Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

So (as I've already said) the fallacy was misplaced but the point remains.

A person can consider themselves whatever they want.

I can call myself an Oil Painting if I feel like it. It doesn't necessarily make it so.

Deleted User wrote: »

Woah horsey.

This was what was said

Or rewritten as

They can call themselves "bastions of empathy" and still be anti-choice.

People's considerations of what they are doesn't necessarily make them so. Decent chance that NTS was posted incorrectly, but ignore it and the point holds out.

Your own link proves your mistake :

well defined Scotsman
Noteworthy is that the fallacy does not occur if there is a clear and well understood definition of what membership in a group requires, and it is that definition which is broken (e.g., "no honest man would lie" or "no theist can be an atheist" and so on). Thus, the NTS fallacy only occurs if the group is later redefined for no valid reason

It doesn't mean that anyone can describe themselves as anything they wish and not be called out on it if that appears to contradict something in the very definition of what that group is.

volchitsa wrote: »

Sure, but that doesn't come under the "No true Scotsman" fallacy" as you claimed, because that is about other people making up definitions of what a "True Scotsman" is or does so as to fit their preconceived beliefs or assertions.

Whereas a Vegan who eats beef can quite easily be shown not to fulfill the genuine criteria of Veganism. And if you think that being anti-choice is perfectly compatible with feminism, it's not enough to cite the NTS fallacy, you need to show why that could be so. Because some degree of autonomy for women over their own body, including pregnancy is most definitely a usual aspect of feminism. You may have evidence that this is a misunderstanding, but as I say it would need to be examined, not just dismissed as a logical fallacy.

Woah horsey.

This was what was said

eviltwin wrote: »

You can't be anti choice and call yourself a feminist.

Or rewritten as

Nobody who call's themselves a feminist could be anti-choice

Deleted User wrote: »

You can be anything and call yourself anything.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/No_True_Scotsman

Now, you might be on very shaky grounds from a logical perspective, and you may have many obvious contradictions in principles, but you are certainly permitted to call yourself whatever you like!

They can call themselves "bastions of empathy" and still be anti-choice.

People's considerations of what they are doesn't necessarily make them so. Decent chance that NTS was posted incorrectly, but ignore it and the point holds out.

Deleted User wrote: »

Of course you can call yourself a vegan, and regard your 'lapses' as just so. People don't need to believe you, but you of course are free to call yourself a vegan.

A woman can be anti-choice and consider herself a feminist. Definitely.

It does not make her so though of course.

Sure, but that doesn't come under the "No true Scotsman" fallacy" as you claimed, because that is about other people making up definitions of what a "True Scotsman" is or does so as to fit their preconceived beliefs or assertions.

Whereas a Vegan who eats beef can quite easily be shown not to fulfill the genuine criteria of Veganism. And if you think that being anti-choice is perfectly compatible with feminism, it's not enough to cite the NTS fallacy, you need to show why that could be so. Because some degree of autonomy for women over their own body, including pregnancy is most definitely a usual aspect of feminism. You may have evidence that this is a misunderstanding, but as I say it would need to be examined, not just dismissed as a logical fallacy.

Huntergonzo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

When we're talking about a referendum to amend the Constitution of this country though, it is not just the opinion of women who would rather not be pregnant that needs to be taken into consideration, as the Constitution applies to all citizens - those born, and those yet to be born.

At what point do these rights of the unborn actually kick in, like does my sperm have the same rights as me? and if they don't then why not? they're unborn potential humans. Also who gets to decide when these rights magically appear and by extension rights of the mother disappear?

volchitsa wrote: »

That's not what the No True Scotsman fallacy says. Otherwise I could call myself a Vegan as I tuck into my steak and chips without fear of being called a liar.

Of course you can call yourself a vegan, and regard your 'lapses' as just so. People don't need to believe you, but you of course are free to call yourself a vegan.

A woman can be anti-choice and consider herself a feminist. Definitely.

It does not make her so though of course.

Deleted User wrote: »

You can be anything and call yourself anything.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/No_True_Scotsman

Now, you might be on very shaky grounds from a logical perspective, and you may have many obvious contradictions in principles, but you are certainly permitted to call yourself whatever you like!

That's not what the No True Scotsman fallacy says. Otherwise I could call myself a Vegan as I tuck into my steak and chips without fear of being called a liar.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Abundantly clear to you perhaps, and I assure you my mis-reading was not intentional. My reading was based on the fact that volchista appears to be unable to understand that a person can identify as both religious, and yet argue for abortion.

I hadn't seen this before. That's absolutely untrue, I am well aware of and an O admirer of Catholics for Choice for example.

