Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

recedite wrote: »

Why? Why would human rights be conferred to the same individual at one end of the birth canal, and not at the other?

Beats me

I have tried to get a coherent reply out of another user who has been espousing that very position. As he seems to have no other basis for it other than to state that that is what the law is, so that is why we do it. And he has, as usual, simply ignored the post where I attempted to gain more clarity on the position.

I myself see no one offering ANY reasons for such arbitrary nonsense. Ones location at one end of a canal or the other appears to be a non-sensical way to assign rights. And what of children born with C-section. Is that a case of "Go directly. Do not pass go, do not collect 200 rights".

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'd be more cautious about taking your opinion at face value

I have not really offered one. I have said nothing more than I am cautious about the figure given many people differentiation between circumstance and restriction in my experience.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Selective quoting to shore up his own bias, no different to what you're doing

Yet I have no bias so you are reaching now. Once again, all I am saying is that I am cautious about the figure you have linked to and what you think it means. Especially as one of the links I found on gallup shows that only 10%,not 29%, of people are ok with abortion in the last months. So something clearly does not match up there.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

to back shore up your own bias.

What bias? You keep saying this but have not shown me to have one, let alone shown what it is. AGAIN all I have said is that I am not entirely sure that the statistic in question says what you think it does. No more. No less.

I'd hardly call either effort an attempt at objective research.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

An article from 2003? 13 years out of date?

With a difference that great, I do not think the 13 years is that relevant. Especially given there has not been that large a change in the other statistics in the link YOU gave in that time.

What is suggests is that if you ask a totally different question, you get a totally different result. 10% to 29% is no small difference here.

And all I suggest is that this difference makes some caution more than warranted in assuming the 29% means what you are declaring it means. Or want it to mean to support this rabbit hole you have dived down to dodge replying to earlier posts to you on the thread.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

As I suspected, some people will go to incredible lengths to confirm their own bias rather than employ critical thinking to their own ideas.

Once again: What bias? You have not shown I have one, let alone shown what it is. You are just determined to create one in your head in order to suggest I have one.

recedite

Kantava wrote: »

I dont believe anybody argues that. They argue that the rights of the human individual are conferred at birth.

Why? Why would human rights be conferred to the same individual at one end of the birth canal, and not at the other?

Ragnar Lothbrok

Cabaal wrote: »

Even catholic health care providers have argued that a fetus at 28 weeks is not a person - http://edition.cnn.com/2013/01/26/us/colorado-fetus-lawsuit/[/url

Lawyers and Catholic Hospitals in the US are probably motivated by profit here though, don't you think? Just because someone claims to be Catholic doesn't necessarily mean they are. TBH I don't really care what a Catholic Institution says about this - I'm not a Catholic, I'm an atheist.

Cabaal wrote: »

I'm not actually aware of anyone that has made that specific argument in this forum,
You're making a somewhat blanket statement by saying many pro-choice people believe this, its like me claiming many pro-life people believe the morning after pill is murder.

OK it's a generalisation. It's surely true that a certain amount of pro-choice people believe this, just as it's true that a certain amount of pro-life people do believe that the morning after pill is murder. I suppose they are both the extreme ends of the argument.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Even a cursory read of this thread supports that caution as when people start to discuss circumstances they start discussing cases like pregnancy as a result of rape or incest, or pregnancy with some medical issue for the mother, child, or both. And so forth. Even one of the first articles on google discussing the gallup poll ramifies this when it points out "the circumstances" are "typically defined as cases such as rape, incest or if the life of the mother is in danger".

And here in this article also some differentiation is made when they say "Most Americans do not want to overturn Roe v. Wade. At the same time, however, they are willing to put some restrictions on abortion. Majorities of Americans favor notification of spouses, parental consent, and 24-hour waiting periods. They support first-term abortions, but oppose second and third-trimester ones."

I'd be more cautious about taking your opinion at face value given that the first link is to an article on a notorious pro-life website which gives a funky interpretation of the statistics to promote their own agenda. That's the same site that Loafing Oaf made the error of linking to when he tried to counter your suggestion that Christopher Hitchens was indeed an atheist who held a pro-life position. Selective quoting to shore up his own bias, no different to what you're doing when you link to a pro-life website, and a conservative, Bush supporting, think-tank website to back shore up your own bias.

I'd hardly call either effort an attempt at objective research.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

And actually this article here is a bit closer to what I would have expected. Where 10%, not 29%, indicate being ok with abortion in the last three months of pregnancy. I am still startled it is so high given how few (2) such people I recall ever meeting. But it is not so startling as the 29% figure. As I suspected, there is some nuance to the 29% that I do not think the words "any circumstance" is showing you.

