Abortion

[TexRex]

I gather that you're of the belief that you've successfully refuted my post. I assure you, you haven't.

Yeah, no, I asked you to backup your claims with a source that can be reviewed. This isn't an outlandish request either, it's expected when you're stating something as factual. You can often get away with not citing a source when presenting what you claim as factual if it's not difficult to believe, however, what you claimed is.

 

[baldgye]

Innocent child...

So a child then...

 

[Liquid]

A problem I have with anti-choice people is that they only ever seem to perpetuate the idea that every pregnancy is a wanted one in an idyllic, perfect and romanticised union.

Cases of rape, incest, illness to the mother or other serious health issues to the foetus never seem to be addressed and instead the focus is only ever on that sickly idea of a nuclear family where nothing ever goes wrong.

 

[Mr Tree]

A problem I have with anti-choice people is that they only ever seem to perpetuate the idea that every pregnancy is a wanted one in an idyllic, perfect and romanticised union.

Cases of rape, incest, illness to the mother or other serious health issues to the foetus never seem to be addressed and instead the focus is only ever on that sickly idea of a nuclear family where nothing ever goes wrong.

True but why exlude timing from your list? If both father and mother feel like they don't want a child (just yet) why would we force them to raise that child.

Shouldn't we look out for the kids best intrests? Having them being raised by people who don't even want them is an awefull idea. And everyone with stephparents who didn't like them should know. I know for myself how that's been. If it wasn't for my mother and socialnsecurity I wouldn't have graduated college due to that situation.

On top of that I read some people say: 'if you don't want it don't have sex'.
Are there people who genuinly believe that as possibility? Abstenance only education often correlates with higher teen pregnancy rates. Abstaining is against us as humans it's an instinct. The most important one to keep the species alive.

Next thing I wish to see explained by anti-choice people is why it would be murder before a certain time? I'm not a hardliner thay says ot should be possible up until birth. I say it should be possible up until a point where the child feels pain or some form of mzdicly informed moment we can start talking about life.

Life doesn't start at conception of you listen to most doctors so that's a **** argument.

So I am probably wrong on this one but from my point of view anti-choice people can 9nly rely on religious dogma's which is no basis for regulation as we in the western world rightfully so think church and state should be seperated.

I really hope someone can give me a diffrent perspecrive on the anti-choice group as that's all my mind can come up with, religion.

 

[baldgye]

True but why exlude timing from your list? If both father and mother feel like they don't want a child (just yet) why would we force them to raise that child.

Shouldn't we look out for the kids best intrests? Having them being raised by people who don't even want them is an awefull idea. And everyone with stephparents who didn't like them should know. I know for myself how that's been. If it wasn't for my mother and socialnsecurity I wouldn't have graduated college due to that situation.

On top of that I read some people say: 'if you don't want it don't have sex'.
Are there people who genuinly believe that as possibility? Abstenance only education often correlates with higher teen pregnancy rates. Abstaining is against us as humans it's an instinct. The most important one to keep the species alive.

Next thing I wish to see explained by anti-choice people is why it would be murder before a certain time? I'm not a hardliner thay says ot should be possible up until birth. I say it should be possible up until a point where the child feels pain or some form of mzdicly informed moment we can start talking about life.

Life doesn't start at conception of you listen to most doctors so that's a **** argument.

So I am probably wrong on this one but from my point of view anti-choice people can 9nly rely on religious dogma's which is no basis for regulation as we in the western world rightfully so think church and state should be seperated.

I really hope someone can give me a diffrent perspecrive on the anti-choice group as that's all my mind can come up with, religion.

The only decent argument I ever heard for anti-choice, was that there isn't much in the way of fetus development research and so actually figuring out when it becomes alive is scientifically difficult and can vary.

It's not one I subscribe to, but it's the only non-emotion based point I've heard against abortion (though of course making abortion illegal only makes matters far far worse for everyone).

 

[Mr Tree]

The only decent argument I ever heard for anti-choice, was that there isn't much in the way of fetus development research and so actually figuring out when it becomes alive is scientifically difficult and can vary.

It's not one I subscribe to, but it's the only non-emotion based point I've heard against abortion (though of course making abortion illegal only makes matters far far worse for everyone).

There is much in the way you meant? Or am I missing something due to language barrier?

 

[baldgye]

There is much in the way you meant? Or am I missing something due to language barrier?

Sorry I'm confused haha I'm not sure what you mean


I meant that, the only argument that isn't based on emotion I've seen, is based on how difficult it is to define when a fetus is 'alive'. Hope that's a bit better

 

[TheCracker]

Sorry I'm confused haha I'm not sure what you mean


I meant that, the only argument that isn't based on emotion I've seen, is based on how difficult it is to define when a fetus is 'alive'.

I think medically the difference between a fetus and a baby is defined by a fetus' ability to survive without being within the mother's womb which is at about 22 weeks at the very earliest - and then they only have about a 20% chance of surviving. In the UK abortion can be carried out up to 24 weeks - where the fetus may have had a 50:50 chance of survival.