But they are a minority with the Catholic Church, so I do tend to assume that someone posting on here as a Catholic will be taking an anti-choice stance, and I'm sure I probably did make that assumption about you. I can't now remember to tell you the truth, which is why I very much doubt that I accused you of lying about your declared position, because I wasn't really aware of what it was until this thread.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

She has on numerous occasions questioned my credibility in this regard

As I say, I don't think that is true, I'm going to have to ask for examples. Although I'm sure I've queried specific inconsistencies or contradictions in your posts, that is highly likely, and in the context of whatever you had posted in certain threads probably assumed you to be posting from a pro-life/anti-choice position. Not the same as accusing you of lying about it all the same.

so I was assuming she was further questioning my credibility when I introduced the opinions of my wife. It appears (at least it becomes apparent later in the discussion), that I was correct in my original assumption, and read her post accordingly in that context. If you want to point fingers and claim that people should be ashamed of their behaviour, you might want to turn that spotlight a few degrees to the left.

Well all I can say is that you were apparently aware of the upcoming accusation before I had formulated it myself. I think that's a version of "if the cap fits" or perhaps just your guilty conscience!

How can a person empathise with someone on the basis of something they have no experience of? That doesn't appear to be empathy, that's egocentrism.

in that case how can anyone have any empathy for the fetus? Which I believe you told us your wife did.

Again I won't bother with the rest, mainly for time reasons. Despite the fact that you continue to discuss my posts with other posters, something I find most disagreeable. It's like being talked about behind my back, but deliberately loud enough so that I can hear. It seems unbelievably rude. But maybe that's just me. I wouldn't want to lack empathy with posters who feel the need to refight past posts with third parties, presumably to prove they were right really, once the actual poster has "left the room", so to speak! :rolleyes:

nozzferrahhtoo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Abundantly clear to you perhaps, and I assure you my mis-reading was not intentional.

Bull. You ACTUALLY thought the user was questioning what sex your wife is?

Seriously?

You think anyone here, aside possibly from yourself, is fooled by that?

Because if it actually is true that you thought that was what the user meant............ then you are making a statement about your own intellect that I really think you do not want to be making.

No I think it patently obvious that you read the words "the fact that a woman (according to you) is against abortion" and to willfully misread them you applied what was in the brackets to the word before the brackets rather than what followed them.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

How can a person empathise with someone on the basis of something they have no experience of?

By using things we DO have an experience of as a basis for extrapolation. We do it all the time. Maybe you lack the faculty. The rest of us do not.

I have no experience of being homeless for example. But I can empathize with those that are because I have experiences which parallel the experiences they have. Periods where I had no money. Periods where I was cold and hungry. Periods where I felt I had no security or personal autonomy. To name but a few, but the list goes on and on.

That is how empathy works for most of us, even if not for you. ou do not have to go through, have gone through, or be capable of going through something in order to empathize with someone who has. You merely have to be able to parallel experiences you HAVE had, and your feelings and emotions in those moments, in ways where they map on to each other.

Your fantastical version of empathy precludes any empathy at all because even when people have similar experiences.... they are never THE SAME. So under the lights of your nonsensical definitions of empathy, it is almost impossible to empathize with anything at all.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Well as I've already pointed out, numerous times now, those people without any agenda are able to determine what they believe are accurate terms, for themselves

Which does not addresses, let alone rebut, the point I just made. You are talking around the point I made basically. The point remains: Use of terms like "fetus" are not attempts to dehumanize anything or anyone. The terms are accurate and are applied to things there was no basis for "Humanizing" in the first place.

One can not De-X something that does not have X in the first place.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Yes, and I still struggle with the concept of understanding how someone can claim to be pro-choice, and yet it appears that they are only interested in their own choices

It is not a difficult concept to grasp. Lending conditions and limits to a choice is not anti-choice and there are few, if any, things in this world you can "choose" to do without limit.

For example I respect your right to choose to walk down your road today. I would put the limit on that choice that you can not do so swinging your arms wildly while crossing the space occupied by another human being. Because you will likely hit and injure them.

So in your extremist pedantry of the phrase "pro choice" I am actually not "pro choice" on your walking at all because I have limits, rules and caveats. But that is where linguistic extremist pedantry will get you. Into nonsenseville, where you appear to hold a permanent billing address.

Putting limitations and caveats on a choice is not the same as being anti choice. Not sure at all where your inability to grasp that lies.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You probably missed it earlier -

Nope, I missed nothing. That is a vague answer and does not fully answer what I was asking. But as I said it APPEARS that if a woman comes to us one week before her due date and says "I want to kill this thing inside me now" you think we should be perfectly allowed to do this and we should go about killing it?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I haven't invented my own meaning for words at all.

Yes. You have. Including, and in fact specifically given it was the basis of my saying it, this fantastically nonsense definition of empathy you appear to be operating under but no one else is.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'm easy either way, I'll still understand what she, or yourself means when we use different words to refer to the same thing.