An article from 2003? 13 years out of date?

As I suspected, some people will go to incredible lengths to confirm their own bias rather than employ critical thinking to their own ideas.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's an honest evaluation of your limitations. You can't speak for anyone else who feels that they can give an answer to the question that was asked.

Nor do I recall suggesting otherwise. You really do enjoy stating the obvious. However as I am yet to see a coherent answer to the question anywhere it has been asked.... I feel like it is the wrong one to ask..... and that it may be inherently unanswerable........Because no one appears able to answer it with any coherency. Oh I am sure there are people who GIVE answers, do not jump to another chance to willfully take me up wrong, but not one of them appears to be able to elaborate on it and explain the basis of it.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

"Legal under any circumstances", it couldn't be clearer what that means - legal under any circumstances.

And again for many, myself included, the word "circumstances" applies to the things I listed, but not to WHEN in the process the abortion is sought. Something I have seen often enough to merely be cautious that the statistics say what you think they say, without further clarification. Especially in the light of them ALSO asking a separate question related to time.

Even a cursory read of this thread supports that caution as when people start to discuss circumstances they start discussing cases like pregnancy as a result of rape or incest, or pregnancy with some medical issue for the mother, child, or both. And so forth. Even one of the first articles on google discussing the gallup poll ramifies this when it points out "the circumstances" are "typically defined as cases such as rape, incest or if the life of the mother is in danger".

And here in this article also some differentiation is made when they say "Most Americans do not want to overturn Roe v. Wade. At the same time, however, they are willing to put some restrictions on abortion. Majorities of Americans favor notification of spouses, parental consent, and 24-hour waiting periods. They support first-term abortions, but oppose second and third-trimester ones."

So I am not seeing much at all here suggesting that people read that question and are including the cut off time in their answer. And AGAIN.... why the need to ask a separate question about cut off times if the answer to it was already included in this question? I am merely cautious that is all.... as to whether there is a difference in peoples minds between "circumstances" (how the woman came to be pregnant and why she seeks an abortion) and "restrictions" (points where, despite the womans circumstances, people would want her denied an abortion).

One eyed Jack wrote: »

So you're really not ok with abortion under any circumstances, you're ok with abortion under some circumstances, those circumstances being within time limits that suit your personal morality.

It certainly does pay to be cautious when people consider themselves pro-choice, but upon further inquiry, reveal themselves to be only pro-choice under certain circumstances that suit their personal morality.

I am ok with it under ANY circumstances where "circumstances" means what I indicated it means when I say it. In that the circumstances of how the woman came to be pregnant, or why she is seeking an abortion, are irrelevant to me.

And I see nothing wrong with merely being cautious as to what the people asking (or answering) the question mean by it..... given what I and many people in my experience mean by it.

And, I repeat, given they felt the need to ask a separate question related to the cut off point..... I am not entirely unwarranted in wondering whether they were including this in the first question.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Does the word "any" not indicate to you what circumstances people mean? Any circumstances. It's basic english!

And you have shown yourself to have issues with "basic english" before. So I am not likely to be too swayed by you describing it as such here. Especially since all I have said is SOME caution is warranted here when reading the results. Nothing more.

I have nothing against the figure or the result. It does not cause any issue with my position or rebut anything I have said. So it is not like I have some agenda to rubbish the statistic or anything. I merely am cautious. And I genuinely would like to see a poll of solely pro-choice people in a break down of what their cut off are.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Why would it be interesting, and what purpose would it serve?

I would find it interesting. I do not need to justify that to anyone, much less you. And I do not recall suggesting it would, or has to, serve a purpose. All I said is that I would genuinely be interested to know.

However if you are desperately keen to know why I am interested in the things I am interested in...... the reason I would be interested is that I have had a LOT of contact with pro-choice people. Online. Offline. In person, in letters, in forums. In debates both public and private. And through my work in AI and AAI. And this experience has been over the US, Ireland, UK and Germany mostly.

And as I said the number of people I have met who think abortion at ANY stage.... right up to the due date of birth..... is ok.... is a figure I could count on one hand even if you chopped half my hand off. Yet this figure in the link suggests 29% of people are ok with just that very thing? That's such a stark difference that I am perfectly warranted to be A) cautious as to whether I am reading the result correctly and

be interested to learn more.

I have been surprised by stats in the past, and on learning more have changed my opinion or admitted some idea or impression I had was wrong. But not once do I recall a statistic that came even REMOTELY close to being THAT far askew with my personal experience.

