Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

lazygal wrote: »

Maybe you could link some of the prolife non religious peer reviewed scientific data that led you to conclude that I should never be allowed to have an abortion. And that abortion is never necessary during pregnancy.

There must be some out there, feel free to find it yourself. I'm getting dragged into an argument and point scoring exercise with people who don't agree with me and to be honest I can't be bothered to reply any longer. Sorry.

My original question still stands: Are there any people out there who are fed up with being classed as etc etc etc zzzzzz

Cabaal

Ragnar Lothbrok wrote: »

I don't accept the abortion argument is about personal freedom for women

and the women's health, don't give a monkeys about that so then eh?

My original question still stands: Are there any people out there who are fed up with being classed as etc etc etc zzzzzz

You are in a minority when you don't believe in a religion but you want to align yourself with pro life groups which overwhelmingly are religion based, after all you've relied on their research to help form your viewpoint.

Loafing Oaf

Ragnar Lothbrok wrote: »

Oh please! I was never baptised or christened or anything like that. Both my parents were atheists. I'm also definitely NOT a Catholic, and have no Catholic ancestors either. My family background, on both sides (if you're interested) would be very slightly Church of England with the odd Methodist thrown in for good luck. Religion of any sort has never played any sort of role in my life or my parents' lives. My grandparents on both sides didn't attend any church apart from the usual marriages funerals and christenings.

Okay you sound genuine in your non-belief but common sense tells me that the majority of supposedly atheist-agnostic online pro-lifers aren't...

Cabaal wrote: »

Ragnar Lothbrok wrote: »

and the women's health, don't give a monkeys about that so then eh?

And this is something else that annoys me when discussing abortion - because I'm pro-life I'm automatically seen as "not giving a monkeys" about women's health. I care about every person's health, including the unborn child.

Oh, I wish I hadn't asked my original question - I should have realised I'd get a verbal battering from people opposed to my point of view. I discovered long ago that it's pointless discussing this topic as both sides are so entrenched in their views that we will never change each other's opinions.

This really is the last time I'm responding to any more questions folks. You have your views, I have mine, and never the twain will meet.

Ragnar Lothbrok wrote: »

Cabaal wrote: »

And this is something else that annoys me when discussing abortion - because I'm pro-life I'm automatically seen as "not giving a monkeys" about women's health. I care about every person's health, including the unborn child.

Oh, I wish I hadn't asked my original question - I should have realised I'd get a verbal battering from people opposed to my point of view. I discovered long ago that it's pointless discussing this topic as both sides are so entrenched in their views that we will never change each other's opinions.

This really is the last time I'm responding to any more questions folks. You have your views, I have mine, and never the twain will meet.

Yet my health doesn't matter, I've to remain pregnant if there's a foetus inside me. Nice dodge on the data provision, telling me to look for it. Noted prolife mutter Kate Bopp tends to do the same. She claims she's not religious too.

frostyjacks

lazygal wrote: »

Ragnar Lothbrok wrote: »

Yet my health doesn't matter, I've to remain pregnant if there's a foetus inside me. Nice dodge on the data provision, telling me to look for it. Noted prolife mutter Kate Bopp tends to do the same. She claims she's not religious too.

What difference does someone's religious persuasion make to you?

robindch

eviltwin wrote: »

in other words you believe people should be free to make the right choices for them. Why is abortion any different?

Because abortion is a different argument, driven by the belief on both sides of the debate that the drivers and decision points are fundamentally different.

FWIW, I believe that these are fundamentally quite similar, or could be easily enough phrased so that they are, but there's so much heat in the debate, so many entrenched positions and so little genuine discussion, that any commonality is forgotten and all that remains is the shouting.

Cabaal

Ragnar Lothbrok wrote: »

I care about every person's health, including the unborn child.

You claim you do but clearly you don't,

How are you caring about the women's health when a women is beaten and raped and is pregnant with the rapists off spring and feels violated every day due to this?