The issue is that it has less to do with what is "natural" for someone as a word to use, and EVERYTHING to do with what people are trying to smuggle into conversations with their misuse of terms.

There is a very good reason why the pro choice people want to call it a Fetus. Because THAT IS WHAT IT IS.

There is a very good reason why the Anti choice people want to call it "An unborn child". Because those words carry an emotion and relevance that there is no coherent way to get the target to project into the conversation. So they want to use those phrases to get people to balk where there is no coherent or relevant argument to get them to do so.

Or to put it shorter the way I did before.... they are trying to Humanize something using emotive terminology that there is no actual argument for humanizing. And then when people RESIST that move, they are accused FALSELY of "dehumanizing" when they are not.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

We need to talk about 'foetus whisperers' - people who claim to possess the ability to speak for the unborn. Now, I lack this capability, so who's the idiot exactly?

Get a mirror. I am not talking about the unborn with that comment. I am talking about people empathizing with the mother. And your fatuous nonsense claim that anyone who thinks they can do so is an idiot. My point has NOTHING to do with "speaking for the unborn" at all. You have dodged my point/rebuttal by legging off on a tangent. Again.

Again these were the words I replied to:

"Someone who thinks they are capable of imagining themselves in someone else's situation... is an idiot."

And I repeat: If you lack this capability that others have, fine, but that does not make THEM the idiot.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

"There is a day coming when we will hear the voice from inside the womb, when its own authentic pain will be undeniable, when we will know with certainty that it is saying, "I want to live. I have a right to live. I do not need your permission to live."

Such a person saying that is talking abject nonsense. The vast majority of abortions are performed during a time, and the vast majority of pro-choice advocates argue for abortion cut off at a time, when there is NO REASON whatsoever to think a fetus has desires, or feels any pain.

eviltwin wrote: »

You can't be anti choice and call yourself a feminist.

You can be anything and call yourself anything.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/No_True_Scotsman

Now, you might be on very shaky grounds from a logical perspective, and you may have many obvious contradictions in principles, but you are certainly permitted to call yourself whatever you like!

lazygal

How can a foetus have the right to use my body to live when my born children can't force any such right on me? There's no voice coming from inside the uterus. Just the ones those in favour of compulsory gestation want to ascribe to non sentient foetueses.

eviltwin

You can't be anti choice and call yourself a feminist.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

No you do so by willfully mis-reading another users point and pretending he was questioning the biological sex of your wife when it was absolutely abundantly clear he was doing no such thing.

That is low even by the lights of your usual MO for contriving to mis-read what people have written. And then YOU have the gall to bemoan that the discussion reverts to dictionary definitions of words? For shame.

Abundantly clear to you perhaps, and I assure you my mis-reading was not intentional. My reading was based on the fact that volchista appears to be unable to understand that a person can identify as both religious, and yet argue for abortion. She has on numerous occasions questioned my credibility in this regard, so I was assuming she was further questioning my credibility when I introduced the opinions of my wife. It appears (at least it becomes apparent later in the discussion), that I was correct in my original assumption, and read her post accordingly in that context. If you want to point fingers and claim that people should be ashamed of their behaviour, you might want to turn that spotlight a few degrees to the left.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

You do not have to go through, have gone through, or be capable of going through something in order to empathize with someone who has.

How can a person empathise with someone on the basis of something they have no experience of? That doesn't appear to be empathy, that's egocentrism.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

There is a difference between "dehumanizing" something and preventing people with an agenda "Humanizing" it without cause. Which is what sticking to ACCURATE terms like "Fetus" is doing. Nothing to do with empathy or a lack of it.

Well as I've already pointed out, numerous times now, those people without any agenda are able to determine what they believe are accurate terms, for themselves, and all terms are actually acceptable, depending on the various perspectives. It does appear though as if someone disagrees with their perspective, it's that person, that lacks empathy!

There's a word for that sort of self-interested perspective.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I can empathize with that given how badly you explain your positions in general. For example you constantly say you are for abortion without limits, including on term. And that, for some reason you have never been able to articulate, that you can not gel the term "pro-choice" with putting conditions and limits on a choice.

Yes, and I still struggle with the concept of understanding how someone can claim to be pro-choice, and yet it appears that they are only interested in their own choices that they would see applied to other people, they don't really appear to be interested in that person making choices of their own volition, of their own free will, for themselves.

You can probably guess what I'd call that perspective at this point.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

But what you mean by any of that is less than clear. For example what options EXACTLY, with what result to the developing entity within her, should a woman be afforded at 6 months, 7 months, 8 months, or even a day or two before her due date? I have yet to see you be explicit on those things yet saying "Abortion without term limit" leaves one with only imagination to go on as to what you would be allowing us to perform on a child 3 weeks before it's due date.

