[RD] Thoughts on Abortion (split off from Very Many Questions XXXII)

[Yeekim]

If you're going to use their rhetoric, you are going to have the same problem that they have in not being accepted as a moral movement.

Firstly, I'm not part of any movement, as in I have no problem with abortions as they are currently permitted (i.e. early term).
Secondly, I think it is entirely possible to cite correct argument in support of nefarious causes.
Thirdly... do we even disagree anywhere? Do you think mother's right to choose trumps her child's right to live? Let's say the child in question is a fetus of 7 months.

 

[onejayhawk]

Except it doesn't apply, as there is no killing of another person.

You assume a conclusion.

The point of the discussion is that there may be in fact a person, but not in law. Hence the various parties wishing to define person so that this can be brought into agreement. This forum had a long thread about when sentience begins. The conclusion was about 25 weeks, which roughly coincides with viability. For simplicity, you can take as given that the third trimester is perceived as fundamentally different from the first two. A large number of people, who had not made a distinction, will draw a line at that point.

J

 

[Akka]

You assume a conclusion.

I have provided the reasoning, either it's false and can be disproven (hint : I've never seen it actually confronted, it's either ignored or avoided, and this thread is a pretty good example of that), or it's true and then it's not an assumption but a proved truth.
The cutting point where the fetus stop being a blob of cells and becomes a person is the point subject to debate, but there is not this grey area about the embryo.

 

[civvver]

I have provided the reasoning, either it's false and can be disproven (hint : I've never seen it actually confronted, it's either ignored or avoided, and this thread is a pretty good example of that), or it's true and then it's not an assumption but a proved truth.
The cutting point where the fetus stop being a blob of cells and becomes a person is the point subject to debate, but there is not this grey area about the embryo.

Does your stance mean you are in favor of abortions prior to 12 weeks and against them after?

Does anyone have stats on when most occur?

 

[Akka]

Does your stance mean you are in favor of abortions prior to 12 weeks and against them after?

I find no moral objection possible before 12 weeks, and I take no specific stances on what happens after (because it'll bog down into nitpicking).

Does anyone have stats on when most occur?

Uncoincidentally, many countries use the 12 weeks limit for abortion.

 

[onejayhawk]

I have provided the reasoning, either it's false and can be disproven (hint : I've never seen it actually confronted, it's either ignored or avoided, and this thread is a pretty good example of that), or it's true and then it's not an assumption but a proved truth.
The cutting point where the fetus stop being a blob of cells and becomes a person is the point subject to debate, but there is not this grey area about the embryo.

You did not. You assumed that there is no second person. You even acknowledged that there was debate on the issue.

You have provided justification for your assumption, but that does not unmake the assumption status. Since the contrary position is central to the entire discussion, it amounts to a refusal to engage. The logically consistent approach is to grant the existence of a second person, for the sake of discussion, and argue whatever you think follows.

What you have done correctly and clearly is state that you find none of the objections prior to 12 weeks to have any validity. This is clearly stated as your opinion and valid as such. It is reasonable place to draw a second line.

Then you ruin it by claiming no other position is possible, see bolded. This is intellectually dishonest, since a large number of people draw the distinction when an egg becomes a zygote. It is your opinion that they are in error, you have offered justification for your opinion, but have not offered proof.

J

 

[Lexicus]

Does anyone have stats on when most occur?

Vast majority occur before the end of the first trimester, iirc.

 

[Akka]

You have provided justification for your assumption, but that does not unmake the assumption status. Since the contrary position is central to the entire discussion, it amounts to a refusal to engage.

Actually, the refusal to engage comes from the other party, which, let me quote myself :

(hint : I've never seen it actually confronted, it's either ignored or avoided, and this thread is a pretty good example of that)

I'm not the one refusing to engage. People disagreeing with the argument I made but never countering it are.

 

[El_Machinae]

Is it okay to euthanize babies with Huntington's to spare them the suffering they'll endure in middle age?
.

That's not really the question under discussion. We're discussing abortion during the genetic diagnosis phase, and whether it's acceptable to force a disadvantaged fetus into personhood. Not euthanizing babies.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

That's not really the question under discussion. We're discussing abortion during the genetic diagnosis phase, and whether it's acceptable to force a disadvantaged fetus into personhood. Not euthanizing babies.

This is the crux of the problem though and people here have been quick to point it out. When one side, and specifically for this conversation, one poster, refuses to accept the debate on any terms that they did not personally craft then the debate can go nowhere by design. This whole thread was an excuse for mouthwash to show off his superior reasoning abilities and higher morality by framing the discussion in the most disadvantageous way possible for the other side and then refusing to budge on the framing of the discussion, much less the content of it.