Your answer is no to an abortion, thats not caring about the women's health at all. Please explain how you exactly are you caring, because its certainly not clear.

Your stance is just odd, while you're at it you might as well claim that the rapists off spring is entitled to have access to its dad and so when the fetus comes to term the women needs to allow visitation rights with the rapist....you can claim you care about the women's health in this situation too.
:rolleyes:

lazygal wrote: »

Ragnar Lothbrok wrote: »

Yet my health doesn't matter, I've to remain pregnant if there's a foetus inside me. Nice dodge on the data provision, telling me to look for it. Noted prolife mutter Kate Bopp tends to do the same. She claims she's not religious too.

Just one more reply........despite posting earlier that I wouldn't.

You say foetus, I say unborn child. It makes a real difference to the way we view things you know.

I already admitted earlier that I don't have any data provision etc, you know that. I never claimed to. I rely on my own feelings and articles I've read etc.

You casually use the term "pro-life nutter" which shows your total dismissal of anyone who has a contrary opinion to yourself. Then you subtly accuse me of being religious by stating that Kate Bopp "claims she's not religious too". Don't know how to convince you that I'm a complete atheist but I can just ask you to read one of my posts earlier which lays out my family history for several generations and hope that does the trick.

I've not posted on boards until the last couple of days.

I'm thinking I'm after making a few mistakes using the quote button. Some of the quotes seem a bit mixed up. Apologies to everyone whose quote was attributed to me and vice versa, as I'm sure you are incensed that some of my anti-abortion quotes are attributed to you

Ragnar Lothbrok wrote: »

I rely on my own feelings and articles I've read etc.

Relying on your own feelings to inform decisions about your own body is absolutely fine. Relying on them to inform decisions about what other people should be allowed to do with theirs? Not so much.

As for articles you've read, how many pro-choice articles have you read, particularly those written by experts in the field of reproductive healthcare?

You casually use the term "pro-life nutter" which shows your total dismissal of anyone who has a contrary opinion to yourself.

On the contrary, the term was applied specifically to Kate Bopp, who's a nutter, and pro-life. That doesn't imply any dismissal of pro-life people who aren't nutters.

Cabaal

Ragnar Lothbrok wrote: »

You say foetus, I say unborn child. It makes a real difference to the way we view things you know.

But its still a foetus so its inaccurate to call it by other names, you wouldn't call a 24hr old bunch of cells an unborn child would you?

Cabaal wrote: »

But its still a foetus so its inaccurate to call it by other names, you wouldn't call a 24hr old bunch of cells an unborn child would you?

Not sure if I would or not to be honest, it's not really relevant anyway as no abortion is going to take place at this early stage. And before you ask, I'm not against the day after pill, although I will admit that it makes me feel slightly morally uneasy.

Abortions take place many weeks after conception, and by this stage I genuinely believe that is an unborn child, not just a foetus.

An unborn child that's 24 to 28 weeks old can still be aborted legally in the UK. Would you call that a foetus or an unborn child? There are plenty of cases, as you well know without asking me for links etc, of children that have been born at this stage and have survived to live happy, successful lives.

eviltwin

Ragnar Lothbrok wrote: »

Cabaal wrote: »

Please feel free to enlighten us then,
Hard to claim you're liberal though when you're happy to restrict personal freedoms, even when the persons health and life is at risk.

I don't accept the abortion argument is about personal freedom for women because I also believe in personal freedom for the unborn child.

You are perfectly entitled to have that view but don't kid yourself that you are liberal because there is nothing liberal in believing women should be forced to continue with pregnancies they don't want. The liberal thing would be to respect the rights of women to make the right decisions for themselves even if you don't agree with it.

Ragnar Lothbrok wrote: »

Not sure if I would or not to be honest, it's not really relevant anyway as no abortion is going to take place at this early stage. And before you ask, I'm not against the day after pill, although I will admit that it makes me feel slightly morally uneasy.