 

[HenrySwanson]

I think medically the difference between a fetus and a baby is defined by a fetus' ability to survive without being within the mother's womb which is at about 22 weeks at the very earliest - and then they only have about a 20% chance of surviving. In the UK abortion can be carried out up to 24 weeks - where the fetus may have had a 50:50 chance of survival.

I think, once you've been to NICU and seen multiple 23 weekers and thought that legally they could have been killed in the womb it's a very sobering moment. I'm not really sure how to justify it.

 

[TheCracker]

I think, once you've been to NICU and seen multiple 23 weekers and thought that legally they could have been killed in the womb it's a very sobering moment. I'm not really sure how to justify it.

I'm sure it is. But then only 1.3% of abortions are carried out over 21 weeks. Almost 90% are carried out before 12 weeks.*

*these are US statistics.

 

[Mr Tree]

I think, once you've been to NICU and seen multiple 23 weekers and thought that legally they could have been killed in the womb it's a very sobering moment. I'm not really sure how to justify it.

I can understand why but would you be against any abortion and why?
Like I said I believe there is a point where we would be harsh to be for abortion. But I don't see why making it illegal for the full pregnancy is not good for the parent nor for the child.

 

[Johnnypenso]

I can understand why but would you be against any abortion and why?
Like I said I believe there is a point where we would be harsh to be for abortion. But I don't see why making it illegal for the full pregnancy is not good for the parent nor for the child.

I could find a source if you like but I believe the life expectancy of an aborted child is far shorter than a child taken to full term, hence abortion being illegal is probably better for the child.

 

[Mr Tree]

I could find a source if you like but I believe the life expectancy of an aborted child is far shorter than a child taken to full term, hence abortion being illegal is probably better for the child.

Dude you're smarter.then that and or strawmanning my position or didn't read my actual position.

What life? I don't agree life starts at conception...

 

[Johnnypenso]

Dude you're smarter.then that and or strawmanning my position or didn't read my actual position.

What life? I don't agree life starts at conception...

I'm using your terminology. You referred to the aborted fetus as a child.

Like I said I believe there is a point where we would be harsh to be for abortion. But I don't see why making it [abortion] illegal for the full pregnancy is not good for the parent nor for the child.

 

[Mr Tree]

I'm using your terminology. You referred to the aborted fetus as a child.

Let me rephrase that. It's not good for the parent nor the child the fetus would grow into if the woman had to carry the baby until it's born.

That was just long for something I expected to be clear if my last 3 posts where read. My bad

So now what child where you reffering to. Why should it be illegal starting at conception?

 

[TexRex]

It seems to me that the language used--by someone making an admirable effort to be understood despite clearly not being a primarily English speaker--is willfully being twisted to suit one's conflicting agenda, and I think that's just tacky.

Edit: Even more admirably, the one having difficulty being understood is being gracious about it in spite of the tactics being used against them.

 

[Johnnypenso]

It seems to me that the language used--by someone making an admirable effort to be understood despite clearly not being a primarily English speaker--is willfully being twisted to suit one's conflicting agenda, and I think that's just tacky.

Edit: Even more admirably, the one having difficulty being understood is being gracious about it in spite of the tactics being used against them.

You're my hero.

 

[HenrySwanson]

I'm sure it is. But then only 1.3% of abortions are carried out over 21 weeks. Almost 90% are carried out before 12 weeks.*

*these are US statistics.

And a similar percent (1%) are due to rape, yet the question of what a pro-lifer believes on rape is always asked.

I can understand why but would you be against any abortion and why?
Like I said I believe there is a point where we would be harsh to be for abortion. But I don't see why making it illegal for the full pregnancy is not good for the parent nor for the child.

I believe we should lower the age limit to 20 weeks.

Women should be able to have a choice, I just wish there was more counselling on the options other than abortion, which ironically is what some of the protesters outside clinics offered

It seems to me that the language used--by someone making an admirable effort to be understood despite clearly not being a primarily English speaker--is willfully being twisted to suit one's conflicting agenda, and I think that's just tacky.

Edit: Even more admirably, the one having difficulty being understood is being gracious about it in spite of the tactics being used against them.

I think it's more showing how easy it is to refer to a foetus/embryo as a child. We refer to them as unborn children/babies when they are wanted yet ignore this when it's unwanted.

 

[Mr Tree]

I think it's more showing how easy it is to refer to a foetus/embryo as a child. We refer to them as unborn children/babies when they are wanted yet ignore this when it's unwanted.

I heavily disagree. I believe using context it's very clear what is meant with child. Then again that's just my opinion

 

[TexRex]

I think it's more showing how easy it is to refer to a foetus/embryo as a child. We refer to them as unborn children/babies when they are wanted yet ignore this when it's unwanted.

