Wompa1 wrote: » But when did I say that a man can decide whether or not the woman has to carry the child?...it's still up to her. It's not like I'm saying if the father wants the kid but the mother doesn't that she must be forced to have the kid because he wants it. Abortion should be up to the woman. But like I said a woman could have an abortion for many different reasons other than just having to carry the child for 9 months...
ThinkProgress wrote: » What about all the babies that won't be created on a Friday night, because some drunk fool failed to coerce anyone with a pulse and a womb to procreate with him...? Will you mourn that loss of life too?Life is potentially lost every time a guy decides to watch porn instead of going out to the pub.
ThinkProgress wrote: » Well you wasted an opportunity to create life, right? You potentially flushed the cure for cancer down the toilet? (or maybe the next adolf hitler - who knows?) My point is that there is a lot of humans on this planet. We're not all the precious unique snowflakes that "pro-lifers" seem to think. Yes our lives have value. And we have rights... when we're developed and outside the womb. But it's so easy to create a baby. Ridiculously easy. How can we put so much value on something that requires practically nothing beyond what we were born with? Two drunk gobsh*tes can create a baby just by taking their clothes off and falling on top of each other. And you treat the product of something like that, as if it was a capital murder case to abort it? It's crazy!! Human life has the potential to become something worthwhile. Just as it has the potential become something horrible. But that's all it is at that stage - potential.
The Golden Miller wrote: » Well no, because it's simply not conceived. It is not the same being/entity and has 0 potential until it is conceived. It isn't life, a conceived unborn baby is. Has it's life cycle not started? How is it not alive exactly? Because it doesn't have a heart yet? Or a brain? Neither does a jelly fish. Because it doesn't fit into concepts we create like "rights"? So what? An unborn baby at 8 months isn't alive because it doesn't have a passport or rights? So the ease in creating something has a bearing on how relevant it is? Lets take you out and shoot you. After all, it was crazy easy to create you, right?
One eyed Jack wrote: » Will you please stop trying to equate jellyfish with human beings, they're two completely distinct species. It doesn't help your argument when you engage in the same reductionist thinking as ThinkProgress who imagines that every time he knocks one out he's committing infanticide! Geez, can we not at least try and raise the bar even a small bit or is this thread going to go the same way as every other thread on this issue has done where we start throwing around terms like "clump of cells" and "parasite" and all the rest of that nonsense?
ThinkProgress wrote: » My point is that there is a lot of humans on this planet. We're not all the precious unique snowflakes that "pro-lifers" seem to think.
ThinkProgress wrote: » And we have rights... when we're developed and outside the womb.
ThinkProgress wrote: » But it's so easy to create a baby. Ridiculously easy. How can we put so much value on something that requires practically nothing beyond what we were born with?
One eyed Jack wrote: » When you suggest that there should be equal treatment for men in drafting legislation regarding abortion, you're ignoring the fact that men are not in any way affected by a woman's choice to have an abortion. They can grieve the loss of a wanted child, but their grief in no way should be an influencing factor with regard to any legislation regarding abortion.
The Golden Miller wrote: Well no, because it's simply not conceived. It is not the same being/entity and has 0 potential until it is conceived. It isn't life, a conceived unborn baby is. Has it's life cycle not started? How is it not alive exactly? Because it doesn't have a heart yet? Or a brain? Neither does a jelly fish. Because it doesn't fit into concepts we create like "rights"? So what? An unborn baby at 8 months isn't alive because it doesn't have a passport or rights? So the ease in creating something has a bearing on how relevant it is? Lets take you out and shoot you. After all, it was crazy easy to create you, right?
ThinkProgress wrote: » Or more like "can we not just discuss this under MY parameters, because I want to cancel out anything I don't have a decent argument for".
Sperm very much does have the potential to create life. If it didn't then why do we hand it to someone in a cup when in a sperm bank?
If you flush the contents of that cup down the toilet, you have potentially denied someone a baby.
The early stages of a pregnancy is just potential. And it's often easier to make a baby, than it is to bake a cake! (The cake actually takes more commitment and brain power to create)
One eyed Jack wrote: » Not at all. There's no utility in comparing two completely different species is all, jellyfish are not human life. No, no it doesn't, not on it's own in isolation, not if you didn't clean up after yourself for the next nine months would you ever come any closer to creating life from just sperm on it's own, and I would hope when visiting a sperm donor clinic that they would hand you an empty cup into which you would ejaculate, rather than handing you a cup that someone else had already used. This is just daft. You haven't potentially denied anyone anything other than a cupful of sperm. That's it, that's all. That cupful of sperm would still be a cupful of sperm if you left it sit on the cistern for the next nine months. Bloody hell, I really think you cannot possibly be so clueless, that you'll often just say the first thing that comes off the top of your head just for the sake of argument. There's no comparison between baking a cake and procreation. If you think there is, you're definitely doing one or the other wrong, or possibly both!
manonboard wrote: » Thats an incredible statement to make i think. Do you really believe that men are not affected by the abortion of thier 'wanted/unwanted' children? I would most definitely be very emotionally invested and devastated in that situation. As would many many men i imagine. You throw away the potential grief as if it has no importance at all. That grief could have severe mental effects on those men. You cant simply throw away a emotional response to something like that, and yet in any way place value on the emotional response (and therefore psychological effects) of denying a woman the right to her own body. Why did you separate the psychological response of men to no value (or none worth considering) and yet not for women?