You probably missed it earlier -

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Well if euthanasia were legislated for in this country, I would also like to see it included in the legislation regarding abortion that late term pregnancies would allow for a termination of the pregnancy by euthanising the unborn.

I would argue that this is the most humane approach that would respect both the dignity of the woman and offer that same dignity in death to the unborn.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

If you tire of being referred to dictionaries then perhaps stop inventing your own meaning for words, or transparently contriving to willfully mis-read and mis-understand the posts of others.

I haven't invented my own meaning for words at all. That different people use many words in many different contexts, and this can sometimes lead to misunderstandings in communication, shouldn't come as a revelation to anyone here. That's why I specifically said to volchista that given she would probably have been referring to a foetus for half her life, we could use the word foetus as I was thinking it likely felt more natural for her to do so. I'm easy either way, I'll still understand what she, or yourself means when we use different words to refer to the same thing.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Ah yes, when all else fails simply insult people. Cause yea, that always works. If you lack a capability that others have, fine, but that does not make THEM the idiot.

We need to talk about 'foetus whisperers' - people who claim to possess the ability to speak for the unborn. Now, I lack this capability, so who's the idiot exactly?

Mary McAleese, a Roman Catholic and ex-Irish President with substantial legal qualifications and experience, who called for people to vote YES in the recent referendum on marriage equality, appears to possess this capability, and she's not an idiot?

"There is a day coming when we will hear the voice from inside the womb, when its own authentic pain will be undeniable, when we will know with certainty that it is saying, "I want to live. I have a right to live. I do not need your permission to live."

Source: Feminists against abortion

I have no such super-powers, unfortunately. I can't even read born people's minds!

nozzferrahhtoo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

claim that they empathise with a woman facing an unwanted pregnancy, I've already stated that I'm not going to contradict them.

No, you are just going to call them an "idiot" and run.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Not possible, according to your later redefinition of 'empathy' :rolleyes:

If someone (whether they be pro-life, or pro-choice, makes no odds to me), wants to claim that they empathise with a woman facing an unwanted pregnancy, I've already stated that I'm not going to contradict them.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

They're clearly not thinking about the woman and her autonomy and rights however.

Some do, some don't. They're not an homogenous think-tank. They're individuals whose opinions aren't always synchronised (far as I'm aware that only happens with the Borg collective, and they're a fictitious alien species).

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

The feelings of activists on one side or the other are irrelevant. The lack of concern for the welfare of a pregnant woman (as she, herself, would define what is in her best interest) on one side of this debate is very apparent however.

To you and I perhaps, but to activists on either side, they are of the belief that their feelings are very much relevant to the discussion as though what they believe is in the best interests of whoever they advocate for, are matched by those whom they advocate for. It's an egocentric perspective of their own, that they ascribe to empathy for others.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

It is pregnant women in Ireland, who would rather not be pregnant, who are being forced to go down a path they would rather not go down. Either go to another country to abort, if they can, or stay in Ireland and remain pregnant.

When we're talking about a referendum to amend the Constitution of this country though, it is not just the opinion of women who would rather not be pregnant that needs to be taken into consideration, as the Constitution applies to all citizens - those born, and those yet to be born.

Yes that is one of the basic contradictions in OEJ's stance here : he claims that his wife doesn't feel empathy for women with unwanted pregnancies, because "realistically" she won't ever find herself in that position, and yet he says her stance on refusing abortion to women no matter what is based on her greater empathy for the fetus than for the pregnant woman.

So does she remember being a fetus better than being a pregnant woman? Or does she believe in reincarnation so that she feels that is a situation that may happen to her one day soon?

Or what?

It's all most unclear and inconsistent, almost incoherent in fact.

So given that this is all reported alleged information about someone else who nevertheless doesn't feel strongly enough to come on and speak for themselves (does she even know her views are being put up for discussion by her spouse I wonder?) I think we can presume he's actually projecting onto a third party beliefs and attitudes that he simply doesn't want to own up to himself.

aloyisious

@One eyed Jack: re your "Someone who thinks they are capable of imagining themselves in someone else's situation... is an idiot. There. I said it. If someone thinks they are capable of putting themselves in someone else's mind and visualising that person's perspective in their own mind - they're either Spock, or they're an idiot. That isn't empathy, that's projecting - imagining and processing another person's experiences through your own lens based on your own experiences which have made you the person you are. The person you're attempting to empathise with, how they process their experience may differ considerably from the way you process their experience"

1. On the basis of an inability to undergo the experiences of any pregnant woman, do you think that male adult voters here are mistaken then in what they see as them having empathic feelings with/for any pregnant women seeking abortions?