And actually this article here is a bit closer to what I would have expected. Where 10%, not 29%, indicate being ok with abortion in the last three months of pregnancy. I am still startled it is so high given how few (2) such people I recall ever meeting. But it is not so startling as the 29% figure. As I suspected, there is some nuance to the 29% that I do not think the words "any circumstance" is showing you.

oldrnwisr

Absolam wrote: »

Well that is why I said it was a wild swing in fairness, but whether it is wide of the actual facts will have to wait until the publication of the report, since my swing was "I doubt it will show the number of abortions performed in the RoI (even per capita) is anywhere the number in the UK" and I very much doubt that you've seen what the report will show, have you?

Well, here's the thing.

We don't need to wait for the report because this topic has already been studied in the literature. In 2012 Sedgh et al. published this in the Lancet (linked to in my last post):

Induced abortion: incidence and trends worldwide from 1995 to 2008

This paper was an updated version of a paper originally published in 2007. Among its findings were:

"The abortion rate was lower in subregions where more women live under liberal abortion laws (p<0·05)."

and the authors concluded:

"Restrictive abortion laws are not associated with lower abortion rates."

So we already have peer-reviewed evidence on the issue which can inform the debate. We don't need to see the report. However, having said that, whether or not the findings of this report will be materially different from that already in the literature is another story.

Absolam wrote: »

I imagine so, but still what I said was "I doubt it will show the number of abortions performed in the RoI (even per capita) is anywhere the number in the UK". Whether or not that is a worthwhile comparison in any sense is a different matter, notwithstanding the excellent and overwhelmingly extensive (as always) information you've provide to rebut a point I didn't make

Then why make the comparison? You offered what seemed like a rebuttal to OscarBravo's point using the comparison between Ireland and the UK as evidence for this. Now as I posted previously the abortion rate for Irish women has been steadily declining since 2003 which, even if we ignore other factors, means that the Ireland v. UK comparison is meaningless in the context of OscarBravo's point.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's a far more thought out argument if the question was when should society recognise personhood. The idea that we should restrict abortion based upon the detection of brainwave activity will indeed lead to cases where if such a standard were legislated for, you're going to encounter situations where women are denied an abortion because now we can detect brainwave activity if they are delayed past the 12 week mark.

That wasn't my point OEJ. I was responding to Ragnar's question here:

Ragnar Lothbrok wrote: »

Just wondering...........when do pro-choice people consider that the unborn child is an actual life as opposed to a foetus that can be destroyed?

My point is that if we're going to come up with a solid basis for establishing when life or personhood, if you will, begins then there needs to be some measurable, recognisable step-change where the set of characteristics which the developing foetus possesses is more equivalent to that of a born child. IMO, the first time this happens is about 12 weeks when synaptogenesis happens. That is the first point at which we should begin to consider whether there ought to restrictions on elective abortions. I'm not advocating that there should be restrictions after this point, I'm just saying that it's the first point at which the debate becomes meaningful.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

What someone's position is based on has no bearing for how it should be treated in a discussion.

Of course it does! Determining what a person's opinion is based upon of course has a bearing for how it should be treated in a discussion. That's why when discussing the issue of abortion, I'm not going to treat someone's opinion based upon their personal morality the same way as I would treat someone's opinion who can make a legal standpoint, or someone who argues with facts, rather than spin. This discussion unfortunately has no defined parameters, which is why it's unlikely there will ever be any consensus formed.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

You present an opinion, it is taken apart to examine it's logic to see if it holds up. You are in the wrong forum if you think you will get much agreement for the idea that some people's opinions should be treated special because their opinions are special to them.

I really don't think I am!

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Except no one has asked a question I am unwilling to answer. The point was that the question as it was phrased is not one that IS answerable. And pointing that fact out is not a cop out. It is an honest evaluation of our limitations. And I then pointed out how other questions are more answerable, and the answers have more utility in terms of discourse on the topic of abortion.

It's an honest evaluation of your limitations. You can't speak for anyone else who feels that they can give an answer to the question that was asked.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Except I did not ignore it. I just acknowledge that "circumstance" for many does not automatically include limitations on time. For many the "circumstance" refers to a combination of how the person came to be pregnant (inside or outside marriage, rape, incest, whatever) and their motivation for seeking an abortion (because of rape, incest, medical issues, depression or.... as many users here put it..... "life style choice").

"Legal under any circumstances", it couldn't be clearer what that means - legal under any circumstances.

The next option - "legal under some circumstances", is where you could explore under what circumstances people may be referring to.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

So there are people, and I am one of them, who would say they are ok with abortion in any circumstance.... but will then go on to explain the time period in which they think this applies.