If i could point out a fallacy in that argument, the underlined part. The life cycle of the entity/baby/foetus started the moment its composed of sperm and eggs came into existence. It doesn't require them to mix in order for it to be considered part of the life cycle. The life cycle never stops and therefore always has already begun. I point it out because I think its a dangerous and flawed piece of logic to consider any "line in the sand" as life or not life. The pro choice say its X weeks (with silly reasoning that pain/independent survival is some magic line to justify their wishes). The pro life say its day 0 (with silly reasoning that its the combined product that matters, probably to excuse their loss of sperm through masturbation and general recycling of the body fluid). If the line of when life starts is removed, then both sides tend to fall flat on their face and avoid it at all costs. Takes away that stick of judgement where my side of the line is better than yours. I agree with the rest of your post, seems very logical to me and i also agree with the flaws you picked up in other peoples reasoning.
bodice ripper wrote: » A level of brain complexity to allow self awareness.
The Golden Miller wrote: » You know, the conscience kicked in. Biology doing it's job.
bodice ripper wrote: » I'd love to see some evidence of this biological basis for conscience...
The Golden Miller wrote: » So you'd go out and murder someone tomorrow and never give it a second thought or feel bad?
The Golden Miller wrote: » Yes, it's a good deterrent. So what if she's an immediate relation? She's ended the life of another one of my relations, an innocent party in the whole fiasco who never even asked to be created yet is the only one who ultimately loses out
Paramite Pie wrote: » Technically that's the start of consciousness not life. I'm pro-choice but let's not beat around the bush -- life does start a contraception.
RDM_83 again wrote: » Thats basically saying depending on what test for self awareness your using you can terminate new born to a couple of month old infants.
The Golden Miller wrote: » Well please do expand on the error of my ways
The Golden Miller wrote: I have tried regularly, and am met with sneering condescension and belittlement of my arguments on about 5 different abortion threads in the past. It's hard not to get dragged down to such disingenuous and pedantic lows when you are met with the blind "my body, my way" "no uterus, no vote" brigade. I'm all for meeting people half way and would be quite happy to liberalize the law to an extent. But it's impossible to debate honestly when the standard response is to argue the exceptions to back up abortion laws akin to the UK, and when called out on it they resort to the mute "what constitutes being alive anyway" nonsense
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » Love your little type there. But yes I think that any useful argument on abortion does have to mediate around the subject of consciousness not "life". After all what else are we assigning "Human rights" to if not that? Because, as you yourself say, "life" means all kinds of things and clearly we are not assigning human rights to anything that is "alive". So we need to get deeper into the linguistics that merely throwing out words like "alive" or "human". We have to qualify exactly what we mean with those words, and how exactly the apply to the subject of the fetus having "rights". And I have yet to see a single argument ever for assigning, or caring for, the rights of a fetus before 12, 16 or even 20 weeks. It is true that we do not understand human consciousness and awareness to identify a useful exact point where it develops. So using consciousness and awareness to determine an abortion cut off point would appear at first glance to be tricky. But then one realizes that while we can not identify points in the process where it arises, we can identify points in the process where it is simply entirely absent. The analogy I often use is to radio. Where radio waves are consciousness and the radio tower is whatever is producing it. We might have trouble merely looking at the tower wondering if it is yet switched on and broadcasting or not. But we have no trouble going back in time a bit and identifying not just a point where it was not switched on, but where the tower itself was not even built yet. We can do this with abortion. We can identify points in the development process where there simply is no reason to think any conscious, aware being has developed, and every reason to think the opposite. And I see NO issue at this time with being "pro choice" at those points. Especially given that if one identifies those points to be around 16-20 weeks of development (actually there are reasons to go as far as 24-26 weeks), that studies have shown 61.3% of abortions happen before 9 weeks. Around 88% happen before 12 weeks. And of the remaining 12% 58% of them wish they had had it earlier. So if we were voting on some kind of "abortion on demand" and had to get into a debate about cut off points in the process.... and we were using consciousness and human awareness as a point to mediate that debate.... one could argue for 16-20 weeks but in fact to actually address the vast majority of demand one would actually only need to campaign for 12 weeks. And none of that is subject to your worry that "some" types of test for consciousness could apply to infants. I would say generally the error of your ways is in merely asserting it to be "morally wrong" without offering any argument that it actually is. And then merely latching on to the people who feel guilt for doing it, as if they are evidence it must be wrong. Ignoring of course the fact that people feel guilty all the time for things that are not wrong. So why is this any different? So yes, baseless assertion would appear to be the error of your ways here. If however you have any arguments that establish or support the assertion, that would at least be interesting.