2. Do you think that male voters here (on the basis of lacking in true empathic feelings - NOT being able to experience what a woman goes through and feel's about the future of her pregnancy) should NOT vote in any referendum on abortion but leave the vote to women alone?

3. With regard to the feotus, do you also think that, as men could NOT be capable of feeling empathy with any feotus within any woman's womb in regard to abortion, that that would be a second reason for men NOT to vote in any referendum on abortion?

4. Is it a given that as feotus are NOT capable of knowledge and thoughts on abortion, therefore no living person could be capable of empathy with a feotus?

5. Do you think David Quinn - by way of his being a man - is NOT being capable of empathy, is an idiot for having feelings on abortion?

NOTE.... since I first posted this, I have edited it slightly, deleted one sentence and made other adjustments so if you read it at that time of posting and prepared your replies then, you may have to re-read my questions and adjust your replies accordingly.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

So a negative judgement of a person is not necessarily an indication that they are devoid of, or completely incapable of empathy? Well I knew that much myself already, but my wife will probably be relieved to hear she doesn't need to take a Levinson test. There's probably a few round here will be relieved to hear that too (that is of course if they were that insecure in themselves to have taken those sentiments seriously).

Would you say that people's empathy is limited by their morals? Genuine question. I would, because if people's morals are informed by their experiences (I know you're going to stick with the religious brainwashing argument in spite of the lack of evidence for that belief as people seem to be able to over-ride that particular switch at will), then their lack of experience will equally inform their morals, and that's how in certain circumstances, a normal person will appear to lack empathy if they don't share another person's perspective. How can they, when they haven't shared their experiences?

Sure, they can claim to empathise with that person, but can two different people have exactly the same shared experience that they are able, genuinely, to empathise with another person, and that empathy be reciprocated in equal measure?

That's clearly not always the case, is it?

Yes, that was my explanation (in TL:DR format if you will), not my wife's explanation. She has plenty of sympathy (is certainly capable of feeling guilt for suggesting that she values the life of the unborn, that's really not cool, and she tends to care what other people think of her so she keeps shtum about it) for other people in unfortunate circumstances, but her empathy can only extend to people with whom she has a shared experience(s).

Someone who thinks they are capable of imagining themselves in someone else's situation... is an idiot. There. I said it. If someone thinks they are capable of putting themselves in someone else's mind and visualising that person's perspective in their own mind - they're either Spock, or they're an idiot. That isn't empathy, that's projecting - imagining and processing another person's experiences through your own lens based on your own experiences which have made you the person you are. The person you're attempting to empathise with, how they process their experience may differ considerably from the way you process their experience.

Midwives have training and qualifications and experience, they may claim to be able to empathise with the person on the table, but it doesn't take a genius to figure that it's not only the viewing angle is the difference between them.

With a PhD in biology, you probably have experience in neurology and psychology, so you would know that the term "brainwashing" is a misnomer, let alone that it has been shown, by science, to be ineffective. If religious indoctrination were actually effective, they're doing a piss poor job of making it stick. Perhaps because people are more complex than any indoctrination has taken account of, and more likely they are who they are, and they think the way they do, based upon their experiences.

So you can understand then why someone wouldn't be able to give a direct answer to some of the direct questions that were put to them here, let alone be able to discuss a scenario involving a nine year old girl in South America. The easiest assumption as to why they can't even come near providing any sort of a qualified answer, is simply because they lack the experience to be able to offer an opinion on that scenario. Basically what you put down to religious brainwashing, I would put down to lack of experience.

I'm not sure why you think I moved the goalposts, let alone how you think I changed my mind about what my wife actually believes. I thought through an ongoing dialog we were actually gaining a better understanding, not that you were still choosing to misinterpret the intent of my posts based upon what you want to believe.

I wouldn't suggest you were brainwashed though, just stubborn.

I can understand where you're coming from, but genuinely, based upon your experience, do you find that fixing time limits concentrates a pregnant woman's mind? I've found in my experience that while the theory might seem reasonably sound, nature doesn't appear to adhere to time limits and schedules set by humans. Of course as early as possible would be ideal, but nature doesn't appear to care much for ideal either.

Let go of some of those preconceived notions and work some of that empathy, I think you're more than capable of understanding if you really want to.

(that's possibly me projecting though given that I believe you to be far more intelligent than I am!)

Sorry, but there's far too much inaccuracy and downright irrelevance for me to spend the time needed to take that apart (maybe a lonely retired person with too much time on their hands would like to set themselves to it? :rolleyes:)
but one part that cannot be left to stand is the bolded part.

I said I wouldn't be willing to take the time needed to discuss detailed cases individually especially hypothetical ones - and you take from that the idea that the RL case of a 9-year old girl might be similarly complex - I mean seriously??

