and depending on where he is born, his biology and his circumstances stack the die a certain way.

Why do you feel like a dick for saying it? I get it, the word has negative connotations but that's kind of trivial in many respects. We're parasites of this planet and of our families and friends. That people associate the word negatively isn't our fault. Though, I do kind of see the point that perhaps the pro-choice crowd initially chose to term to inflame the pro-life side. In that regard, like the 'bigot' and other labels I think the word is best avoided but that's only because some people can't keep their emotions in check. And emotional arguments should have limited space in a such an important ethical discussion.

Finally, we're social creatures, evolution or whatever should have little sway in determining ethics.

Muise... · 10-05-2014 03:59PM

ryan101 wrote: »

If you want a rational discussion, I'd like you to quote me properly please. Thanks.

too late.

steddyeddy · 10-05-2014 03:59PM

Turtwig wrote: »

Lemme, put this from another perspective it's in humanity's interest to produce babies, but is it in a baby's individual interest to be produced? It get's no say on the matter and depending on where he is born, his biology and his circumstances stack the die a certain way.

Why do you feel like a dick for saying it? I get it, the word has negative connotations but that's kind of trivial in many respects. We're parasites of this planet and of our families and friends. That people associate the word negatively isn't our fault. Though, I do kind of see the point that perhaps the pro-choice crowd initially chose to term to inflame the pro-life side. In that regard, like the 'bigot' and other labels I think the word is best avoided but that's only because some people can't keep their emotions in check. And emotional arguments should have limited space in a such an important ethical discussion.

Finally, we're social creatures, evolution or whatever should have little sway in determining ethics.

Yes just like a parasite the baby will influence the mother hormonally as will a living child. Both have parasitic tendencies technically. My argument was the bit in bold. It's used to inflame the other side.

Woman uploads abortion video - goes viral

Comments