RDM_83 again wrote: » As I posted before I would support a German style regime since even if one doesn't like abortion its probably realistic for harm reduction. However looking at somewhere like the UK, 1 in 5 pregnancies end in abortion, that means there is literally thousands of abortions post 20 weeks mainly for social reasons (you can be offended by that but its something that can be backed up by fact) (and hundreds past 24 weeks) as well as the fact there is numerous people having multiple abortions,
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » So it seems to me the trend in actual demand, the trend in complications, and the moral arguments all suggest that if one were to campaign for "abortion on demand" or similar in Ireland, that 12-14 weeks would be a useful campaign point. So no I am not "offended" by your claims and statistics at all. They support strongly what I am saying. And as I said I think the moral arguments of abortion can be pushed up to 24 weeks and even more, but unnecessarily so seeing as 12-14 weeks would be enough.
One eyed Jack wrote: » I think it would be a disaster were we to try and put a time limit on it from a campaign perspective.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » I doubt it. If you were campaigning for abortion in Ireland you would have to be clear exactly what you are campaigning for. And one of the first questions that is always asked when you want to campaign or debate for full choice abortion is about where the cut offs would lie. And I have my answers to that question ready. If you do not, then that's you not me.
the groutch wrote: » Everything is after the election. That's the FG (aka FF Lite) way.
One eyed Jack wrote: » Always with the snarky assumptions
One eyed Jack wrote: » The problem with arguing cut off points is that here in Ireland, it would be very difficult, if nigh on impossible, to get a consensus on any point, let alone one between 12 and 24 weeks.
rainbow kirby wrote: » To be perfectly honest - I'm absolutely fine with the laws in the UK where I currently live and would like to see similar in Ireland, however unlikely that may be. I felt a lot safer knowing that if something happened or we had gotten bad news at our scans that it would have been dealt with properly and our choices respected.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » Always with the over sensitive snarky clap trap, aren't you, it doesn't help discussion y'know. You seem compelled to find offence or insult or exception even in posts where none exists, it doesn't help discussion y'know. Note that the highlighted line started with the word "IF". Do not ignore words in my post, it doesn't help discussion y'know. "If" is an assumption now? Only in your world, it doesn't help discussion y'know to make words mean what only you want them to. The problem with NOT arguing them is you will be asked. Now perhaps you do not actively campaign on these issues, or stand up in front of audiences in the real world and do debates on these issues. I do. And as I said I prefer to have my answers to questions ready. IF you do not, then that is you, not me. And if you are desperate to find "snark" in posts where none actually exists, as you demonstrate so readily above, then I am happy to give you some to actually find this time: I have seen your ability to back up you positions in the past, and suffice to say I am not compelled to take advice on it from you based on that experience. Quite the opposite in fact.
And as I said not only can I argue coherently for a cut off, the cut off I can argue for is way beyond that that is actually required. And it is simply a fact that the larger the cut off, the more people you are going to lose as they get steadily more uneasy. Whenever I tell people I am pro-choice the question I always get every time, and quite often the first question, is what my limits and cut offs for that will/would be.
So being able to usefully argue for a cut off that is HALF that othe UK, yet manages to address the demand of over 90% of the people actually seeking abortions at this time.... is massively useful.
zeffabelli wrote: » There is no justification for forcing women to carry pregnancies, give birth, or have c sections. It is without a doubt an unforgivable human rights violation up there with fgm, slavery, and gas chambers.
dashcamdanny wrote: » That may be true. But do you actually know how an abortion is carried out? This is a c&p of a page that explains.Dilation and Extraction (D and X) This abortion is also used on mid and late term babies, from 4 to 9 months gestation. Ultrasound is used to identify how the unborn baby is facing in the womb. The abortionist inserts forceps through the cervical canal into the uterus and grasps one of the baby’s legs, positioning the baby feet first, face down (breech position). The child’s body is then pulled out of the birth canal except for the head which is too large to pass through the cervix. The baby is alive, and probably kicking and flailing his legs and arms. The abortionist hooks his fingers over the baby’s shoulders, holding the woman’s cervix away from the baby’s neck. He then jams blunt tipped surgical scissors into the base of the skull and spreads the tips apart to enlarge the wound. A suction catheter is inserted into the baby’s skull and the brain is sucked out. The skull collapses and the baby’s head passes easily through the cervix.