So you're really not ok with abortion under any circumstances, you're ok with abortion under some circumstances, those circumstances being within time limits that suit your personal morality.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

So as I said, it pays merely to be cautious that the people asking and/or answering the question were including the cut off points in what they mean by circumstances. I have heard enough people go on to include the caveat of time (myself included)..... and the link itself ALSO included a separate question on time..... that such caution is warranted. I see no indication that WHEN the abortion is sought is included in the term "circumstance".

It certainly does pay to be cautious when people consider themselves pro-choice, but upon further inquiry, reveal themselves to be only pro-choice under certain circumstances that suit their personal morality.

Does the word "any" not indicate to you what circumstances people mean? Any circumstances. It's basic english!

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

What I would like to see, were it possible, is a poll of solely pro-choice people..... with a break down as to what their time cut off (if any) actually is. I simply have not seen it. It would be interesting to know.

Why would it be interesting, and what purpose would it serve? I haven't seen it either btw, but I'm just wondering what purpose would it serve when anyone can call themselves pro-choice or pro-life and both can agree with abortion in the first trimester. How is that actually useful to women who would want a late-term abortion?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Without meaning to get too nit-picky, you do understand the difference between a suggestion, and an obligation? I suggested that people should take Ragnor's opinion seriously, but I never suggested they were obliged to do so.

You said we should, I said we didn't need to, you said we didn't have to.
I am not interested in an irrelevant semantic argument.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

What their position is based upon is very relevant IMO, because you can't really form a critical opinion of an ideology unless you first understand it.

What someone's position is based on has no bearing for how it should be treated in a discussion. You present an opinion, it is taken apart to examine it's logic to see if it holds up. You are in the wrong forum if you think you will get much agreement for the idea that some people's opinions should be treated special because their opinions are special to them.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

personal morality is anything but objective. It is inherently subjective and only relevant to the individual.

I think a persons morality lies BETWEEN objective and subjective on a continuum. And where it lies on that continuum depends on how much their morality is formed merely from emotion or convenience......... purely from arguments, evidence, data and reasoning...... or some combination of the two.

This is, after all, a discussion forum however. And when someone lies on the "entirely emotional or convenient" end of the spectrum.... there is not a lot of discourse left. It is not, therefore, that we do not take the opinions of such users as Ragnar seriously.......... so much as it is an opinion that does not lend itself to much further discussion.

Whereas my own position on abortion, while it may contain some subjective points and axioms...... such as the idea/observation that I think concepts of morals, ethics, and rights are something we apply not to DNA or species or shape or color.... but to sentience.......... it is from that point on entirely determined by facts.

And if the moment comes that one grants that our moral, ethical and rights concerns are philosophically proportional to the sentience of the entity to which we wish to apply it....... then there is NO basis I can see for having anti abortion issues with regards to a fetus at, say, 12 weeks. Because it not only lacks sentience, it lacks pretty much ANY of the facilities for even producing it.

So while I would never myself claim to be entirely free of subjectivity..... I think my position on abortion is MUCH further away from the subjective end of the spectrum than.... say.... Christopher Hitchens getting all misty eyed over viewing a sonogram and then blubbering over the word "child".

And while you crassly (and falsely) declare that I select arguments or data that "suit" me..... the reality is I am not actually invested in being pro-choice to the point my mind could not be changed. I would be happy to change it if someone could show me a basis for having moral or ethical concerns towards an entity that not only lacks the faculty of sentience and consciousness..... but even the pre-requisites for producing it.

inocybe

Ragnar Lothbrok wrote: »

Points 4 and 5 above are awful, and as I have a daughter of my own I can only try to imagine the horror if she'd have been in this position when she was younger. We used to discuss such things and although I would have given her every emotional and financial support needed, at the end of the day it would have been her decision and I would have been there for her even if she decided to have an abortion. If she had continued with the pregnancy,

and this is so typical of the Irish attitude. So you'd help your daughter financially even if her choice was to travel to the uk? Meanwhile women without the financial means have no choice.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

??? You said:

So you did suggest that.
I do get your general point though, he does have a vote and he will vote based on that opinion and he is not the only only, so we can't pretend the opinion doesn't exist. However that doesn't mean we treat it like it's equal to an opinion that actually has some unbiased information behind it.

Without meaning to get too nit-picky, you do understand the difference between a suggestion, and an obligation? I suggested that people should take Ragnor's opinion seriously, but I never suggested they were obliged to do so. They have a choice, their choice. I choose to take Ragnor's opinion seriously, others do not. That's all there is to it.

How much value we as individuals would choose to give a person's opinion will depend upon numerous factors really. Some people are more amenable to arguments using facts and statistics, and some people are more amenable to arguments from emotion, personal experience and anecdotes.