Abortions take place many weeks after conception, and by this stage I genuinely believe that is an unborn child, not just a foetus.

An unborn child that's 24 to 28 weeks old can still be aborted legally in the UK. Would you call that a foetus or an unborn child? There are plenty of cases, as you well know without asking me for links etc, of children that have been born at this stage and have survived to live happy, successful lives.

Abortions can be carried out at any stage of pregnancy in Ireland, if there's a risk to life.

Pherekydes

Ragnar Lothbrok wrote: »

Not sure if I would or not to be honest, it's not really relevant anyway as no abortion is going to take place at this early stage. And before you ask, I'm not against the day after pill, although I will admit that it makes me feel slightly morally uneasy.

Abortions take place many weeks after conception, and by this stage I genuinely believe that is an unborn child, not just a foetus.

An unborn child that's 24 to 28 weeks old can still be aborted legally in the UK. Would you call that a foetus or an unborn child? There are plenty of cases, as you well know without asking me for links etc, of children that have been born at this stage and have survived to live happy, successful lives.

The question begs itself: do you equate embryo with child? Or blastocyst with child? If so, would you equate a blastocyst with a foetus? At what point would it be ok to abort a pregnancy? Research has shown about half of all pregnancies end in abortion. People call them miscarriages as if that's somehow different to abortion.

Just curious...

Ragnar Lothbrok wrote: »

Abortions take place many weeks after conception, and by this stage I genuinely believe that is an unborn child, not just a foetus.

oldrnwisr

Ragnar Lothbrok wrote: »

However, if I must answer your question, I'd say that I don't believe I've ever come across a case where the pregnant woman is 100% certain of dying due to pregnancy. Fortunately, medical science has advanced so far that the chances of a pregnant woman dying directly as a result of being pregnant are extremely low/non-existant.

What Lazygal asked you is that, given your opening comment about being completely against abortion, whether or not you hold that view even if her life was in danger.

The problem with your response above is that the reason why the chances of women dying from certain conditions are low is because the treatment for those conditions is abortion. Ectopic pregnancy has a mortality rate of 1% and a sterility rate of 35% and that's with treatment. If women with ectopic pregnancy, HELLP syndrome, molar pregnancy etc. weren't offered abortions then they would face a substantial risk of death.

Ragnar Lothbrok wrote: »

Not sure if I would or not to be honest, it's not really relevant anyway as no abortion is going to take place at this early stage. And before you ask, I'm not against the day after pill, although I will admit that it makes me feel slightly morally uneasy.

Abortions take place many weeks after conception, and by this stage I genuinely believe that is an unborn child, not just a foetus.

In a word, no. In the UK each year approximately 1000 abortions occur within the first four weeks. 80% of abortions occur within the first 9 weeks and 92% occur within the first 12 weeks. So over 90% of abortions occur at a time before you could, even charitably, call a foetus a child. At 12 weeks the average foetus measures about 5cm and weighs about 14g. There is no brainwave activity, no synaptogenesis, nothing that you could use to classify the foetus as a child.

Calling the foetus an unborn child at this stage is not just inaccurate, it's a poor attempt at an appeal to emotion.

Ragnar Lothbrok wrote: »

An unborn child that's 24 to 28 weeks old can still be aborted legally in the UK. Would you call that a foetus or an unborn child? There are plenty of cases, as you well know without asking me for links etc, of children that have been born at this stage and have survived to live happy, successful lives.

Again, no. There are 5 basic grounds under which abortions can be performed legally in the UK. A & B cover emergency situations such as imminent risk to the life of the mother (A) and imminent risk of permanent injury (B) while ground E covers situations of fatal foetal abnormality. Grounds C & D which cover the mental health of the woman expire at 24 weeks. So the only abortions that can be performed legally in the UK after 24 weeks are for emergency medical reasons.
Having said that there are very few abortions carried out in such a time period. Just 211 of the 185,000 abortions in 2014 in the UK were performed at or after 24 weeks and all of these were carried out under ground E, so they would not have went on to live any kind of life, happy or otherwise.