In what circumstances could it possibly be acceptable to force a nine year old child to carry a pregancy to term in order to protect the fetus?? Are you serious?

It doesn't even make sense in terms of "protecting children" after all, she's a child - why do her interests come second to those of a fetus that only some people believe is also a child, and that many people don't?

Given that the youngest child ever to have a live birth was, iirc, six years old is there any age in your opinion at which all sensible (empathetic?) people would always prioritize the protection of the living child over the putative unborn child?

Or does the unborn have some magic status that gives it a greater claim to protection than the born child?

nozzferrahhtoo

Kole Round Spectator wrote: »

It's tiresome how the pro-abortion side keep harping on about the extremely rare cases like rape, abnormalities etc when the vast vast majority of abortions in the UK for instance are just lifestyle choices.

Then change your narrative. Because you only seem to notice and reply to posts where people mention things like Rape. And you entirely ignore posts from posters like myself who make no such arguments.

So if you find it "tiresome" to hear one kind of rhetoric, then ask yourself why you and others only focus on reading and replying to that rhetoric while ignoring the rest.

As I keep saying.... if your anti-choice anti-abortion side of the argument can not find a single argument for affording human rights to a 16 week old fetus.... then you have little coherent basis for anti-abortion argument. You are left with nothing but hiding behind terms like "unborn child" in the hopes the terms will do your work for you, where you fail to.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I don't try and strawman the fcuk out of the discussion by bringing up a moral argument about a nine year old

No you do so by willfully mis-reading another users point and pretending he was questioning the biological sex of your wife when it was absolutely abundantly clear he was doing no such thing.

That is low even by the lights of your usual MO for contriving to mis-read what people have written. And then YOU have the gall to bemoan that the discussion reverts to dictionary definitions of words? For shame.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

To put it in simpler terms - I as a man can never empathise with a woman in terms of her ability to become pregnant.

You do not have to go through, have gone through, or be capable of going through something in order to empathize with someone who has.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Should we just go back to calling the unborn a foetus then and dehumanising human life in the most clinical terms possible?

There is a difference between "dehumanizing" something and preventing people with an agenda "Humanizing" it without cause. Which is what sticking to ACCURATE terms like "Fetus" is doing. Nothing to do with empathy or a lack of it.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

She knows my views on abortion, she doesn't like them, can't get her head around why I think the way I do

I can empathize with that given how badly you explain your positions in general. For example you constantly say you are for abortion without limits, including on term. And that, for some reason you have never been able to articulate, that you can not gel the term "pro-choice" with putting conditions and limits on a choice.

But what you mean by any of that is less than clear. For example what options EXACTLY, with what result to the developing entity within her, should a woman be afforded at 6 months, 7 months, 8 months, or even a day or two before her due date? I have yet to see you be explicit on those things yet saying "Abortion without term limit" leaves one with only imagination to go on as to what you would be allowing us to perform on a child 3 weeks before it's due date.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Dictionary definitions again?

If you tire of being referred to dictionaries then perhaps stop inventing your own meaning for words, or transparently contriving to willfully mis-read and mis-understand the posts of others.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Someone who thinks they are capable of imagining themselves in someone else's situation... is an idiot.

Ah yes, when all else fails simply insult people. Cause yea, that always works. If you lack a capability that others have, fine, but that does not make THEM the idiot.

Hotblack Desiato

One eyed Jack wrote: »

From the people I know who espouse a pro-life position, they empathise with the women who find themselves facing an unwanted pregnancy

Not possible, according to your later redefinition of 'empathy' :rolleyes:

but they don't want abortion legislated for in Ireland. They're not thinking about the inconvenience to any women of having to travel or the expense of traveling and the cost of the procedure and accommodation. They're thinking of the unborn human life.

They're clearly not thinking about the woman and her autonomy and rights however.

How people don't see their own lack of compassion while accusing others of lacking compassion, never ceases to make me wonder what the hell is their bloody point?

The feelings of activists on one side or the other are irrelevant. The lack of concern for the welfare of a pregnant woman (as she, herself, would define what is in her best interest) on one side of this debate is very apparent however.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Both sides are doing it, because both sides are arguing from their own respective positions and want to force the other side down a path they'd rather not go down. I'd rather see understanding and compassion for people who I disagree with on an issue like this, than adults acting like a bunch of school children thumbing their noses at each other across the table. That's just embarrassing to witness if the aim is to inform people with the facts.

It is pregnant women in Ireland, who would rather not be pregnant, who are being forced to go down a path they would rather not go down. Either go to another country to abort, if they can, or stay in Ireland and remain pregnant.

volchitsa wrote: »

No, that would not make sense, unless you think any negative judgment, even of say a paedophile, means a person is devoid of empathy. I would disagree - one is perfectly correct to limit one's empathy to people one considers have not committed some evil act.

