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?
Kantava wrote: » 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 am not being disrespectful to women at all. I completely understand the terrible position women can find themselves in due to an unwanted/unplanned pregnancy. However, as I have said earlier in this thread, I personally know several women in England who had abortions just because they wanted to continue with their lives exactly as they were. They did not care about the life of the unborn child, nor about the feelings of the fathers. To me, this is not acceptable. It's like treating a pregnancy as trivially as any day-to-day decision such as what to have for breakfast. I'm not remotely suggesting that every woman who has an abortion treats the decision as flippantly as these people did.
robdonn wrote: » Abuse of a system is not a justification to remove the availability of a system. There are people who collect unemployment payments just to buy a few cans for the week, but it wouldn't justify eliminating the dole and taking away the service from those who need it.
Ragnar Lothbrok wrote: » I'm not remotely suggesting that every woman who has an abortion treats the decision as flippantly as these people did.
One eyed Jack wrote: » 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.
One eyed Jack wrote: » I really don't think I am!
lazygal wrote: » TBH if I was told my baby had a serious abnormality I would have a termination because I know how much of a burden a sick sibling can be on a family and I know my own capacities as a parent and I would rather life continue as normal as possible rather than have to go to full term and deal with the outcome of bringing a baby who may suffer into the world. I've not been faced with the decision thus far but I'm almost certain it would be a flippant decision, as in no great weighing up of what I would do would take place.
lazygal wrote: » And so what if some women have abortions for what you consider flippent reasons? People get pregnant for flippant reasons, like wanting to 'go for the girl this time' or 'because I'm X age and its now or never'.
lazygal wrote: » Why is the reason someone has an abortion of any consequence?
Delirium wrote: » and what's the problem with that? They could have been using contraceptives that subsequently failed. A condom splits and it's 'tough luck, you're a mother now"?
Ragnar Lothbrok wrote: » True, but I don't agree with abortion in the first place, so I wouldn't be removing its availability just because some abuse the system.
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.
Ragnar Lothbrok wrote: » But I believe that the unborn child is a human life
Ragnar Lothbrok wrote: » Your example of choosing a termination if you were told you were carrying a child with a serious abnormality is far from what I was meaning when I mentioned lifestyle choices. Even if the decision to end your pregnancy would be easy for you to make I certainly wouldn't describe it as flippant. But I believe that the unborn child is a human life, so I don't believe it should be acceptable to abort it just because it doesn't suit someone to become a parent at that particular time. The reason for deciding to have an abortion IS important though. I find it far more difficult to oppose abortion in extreme cases such as rape, incest, etc, than I do in cases where the decision to abort is based on financial/lifestyle choices. I would imagine that many people who would support abortion in such extreme cases would also be against introducing abortion on demand?
Ragnar Lothbrok wrote: » A condom splits and it's "tough luck, we're going to kill you now" (to the unborn child).
Ragnar Lothbrok wrote: » But I believe that the unborn child is a human life, so I don't believe it should be acceptable to abort it just because it doesn't suit someone to become a parent at that particular time.
Mark Hamill wrote: » You say it does, then say that you do, but you don't actually explain why it should be treated differently.
Mark Hamill wrote: » So you are saying that if someone thinks their opinion is special to them then everyone else should treat it as special too? Why?
One eyed Jack wrote: » Because they're going to be different arguments based upon what way a person chooses to argue their perspective.
One eyed Jack wrote: » I've witnessed plenty of times in this forum where people have had their opinions treated as infallible and above scrutiny because those people share the belief that person's opinion is somehow more worthy of consideration and above criticism because the person themselves believes their opinion is infallible, above scrutiny, more worthy of consideration than anyone else's, and is therefore above criticism.
Mark Hamill wrote: » Again, you are explaining that you treat arguments differently, but not why. Why should what someone else bases their argument on effect what you base your argument on? It doesn't matter if someone tries to use science or the law or their own personal perspective, if some data shows they are wrong then they are wrong regardless.
One eyed Jack wrote: » 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.
“unborn”, in relation to a human life, is a reference to such a life during the period of time commencing after implantation in the womb of a woman and ending on the complete emergence of the life from the body of the woman;
Mark Hamill wrote: » Do you have any examples? Because whilst I have seen plenty of examples of opinions with common support from nearly all the regulars on this forum, this has always been because those opinions have been rigorously defended in the past. The ones who come into this forum expecting their specially held opinions to be uncritically accepted are invariably religious types who can't deal with their arguments being torn asunder and don't stay long.
One eyed Jack wrote: » I did explain why I treat different arguments differently already:
One eyed Jack wrote: » Rigorous defence of an opinion doesn't make it any more factual than it already isn't. You're making the error of mistaking group think acceptance for people employing their own critical faculties to question an opinion. There were plenty of people who expect their specially held opinions to be uncritically accepted who asked for their own special forum to be set up so that they could have a space to have their opinions validated, so that they could separate themselves from the imposition of religious types. I don't think an inability to deal with their ideas being questioned is a trait peculiar to people who are religious at all. It's a trait peculiar to people who are full of their own self-importance, regardless of whether they happen to be religious or not.
The normal menstrual cycle is altered, delaying ovulation; or Ovulation is inhibited, meaning the egg will not be released from the ovary; It can irritate the lining of the uterus (endometrium) so as to inhibit implantation.
One eyed Jack wrote: » 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.
When asked whether he is "pro-life," he answers in the affirmative. He has repeatedly defended the use of the term "unborn child" against those on the left who say that an aborted fetus is nothing more than a growth, an appendix, a polyp. " 'Unborn child' seems to me to be a real concept. It's not a growth or an appendix," he says. "You can't say the rights question doesn't come up." At the same time, he adds, "I don't think a woman should be forced to choose, or even can be." Hitchens does not recommend the overturning of Roe v. Wade.