I would fall somewhere in between the two because I understand that abortion is an emotive issue and it cuts to the very core so to speak of a person's morality regarding the meaning of life and the value they place upon human life, but legislating for abortion and having it regarded as a human right, that requires an objective perspective, and personal morality is anything but objective. It is inherently subjective and only relevant to the individual. Outside of that, applying their personal morality to an issue that affects anyone beyond themselves, renders their arguments based upon their personal morality irrelevant.

It's why I don't apply my personal morality to the issue, but I can understand where others are coming from, and for me the most important thing is to understand where they come from first, rather than telling them they're asking the wrong questions. That was how religious authoritarians gained the power they did in the past, because people were told they were ignorant and they're asking the wrong questions.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

No it's not, just treat it like any other position. What the position is based on is irrelevant, it should be treated with the scepticism as any position. Your claim here would just allow anyone to hide their position from criticism by claiming it's based upon personal morality or philosophy, which is nonsense.

What their position is based upon is very relevant IMO, because you can't really form a critical opinion of an ideology unless you first understand it. Otherwise that is the epitome of arguing from ignorance - you don't understand what their position is based upon, but you're going to argue against it anyway. It's a futile exercise IMO, the equivalent of intellectual willy waving, which does nothing to further anyone's understanding of their fellow human beings. I'm not at all suggesting anyone's position should be protected from criticism, but it's useful to allow them to express their opinion rather than going at them in a confrontational manner because you perceive them to be ignorant and needing to be "schooled" ("indoctrinated" is the term I would use, if we were to call a spade a spade).

One eyed Jack wrote: »

- I've already clarified that nobody is required to take anyone's argument seriously. - I've already clarified that nobody is obliged to have any discussion in the framework I declare or demand. - I never at any point said that there was anything wrong with anyone wanting to discuss the morality of abortion in and of itself.

Nice list. The fun part of it being I never said you said any of these things. I am merely replying to what you DID say and indicating how and why the thing you indicated as being absent, is not actually a requirement in the first place. So why you even deign to bring it up, other than as filler to bolster your otherwise empty posts, is unclear.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Nobody is required to present an argument within the framework you would like to argue either.

Ehhhh yes I just said that. Please do try to keep up.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That's why when someone asks a question you are unwilling or unable to answer, it looks like a cop out when you tell them they're asking the wrong question

Except no one has asked a question I am unwilling to answer. The point was that the question as it was phrased is not one that IS answerable. And pointing that fact out is not a cop out. It is an honest evaluation of our limitations. And I then pointed out how other questions are more answerable, and the answers have more utility in terms of discourse on the topic of abortion.

If pretending I dodged or avoided a question makes you feel good, then so be it. But no such thing happened. And the one dodging points, questions, and in deed entire posts on this thread and indeed this forum.... is more often than not YOU. And not once that I can think of, me.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

then go on to pose and answer your own question which suits you!

Yet, as I explained in one of the posts you have simply ignored and dodged (as per your usual MO) the question I asked, and the answer it generates, are nothing to do with it "suiting" me. But do cling on to your false narratives if it helps you get through.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

What helps even more is if you try not to ignore the word "any" that preceded the word "circumstances" - "legal under any circumstances". See, it's no longer vague now.

Except I did not ignore it. I just acknowledge that "circumstance" for many does not automatically include limitations on time. For many the "circumstance" refers to a combination of how the person came to be pregnant (inside or outside marriage, rape, incest, whatever) and their motivation for seeking an abortion (because of rape, incest, medical issues, depression or.... as many users here put it..... "life style choice").

So there are people, and I am one of them, who would say they are ok with abortion in any circumstance.... but will then go on to explain the time period in which they think this applies.

So as I said, it pays merely to be cautious that the people asking and/or answering the question were including the cut off points in what they mean by circumstances. I have heard enough people go on to include the caveat of time (myself included)..... and the link itself ALSO included a separate question on time..... that such caution is warranted. I see no indication that WHEN the abortion is sought is included in the term "circumstance".

What I would like to see, were it possible, is a poll of solely pro-choice people..... with a break down as to what their time cut off (if any) actually is. I simply have not seen it. It would be interesting to know.

Kantava

Ragnar Lothbrok wrote: »

I' My experience in the UK is that many abortions are lifestyle choices.

.

I find this opinion so completely disrespectful of women, and underestimating (undervalueing) the impact that pregnancy and childbearing has on a life.

Ragnar Lothbrok wrote: »

I'll be as honest as I can be here:
1. Yes - I don't consider that the foetus is a life in this case.
2. No - although I accept this is a severe disability I don't see it as reason enough to allow an abortion. This raises the whole question of disability in general, and whether it is OK to abort any disabled child.
3. Unsure. Do you mean that the foetus shows no sign of life at all? If so, then Yes.
4. No - although I accept the awfulness of this situation, I do not believe the baby should be killed.
5. No - as above.
6. No - not under any circumstances.