Yeah, no, it was a tactic employed by the aforementioned, and not the first time by any stretch (which is why I'm so comfortable making this assertion), relying on ambiguity in a statement--be it due to a foreign language not being utilized to its full potential or an effort to leave parties unnamed as a courtesy--being used in service to one's motives. Another example of this can be observed directly above your post.

I just wish there was more counselling on the options other than abortion

You mean like that which Planned Parenthood provides. Abortion isn't a foregone conclusion when one seeks the services provided by PP either, in fact it's still stressed as a medical procedure that shouldn't be approached lightly. But that doesn't prevent them from being demonized because one of the services they provide is directing women to a sound means of terminating pregnancy should they be set on doing so.

 

[huskeR32]

Women should be able to have a choice, I just wish there was more counselling on the options other than abortion, which ironically is what some of the protesters outside clinics offered

It's quite a stretch to compare bullying and religious shaming to counseling.

As @TexRex just pointed out, some of the best places to receive such counseling are the clinics like Planned Parenthood, which said protestors try to prevent people from accessing at all.

 

[Danoff]

So a child then...

Yes but... I wanted to highlight "innocent" to make the response clear.

 

[baldgye]

Yes but... I wanted to highlight "innocent" to make the response clear.

But all it actually does is try to up the emotional stakes...

 

[Danoff]

But all it actually does is try to up the emotional stakes...

Nope. I think you misunderstood that post. My point was that differentiating in case of rape is a hypocritical move by pro-lifers to make themselves feel better.

 

[baldgye]

Nope. I think you misunderstood that post. My point was that differentiating in case of rape is a hypocritical move by pro-lifers to make themselves feel better.

It’s an emotional argument to counter an emotional argument... all you did was try and emphasis it... might have well have added ‘helpless’...

 

[Danoff]

It’s an emotional argument to counter an emotional argument... all you did was try and emphasis it... might have well have added ‘helpless’...

No, it's not an emotional argument. It's entirely based on logic. The child is not guilty of its father's sins, and yet the assumption was that this changed the moral calculus.

Edit:

And by the way "helpless" would not have helped me make my point. "Innocent" helps make my point, which was that the crimes of the father have no bearing on anyone else.

 

[TexRex]

"Innocent" helps make my point, which was that the crimes of the father have no bearing on anyone else.

And yet the unborn is guilty of Adam and Eve's fall into disobedience of God in favor of a more human existence.



And just to be clear--since there's been an absence of clarity in this thread as of late--I agree wholeheartedly with the quoted text. My comments are emblematic of my cynicism toward the Church.

 

[HenrySwanson]

It's quite a stretch to compare bullying and religious shaming to counseling.

As @TexRex just pointed out, some of the best places to receive such counseling are the clinics like Planned Parenthood, which said protestors try to prevent people from accessing at all.

Not really. The group that was behind the vast majority of the Ealing protests counselled and supported a few women who didn't have abortions - I wouldn't call their approach bullying as I've had some experience with it.

As for the BPAS/Marie Stopes version of counselling I'm not sure how extensive it is with regards to showing the woman her options as men aren't allowed in.

 

[TexRex]

Not really. The group that was behind the vast majority of the Ealing protests counselled and supported a few women who didn't have abortions - I wouldn't call their approach bullying as I've had some experience with it.

As for the BPAS/Marie Stopes version of counselling I'm not sure how extensive it is with regards to showing the woman her options as men aren't allowed in.

Ah, no acknowledgement regarding the role Planned Parenthood plays vis a vis "counselling on options" after previously indicating an apparent absence of such services. Just "Marie Stopes."

Nice.

Edit: So I just got out of the shower, but while I was in it I got a bug up my butt: "I wonder how many times Marie Stopes has been mentioned in this thread."

Despite being aware that there may be false positives in the form of spelling errors and references to other people, I decided to search the thread for the keyword "stopes." What did I find?

Two. Your original use and my response to it. Now...two people quoted your comment regarding counselling and neither mentioned Marie Stopes, nor did you reply with regards to the organization that they did mention; Planned Parenthood.

Why mention Marie Stopes? I mean...the thought that immediately came to my mind when I saw the name was "eugenics"--a controversial subject in its own right--and I have the nagging suspicion that I'm not the only one who would make such a connection. In fact, I suspect when Googling "Marie Stopes" you'd be hard-pressed to find a result that doesn't mention eugenics. It sure seems like your desire was to link eugenics to Planned Parenthood by responding to its mention the way you did.

Planned Parenthood ≠ Marie Stopes
Planned Parenthood ≠ eugenics

 

[UKMikey]

Despite being aware that there may be false positives in the form of spelling errors and references to other people, I decided to search the thread for the keyword "stopes." What did I find?

If it helps, I also mentioned the Marie Stopes clinic in Ealing in an earlier post in the Britain Thread.

Despite accusations of harassment, the GCN says there has not been a single conviction or caution from police in their 23 years of work in Ealing.

Should that be the case they should be able to get this ban quickly overturned and go back to their democratic right to display pictures of dead foetuses outside the Marie Stopes clinic in Mattock Lane as per my article above.