Maybe you need to start reading the actual evidence surrounding this debate rather than some pro-life pamphlets and anecdotes. You'll find that pro-life groups such as Youth Defence often make false or misleading statements to further their aims.

aloyisious

This made me go aargh when I saw the article heading but, on reading it I found the opinion-piece a timely reminder on life V desire...

http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/how-can-people-like-us-vote-for-ronan-mullen-1.2627838

The Examiner had this to say on the result... Mr Mullen, who is known for his conservative views, polled exceptionally strongly finishing top of the pile.
I thought it slightly understated.

lazygal wrote: »

Abortions can be carried out at any stage of pregnancy in Ireland, if there's a risk to life.

OK so why is there a demand for even more liberal abortion laws?

Abortion was legalised in the UK around 1967, with very specific and restrictive guidelines. However, the reality is that ever since then, abortion has been allowed on demand. I grew up in the UK and spent over 20 years there, and I personally know several women who have had abortions - none of these abortions were extreme cases, no rape, no incest, no threat to their lives. They were quite open about the reasons for their abortions, that if they had continued with their pregnancies it would have prevented them from continuing with their education course or their job prospects would have been compromised or their boyfriend wouldn't support them. These were genuine reasons for the women concerned.

I did not agree with their choices (not that they consulted me beforehand!) and they were all happy with their choice to abort their unborn child. As far as I know none of them suffered afterwards, and they continued with their lives as if nothing had happened (and again, I might not have been privy to their real thoughts and feelings afterwards).

This is my real problem with allowing abortion in certain cases - that once it becomes acceptable to allow abortion it then becomes used as an alternative to contraceptives.

There have been some compelling medical and moral reasons put forward by posters here to support abortion. Despite these well thought out arguments in favour of abortion, I still cannot ever agree that the destruction of what I consider to be a completely innocent human life (and to use an emotional term, a baby) should ever be allowed.

When does the foetus become human? It's impossible for people to agree on this in either scientific or moral terms, and I'm not sure I can even decide myself so I tend to think it's within the first few weeks after conception.

Ragnar Lothbrok wrote: »

OK so why is there a demand for even more liberal abortion laws?

Because your life shouldn't have to be at risk before you have a choice not to be pregnant.

They were quite open about the reasons for their abortions, that if they had continued with their pregnancies it would have prevented them from continuing with their education course or their job prospects would have been compromised or their boyfriend wouldn't support them. These were genuine reasons for the women concerned.

And your position is that they should be denied an education or a career because you personally believe that an embryo's right to life is more important than their right to choose not to be pregnant.

I did not agree with their choices...

And that's absolutely fine. No pro-choice person will ever ask you to agree with everyone else's choice. All they will ask is that you recognise that it's their choice, not yours.

This is my real problem with allowing abortion in certain cases - that once it becomes acceptable to allow abortion it then becomes used as an alternative to contraceptives.

That's a symptom of reading only pro-life arguments, I'm afraid.

There have been some compelling medical and moral reasons put forward by posters here to support abortion. Despite these well thought out arguments in favour of abortion, I still cannot ever agree that the destruction of what I consider to be a completely innocent human life (and to use an emotional term, a baby) should ever be allowed.

When does the foetus become human? It's impossible for people to agree on this in either scientific or moral terms, and I'm not sure I can even decide myself so I tend to think it's within the first few weeks after conception.

There's the problem with the pro-life position in a nutshell. "It's impossible to say for certain when a blastocyst becomes a human being, but let's arbitrarily arrive at a conclusion that nobody will agree with and use that conclusion to deny other people the right to decide whether or not to be pregnant."

If the idea of terminating a pregnancy is abhorrent to you, fine: nobody's forcing you to terminate a pregnancy. But your personal revulsion at the idea isn't a good enough reason to deny other people a choice.

oscarBravo wrote: »

And your position is that they should be denied an education or a career because you personally believe that an embryo's right to life is more important than their right to choose not to be pregnant.