In point 3, I mean the foetus can only survive while living off the mother in the womb. It is likely to die during pregnancy and once born it will die due to some sort of fatal fetal abnormality.

Ragnar Lothbrok wrote: »

Points 4 and 5 above are awful, and as I have a daughter of my own I can only try to imagine the horror if she'd have been in this position when she was younger. We used to discuss such things and although I would have given her every emotional and financial support needed, at the end of the day it would have been her decision and I would have been there for her even if she decided to have an abortion. If she had continued with the pregnancy, the baby would have been solely hers, and would have been brought up in a loving family environment, regardless of the circumstances of its conception. Obviously, I accept that this is purely hypothetical, and I cannot guarantee that would have been my reaction if it had actually happened. I do believe that the unborn child would have been totally innocent though.

Did you read the link in point 5? It's not the same as point 4, the rape victim in that case was 11 years old. What difference should it make if an 11 year old wants or does not want a child? They are 11.

Ragnar Lothbrok wrote: »

The problem I have with most pro-choice arguments is that the extreme cases listed above (1-5) are used as a way to allow abortion on demand. Yes, there are terrible cases where abortion may be seen as being the only option, but in the vast majority of abortions worldwide, points 1-5 above aren't a factor. My experience in the UK is that many abortions are lifestyle choices.

But your experience with abortion is, by your own admission, mostly from pro-life material, so you are still not working with facts and data. This was pointed out to you before.

Your argument is still an almost complete ban on abortion because of a slippery slope fallacy. You don't deny the existence of points 1-5, you just ignore the horrors of those situations out of ignorance, pretend they aren't important enough to consider and because you are personally uncomfortable with a tangential situation (abortion on demand) that wont change anyway*, call for a complete ban on live abortion.

*Oldnwisr posted here about how abortion laws have no effect on abortion rates. Do you have any view on that? If you accept that a law banning abortion would have no effect on rates, would you have still support it?

Ragnar Lothbrok wrote: »

I wasn't ignoring your questions when you first posted them, it's just the case that there are so many posts on this topic that it is easy to miss some of them.

No problem, this thread gets quite busy at times and it easy to miss posts

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Nor are they required to. The thread is about abortion as a whole as far as I can see. No one is obliged to have that discussion in the framework you declare or demand.

If the thread was called "Abortion in Ireland" or "changing the law on abortion in Ireland" you might almost have a point. But it is not. It is a thread about abortion as a whole. And if someone wants to discuss the morality of abortion in and of itself, for example, outside the context of current Irish law..... then there is nothing wrong with that.

- I've already clarified that nobody is required to take anyone's argument seriously.

- I've already clarified that nobody is obliged to have any discussion in the framework I declare or demand.

- I never at any point said that there was anything wrong with anyone wanting to discuss the morality of abortion in and of itself.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

That just sounds like a cop out narrative designed to avoid actually making the argument. The old "People will just dismiss it so why even try" canard that many people like to hide behind.

It is difficult to know how to parse, accept, reject, or rebut arguments, or evidences that no one is actually presenting. I have, for example, on many occasions not just said what my moral and philosophical position is on abortion, but I have explained at great length the basis for my holding it.

And only one person that I recall even ATTEMPTED to rebut or address my position. And he did so by the weirdly comical move of declaring that my whole position was a caveat to itself.... without being able to explain why..... before running away. He has now since left the forum.

So no, other than as a cop out excuse, I see little use in assuming how arguments or evidence will be parsed before they are actually offered. If you have nothing to present, that is fine, no one is forcing you to. But rather than simply not presenting it, but presenting cop out excuses for not presenting it..... usually cop out excuses that lay the "blame" elsewhere...... is a pretty poor MO to establish for yourself.

Nobody is required to present an argument within the framework you would like to argue either. That's why when someone asks a question you are unwilling or unable to answer, it looks like a cop out when you tell them they're asking the wrong question, then go on to pose and answer your own question which suits you!

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

That helps yes, but "circumstances" is a little vague. Does that include time periods? In fact I notice in the same link they did ask a separate question about a law making abortion in the last 6 months illegal. 64% would be in favor of such a law. I wonder how many would be if the question said 5 months..... 3 months..... 1 month. THAT is the figure I am interested in and the 29% only hints at what the answer may be. Still, as nearly always with gallup, it is good data to have.

What helps even more is if you try not to ignore the word "any" that preceded the word "circumstances" - "legal under any circumstances". See, it's no longer vague now.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I never suggested anyone was actually obliged to take his opinion seriously though

??? You said:

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The reason people should take Ragnar's opinion seriously is because...