So a negative judgement of a person is not necessarily an indication that they are devoid of, or completely incapable of empathy? Well I knew that much myself already, but my wife will probably be relieved to hear she doesn't need to take a Levinson test. There's probably a few round here will be relieved to hear that too (that is of course if they were that insecure in themselves to have taken those sentiments seriously).

Would you say that people's empathy is limited by their morals? Genuine question. I would, because if people's morals are informed by their experiences (I know you're going to stick with the religious brainwashing argument in spite of the lack of evidence for that belief as people seem to be able to over-ride that particular switch at will), then their lack of experience will equally inform their morals, and that's how in certain circumstances, a normal person will appear to lack empathy if they don't share another person's perspective. How can they, when they haven't shared their experiences?

Sure, they can claim to empathise with that person, but can two different people have exactly the same shared experience that they are able, genuinely, to empathise with another person, and that empathy be reciprocated in equal measure?

That's clearly not always the case, is it?

But not just because one will never find oneself in someone else's unfortunate position - which was your original explanation for your wife's lack of empathy for a woman with a pregnancy caused by rape or that was likely to harm her seriously.

Yes, that was my explanation (in TL:DR format if you will), not my wife's explanation. She has plenty of sympathy (is certainly capable of feeling guilt for suggesting that she values the life of the unborn, that's really not cool, and she tends to care what other people think of her so she keeps shtum about it) for other people in unfortunate circumstances, but her empathy can only extend to people with whom she has a shared experience(s).

I don't understand what point you're making here. Is an empathetic person someone who has had many painful experiences, or someone who is capable of imagining themselves in someone else's situation? I think it's definitely the latter. Not all midwives have given birth, but I don't imagine you would think that makes them any less able to empathize with the woman they are helping at any given time? Seriously?

Someone who thinks they are capable of imagining themselves in someone else's situation... is an idiot. There. I said it. If someone thinks they are capable of putting themselves in someone else's mind and visualising that person's perspective in their own mind - they're either Spock, or they're an idiot. That isn't empathy, that's projecting - imagining and processing another person's experiences through your own lens based on your own experiences which have made you the person you are. The person you're attempting to empathise with, how they process their experience may differ considerably from the way you process their experience.

Midwives have training and qualifications and experience, they may claim to be able to empathise with the person on the table, but it doesn't take a genius to figure that it's not only the viewing angle is the difference between them.

Yes it would wouldn't it? That's because science is the opposite of brainwashing. Religion however is very much about indoctrination and by defintion often contains significant elements of brainwashing.

With a PhD in biology, you probably have experience in neurology and psychology, so you would know that the term "brainwashing" is a misnomer, let alone that it has been shown, by science, to be ineffective. If religious indoctrination were actually effective, they're doing a piss poor job of making it stick. Perhaps because people are more complex than any indoctrination has taken account of, and more likely they are who they are, and they think the way they do, based upon their experiences.

Not sure why you would think it a problem to ask such a question, except to the extent that it's so vague and hypothetical as to make a general answer impossible.

With the information I have there, all I could say would be "that depends". Why is the person seeking the later termination? Is there a health issue that has occured or been exacerbated? Has she been incapacitated in some way or otherwise unable to access an earlier termination? What would be the consequence of the various possible courses of action, IOW would the result of not terminating be likely to be worse than the result of terminating, taking into account the later termination is likely to be more traumatic for her (so if she just couldn't make up her mind for example, I'd tend to think that it might be worse for her to terminate, since she was already unable to do it earlier - but again that depends.)

And nor is it feasible, IMO, to start inventing these various hypothetical situations to run through one after the other, there are far too many variables that one or other of us could then bring in to back up our own view, and "prove" ourselves right. Not to mention goalpost moving such as you indulged in earlier when you suddenly changed your mind about what your wife actually believed.

So I wouldn't want to get into discussing the merits of sets of invented scenarios such as those I've suggested - not because they would cause me any difficulty individually, but because they would be a complete waste of time and a more general reply would be at least as informative.

So you can understand then why someone wouldn't be able to give a direct answer to some of the direct questions that were put to them here, let alone be able to discuss a scenario involving a nine year old girl in South America. The easiest assumption as to why they can't even come near providing any sort of a qualified answer, is simply because they lack the experience to be able to offer an opinion on that scenario. Basically what you put down to religious brainwashing, I would put down to lack of experience.

I'm not sure why you think I moved the goalposts, let alone how you think I changed my mind about what my wife actually believes. I thought through an ongoing dialog we were actually gaining a better understanding, not that you were still choosing to misinterpret the intent of my posts based upon what you want to believe.

I wouldn't suggest you were brainwashed though, just stubborn.