The anti-choice crowd is not interested in a debate. I've never met someone who was anti-choice and could actually discuss the issue. Instead they lay out their talking points, make a bunch of intentionally inflammatory remarks and don't listen to the other side while claiming the moral high ground unilaterally.

I lived in southern Illinois and Missouri for almost a decade and I'm a very open, talkative person. I had lots of these discussions in real life and it was always the same though everyone is free to take my anecdote at face value.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

I'm going to start using "anti-life" in these threads I think.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I'm going to start using "anti-life" in these threads I think.

Do it. I like easy debates.

 

[Farm Boy]

Death is mercy. We can be very merciful. Mostly when it suits our needs and wants, but you know.

 

[Staler87]

I'm reminded of a current argument going on on CBC.ca: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/scheer-summer-grant-jobs-abortion-1.4484588

The Reformacon leader, Andrew Scheer, is upset that the federal government refuses to issue grant money to religious organizations to hire students for summer jobs if one of the organization's purposes is to deter or prohibit women accessing abortion services:


Of course there is plenty of bleating in the comments that the Prime Minister is punishing faith organizations for their opinions, but they miss the point that while people are free to think whatever they want, they are not free to interfere with women accessing legal reproductive health services.

The organization in question has to check a box declaring, they are, in essence, pro-abortion/pro-choice/whatever you want to call it regardless of whether or not they will actively be doing anything involving abortion. It essentially forces every group that wants to hire students with government funding to declare themselves, unequivocally in favour of the women's right to choose, whether or not that was going to be an issue that would come up over the course of that summer-work.

Essentially, it was either a direct attack on freedom of conscious or an incompetently implemented policy.

Although I doubt anything will change the opinion of a person that is seemingly unable to even refer to the conservative party by their correct name.

 

[Cassius Critzer]

Abortion is legalized eugenics. It most harms minorities and their population sizes. It ultimately affects the demographics that it will affect political representation.

Abortion has always happened and typically by herbal methdologies to cause uterine bleeding leading to very early miscarriage. That historical phenomena is very different from macabre surgical abortion and surgical/chemical abortion. We treat a fetus like a collection of cells when in fact it has a beating heart and human DNA.

Abortion is a totally solvable medical issue, done very early, without patient stigma, and in ways that nearly citizens could agree. Or you let the most extreme ideologues continue to foment controversy by partial birth abortions at one end, and outright banning of clinics at the other extreme.

 

[onejayhawk]

Actually, the refusal to engage comes from the other party, which, let me quote myself : (hint : I've never seen it actually confronted, it's either ignored or avoided, and this thread is a pretty good example of that) I'm not the one refusing to engage. People disagreeing with the argument I made but never countering it are.

Both sides avoiding does not make it all OK. You are still avoiding the basic point of the discussion.

To reiterate, when is there is a second person's rights to consider? There are four basic positions: at conception, at the end of the first trimester, at the end of the second trimester, and after birth. You seem to be assuming that last position, but never stated it in so many words.

J

 

[Akka]

Both sides avoiding does not make it all OK. You are still avoiding the basic point of the discussion.

To reiterate, when is there is a second person's rights to consider? There are four basic positions: at conception, at the end of the first trimester, at the end of the second trimester, and after birth. You seem to be assuming that last position, but never stated it in so many words.

J

Theorically speaking, I'd say there is a being to consider when the brain is able to process feelings, and a person when the brain is fully functional. I'm not knowledgeable enough to know at which time this happens, so I'm playing it safe by pointing at 12 weeks and saying "it's not even possible to have a being before this".

 

[Cassius Critzer]

Good luck with such debates based on being cognizant or displaying emotion as you would eliminate folks on such ill defined terms in various mental illness.

 

[Cutlass]

I'm going to start using "anti-life" in these threads I think.

But which side are you going to apply it to? The liberals, who think abortion should be a choice government stays out of, or conservatives, who cause deaths all over the place by denying access to what is needed to live?

 

[El_Machinae]

Theorically speaking, I'd say there is a being to consider when the brain is able to process feelings, and a person when the brain is fully functional. I'm not knowledgeable enough to know at which time this happens, so I'm playing it safe by pointing at 12 weeks and saying "it's not even possible to have a being before this".

It doesn't happen before 25 weeks, if you're looking for more accurate numbers.