So you did suggest that.
I do get your general point though, he does have a vote and he will vote based on that opinion and he is not the only only, so we can't pretend the opinion doesn't exist. However that doesn't mean we treat it like it's equal to an opinion that actually has some unbiased information behind it.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Very difficult to present an agreeable standard of evidence for a position based upon personal morality or philosophy.

No it's not, just treat it like any other position. What the position is based on is irrelevant, it should be treated with the scepticism as any position. Your claim here would just allow anyone to hide their position from criticism by claiming it's based upon personal morality or philosophy, which is nonsense.

lazygal

Ragnar Lothbrok wrote: »

My experience in the UK is that many abortions are lifestyle choices.

Is the decision to try to get pregnant a lifestyle choice? Is the decision to use contraception a lifestyle choice? Is the decision to decide to remain pregnant, having considered the option of abortion, a lifestyle choice?

Lifestyle choices can be major decisions. Our decision to have two children was a lifestyle choice, and our current lifestyle is a major factor in future decisions about whether to have more children. Why is lifestyle choice not a valid reason to be able to have an abortion? I wouldn't want to remain pregnant because of the lifestyle choices I'd have to make under certain circumstances, such as a possible severe disability.

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

So believing 'unborn child' is a valid term is enough to make you pro-life?

I do not think so no. I think it was a ridiculous linguistic argument he was making. And I regret never having got the chance to tell him so. But the quote above, which I am pretty sure I have nearly word perfect from memory..... certainly suggests HE thought so.

He was certainly one of the greatest minds I have ever had the fortune to meet, and if such a mind can come up with no anti abortion argument other than THAT pretty poor linguistic one....... then I doubt we can expect much more of coherence or relevance from them. I am certainly happy to keep asking them however.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

There are plenty of opinions in this discussion that I can neither respect nor take seriously because they have very little or nothing at all to do with legislating for abortion in Ireland or repealing the 8th amendment.

Nor are they required to. The thread is about abortion as a whole as far as I can see. No one is obliged to have that discussion in the framework you declare or demand.

If the thread was called "Abortion in Ireland" or "changing the law on abortion in Ireland" you might almost have a point. But it is not. It is a thread about abortion as a whole. And if someone wants to discuss the morality of abortion in and of itself, for example, outside the context of current Irish law..... then there is nothing wrong with that.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Very difficult to present an agreeable standard of evidence for a position based upon personal morality or philosophy. Some people will dismiss the evidence as insufficient or irrelevant, some people will regard the evidence as sufficient if they already agree with that position.

That just sounds like a cop out narrative designed to avoid actually making the argument. The old "People will just dismiss it so why even try" canard that many people like to hide behind.

It is difficult to know how to parse, accept, reject, or rebut arguments, or evidences that no one is actually presenting. I have, for example, on many occasions not just said what my moral and philosophical position is on abortion, but I have explained at great length the basis for my holding it.

And only one person that I recall even ATTEMPTED to rebut or address my position. And he did so by the weirdly comical move of declaring that my whole position was a caveat to itself.... without being able to explain why..... before running away. He has now since left the forum.

So no, other than as a cop out excuse, I see little use in assuming how arguments or evidence will be parsed before they are actually offered. If you have nothing to present, that is fine, no one is forcing you to. But rather than simply not presenting it, but presenting cop out excuses for not presenting it..... usually cop out excuses that lay the "blame" elsewhere...... is a pretty poor MO to establish for yourself.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Would a Gallup poll of historical trends relating to the issue of the legality of abortion do? 29% of respondents support abortion being legal under any circumstances in 2015.

That helps yes, but "circumstances" is a little vague. Does that include time periods? In fact I notice in the same link they did ask a separate question about a law making abortion in the last 6 months illegal. 64% would be in favor of such a law. I wonder how many would be if the question said 5 months..... 3 months..... 1 month. THAT is the figure I am interested in and the 29% only hints at what the answer may be. Still, as nearly always with gallup, it is good data to have.

Ragnar Lothbrok

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Ragnar, your opinion on abortion seems to be just in relation to otherwise healthy fetuses aborted by otherwise healthy women but what is your opinion on the following:

1) Abortion of brain dead fetus.
2) Abortion in case of microcephaly (condition that can result from zika virus)?
3) Abortion of fetus that will not survive outside the womb.
4) Abortion in the case of rape.
5) Abortion in the case of rape of a young child who would have to have a c-section birth because of their size (case in Paraguay)
6) Otherwise healthy mother/fetus having abortion because mother has many kids already and cannot afford more.