Basically before the fetus is viable I have no moral problem with abortion, but I think it preferable to ensure that it takes place as early as possible, for safety reasons among others. Fixing a time limit concentrates the mind and is a way of ensuring that people don't just leave the decision too late.

I can understand where you're coming from, but genuinely, based upon your experience, do you find that fixing time limits concentrates a pregnant woman's mind? I've found in my experience that while the theory might seem reasonably sound, nature doesn't appear to adhere to time limits and schedules set by humans. Of course as early as possible would be ideal, but nature doesn't appear to care much for ideal either.

Well, I admit to having difficulty with grasping some of it.

Let go of some of those preconceived notions and work some of that empathy, I think you're more than capable of understanding if you really want to.

(that's possibly me projecting though given that I believe you to be far more intelligent than I am!)

Absolam

MrPudding wrote: »

With the greatest of respect, I think perhaps your wife should take a Levenson test.

MrP

Well, that's not very empathetic.

Absolam

Cabaal wrote: »

Suggesting women can't be trusted when it comes to access to abortions is like suggesting women can't be trusted to vote properly if they are given the vote....sure they could vote for any old idiot, you can't trust women with such an important decision. :rolleyes:

Has anyone actually suggested such a thing? I don't mean has a pro choice poster claimed that that's what the pro life position effectively does (because that's obviously a strawman) but has a pro life poster (or campaigner) said, or suggested (actually, not effectively) that women can't be trusted when it comes to access to abortions? Or... are you making up the notion in order to have a little :rolleyes: moment?

Cabaal wrote: »

If you claim abortion is murder and you don't lobby and campaign to have women traveling for abortions banned then you are nothing more then a hypocrite.

It is amazing how often that hypocrisy line gets thrown out, knowing full well that claiming there should be abortion whilst arguing for the expansion of the anti-abortion position is true hypocrisy.

Absolam

Samaris wrote: »

However it's looked at, it's a bit morally cowardly to sit on the position of not in my backyard, and exporting it to the next country over. Not unheard of in other countries too of course, but still.

That's more than a bit oversimplified though. Let's say you ask everyone you claim 'sits on the position of not in my backyard' would you implement a ban on abortion in the next country over if you could. You're implying they'd say no; I think they'd say yes. I think those who oppose abortion will oppose it wherever they can, most of them are just not foolish enough to think they're in a position to determine what people can do in other countries.

Samaris wrote: »

Things said approximately never: "To Do Today - get milk, newspaper, abortion..."

Because.... there was some suggestion it might be?

lazygal wrote: »

I don't understand your definition of empathy OEJ. I'd think it was something like this:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/empathy
Full Definition of empathy
1: the imaginative projection of a subjective state into an object so that the object appears to be infused with it
2: the action of understanding, being aware of, being sensitive to, and vicariously experiencing the feelings, thoughts, and experience of another of either the past or present without having the feelings, thoughts, and experience fully communicated in an objectively explicit manner; also : the capacity for this

but you seem to think that if I haven't had an exactly similar experience to someone I can't empathise with them.

Dictionary definitions again? I'm finding it hard to comprehend how people can have such difficultly with the various concepts and understandings that they have to resort to dictionary definitions at all. How do they hold a normal conversation at all? Seriously?

If someone claims that they can empathise with someone else, for whatever reason, I'm not going to contradict them. If someone says that they can not empathise with someone, for whatever reason, or even the lack of reasons, or they just can't articulate exactly why they can't empathise with someone, that they just don't, I'm not going to assume they're incapable of empathy, because that would be a stupidly broad assumption for one thing, and secondly I'm not qualified to diagnose anyone with a particular pathology, much less over the internet on the basis of second-hand information.

The understanding that I have of empathy is "shared experience", the understanding I have of sympathy is that I haven't shared their experience, but I would try and understand where they're coming from. It's like you said earlier about my wife's black and white thinking and that you feel sorry for her. I don't. I envy the fact that she has the luxury of an inability to think in anything other than such black and white terms.

I can't empathise with the way people like that think, but there's a lot to be said for it.

Cabaal

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Yes but that's you, speaking from your perspective, and that's grand, I can't contradict you, nor would I try to, as that would just be silly. In the same way, I'm not going to contradict my wife if she says she cannot empathise with a suicidal 14 year old pregnant rape victim. I wouldn't expect her to be able to, as she has never experienced what it is to be a suicidal 14 year old pregnant rape victim.

I'm not a female, ill never be pregnant and I'll certainly never be pregnant from rape. But I can sure as hell empathise and understand why any women would want an abortion in such a situation. The same as I can empathise with anybody in any traumatic situation.

I'd really be wary of anybody that has a total inability to empathise with somebody and understand the thought process of a person in such a awful situation.