I'm not saying they should be denied an education or a career at all. I do believe however, that an innocent life is more important than either, and of course education and careers are only put on hold, whereas once an unborn child is aborted that's final.

Ragnar Lothbrok wrote: »

I'm not saying they should be denied an education or a career at all. I do believe however, that an innocent life is more important than either, and of course education and careers are only put on hold, whereas once an unborn child is aborted that's final.

Pregnancy itself is a significant burden. Luckily I'm in a position where I can have as many abortions as I want because I can travel. Why should I be able to access abortion while others must remain pregnant? And deal with the long term consequences? I needed five fillings after pregnancy because I vomited so much, not to mention internal scarring from section scars. And I'm relatively "lucky". There can be lifelong complications from tears during delivery,for example.

Ragnar Lothbrok wrote: »

I'm not saying they should be denied an education or a career at all. I do believe however, that an innocent life is more important than either...

There are two key words in that latter sentence: "I believe."

That's the point I will keep coming back to. This is a belief that you hold. That's fine. Nobody's asking you to do anything that's against your beliefs.

It's when your personal beliefs come up against someone else's right not to be pregnant that we have a problem.

oscarBravo wrote: »

That's a symptom of reading only pro-life arguments, I'm afraid.

I have also read plenty of pro-choice arguments. I already stated that I find some of the arguments in favour of more liberal abortion quite compelling and logical, but however that may be, I cannot accept the destruction of an unborn child. That's emotive language, and I use it to try and explain the way I feel. I accept you and many others don't see it in this way, and that's perhaps the main reaon we will never agree.

Ragnar Lothbrok wrote: »

I have also read plenty of pro-choice arguments. I already stated that I find some of the arguments in favour of more liberal abortion quite compelling and logical, but however that may be, I cannot accept the destruction of an unborn child. That's emotive language, and I use it to try and explain the way I feel. I accept you and many others don't see it in this way, and that's perhaps the main reaon we will never agree.

Is abortion of an ectopic pregnancy abhorrent?

Ragnar Lothbrok wrote: »

I have also read plenty of pro-choice arguments. I already stated that I find some of the arguments in favour of more liberal abortion quite compelling and logical, but however that may be, I cannot accept the destruction of an unborn child. That's emotive language, and I use it to try and explain the way I feel. I accept you and many others don't see it in this way, and that's perhaps the main reaon we will never agree.

It's not a problem; I don't need you to agree with me. All I need is for you to understand that it's OK for your emotions to override your logic when you're making decisions that only affect you; it's not OK when your decisions impact on others.

oscarBravo wrote: »

There are two key words in that latter sentence: "I believe."

That's the point I will keep coming back to. This is a belief that you hold. That's fine. Nobody's asking you to do anything that's against your beliefs.

It's when your personal beliefs come up against someone else's right not to be pregnant that we have a problem.

We all hold certain beliefs that infringe on other peoples rights. It's a question of how much an individual can be totally free. Taken to extremes, I don't believe in the Nazis were right to implement the Final Solution, or that the atrocities being carried out at the moment by Muslim extremists are right. But in the interests of freedom of belief and action, do you think the Nazis and Muslim extremists were/are perfectly entitled to behave the way they did/do?

And please don't accuse me of equating women who choose to have an abortion with Nazis or ISIS, I was just using these extreme examples to show where my beliefs would curtail someone else's rights, and I believe that this would be perfectly correct and acceptable.

lazygal wrote: »

Is abortion of an ectopic pregnancy abhorrent?

I don't know, I'm afraid. I will read up on this issue.

If it is what I think it is, then I could probably understand the need to terminate the pregnancy, yes. I do not claim to be an expert on pregnancy or any medical matters. All I've tried to do is explain why I feel the way I do.

I would deliberately steer away from the use of such words as "abhorrent".