I'll be as honest as I can be here:
1. Yes - I don't consider that the foetus is a life in this case.
2. No - although I accept this is a severe disability I don't see it as reason enough to allow an abortion. This raises the whole question of disability in general, and whether it is OK to abort any disabled child.
3. Unsure. Do you mean that the foetus shows no sign of life at all? If so, then Yes.
4. No - although I accept the awfulness of this situation, I do not believe the baby should be killed.
5. No - as above.
6. No - not under any circumstances.

Points 4 and 5 above are awful, and as I have a daughter of my own I can only try to imagine the horror if she'd have been in this position when she was younger. We used to discuss such things and although I would have given her every emotional and financial support needed, at the end of the day it would have been her decision and I would have been there for her even if she decided to have an abortion. If she had continued with the pregnancy, the baby would have been solely hers, and would have been brought up in a loving family environment, regardless of the circumstances of its conception. Obviously, I accept that this is purely hypothetical, and I cannot guarantee that would have been my reaction if it had actually happened. I do believe that the unborn child would have been totally innocent though.

On point 6, I will never agree that financial consideration is a strong enough reason to allow the destruction of an unborn child.

The problem I have with most pro-choice arguments is that the extreme cases listed above (1-5) are used as a way to allow abortion on demand. Yes, there are terrible cases where abortion may be seen as being the only option, but in the vast majority of abortions worldwide, points 1-5 above aren't a factor. My experience in the UK is that many abortions are lifestyle choices.

I wasn't ignoring your questions when you first posted them, it's just the case that there are so many posts on this topic that it is easy to miss some of them.

Loafing Oaf

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

More to the point I wonder how HE defined it. This is quoted from memory so apologies if it is not word perfect. I can dig out the video of it on you tube if you want however to check how accurate my memory really is

Ben Stein:

Are you involved in the Pro Life movement then?

Hitchens:

I believe that the concept unborn child is a real concept yes. And I have had a lot of quarrels with fellow materialists and secularists on this point.

I think however if the concept "child" means anything then the concept "unborn child" can be said to mean something.

And actually all the discoveries of embryology and viability............. which have been very considerable in the last century......... appear to confirm that opinion.

And I believe it should be innate in everybody.... and innate in the Hippocratic oath...... the instinct that exists in anyone who has ever watched a sonogram. So "YES" is my answer to your question.

So believing 'unborn child' is a valid term is enough to make you pro-life? I wonder what Cora Sherlock, Caroline Simons et al would think of that...

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

How "many" is many I wonder? I do not have figures on this myself but extreme lengths of cut off points is something I have myself encountered very rarely. And those suggesting no cut off at all I could count on one hand with half the hand chopped off.

But I am only a data point of 1 and my experiences may not be representative. So I would genuinely like to see a good poll or study done on pro-choice people and when their personal cut offs actually lie.

Would a Gallup poll of historical trends relating to the issue of the legality of abortion do?

http://www.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx

29% of respondents support abortion being legal under any circumstances in 2015.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

That doesn't mean they need to take his opinion seriously though. Yes, we need to respect that he has his own opinion and that opinion will inform his voting habits, but that doesn't mean we automatically need to respect his opinion itself.

I never suggested anyone was actually obliged to take his opinion seriously though, and I certainly didn't suggest that anyone was actually obliged to respect his opinion. There are plenty of opinions in this discussion that I can neither respect nor take seriously because they have very little or nothing at all to do with legislating for abortion in Ireland or repealing the 8th amendment.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

An opinion that is presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Very difficult to present an agreeable standard of evidence for a position based upon personal morality or philosophy. Some people will dismiss the evidence as insufficient or irrelevant, some people will regard the evidence as sufficient if they already agree with that position.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The reason people should take Ragnar's opinion seriously is because he has an equal right to vote in any referendum on abortion the same as anyone else here. Do you think women who want to avail of an abortion when they need to, care all that much for evidence from other people's perspectives?

That doesn't mean they need to take his opinion seriously though. Yes, we need to respect that he has his own opinion and that opinion will inform his voting habits, but that doesn't mean we automatically need to respect his opinion itself. An opinion that is presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Ragnar Lothbrok wrote: »

Yet many pro-choice advocates would have no problem with allowing abortions long after this stage, arguing that life doesn't begin until after the baby is outside the womb, when this is patently untrue.

How "many" is many I wonder? I do not have figures on this myself but extreme lengths of cut off points is something I have myself encountered very rarely. And those suggesting no cut off at all I could count on one hand with half the hand chopped off.

But I am only a data point of 1 and my experiences may not be representative. So I would genuinely like to see a good poll or study done on pro-choice people and when their personal cut offs actually lie.