Abortion Debate

[Pigeon]

Pigeon

You have told me to "fuck off" and called me a "moralising sanctimonious fuckwit" or something similar.

My first offence was to speak up for life forms generally and point out the hypocricy of many anti-abortionists. Your reaction to this says more about you than it does about me.

But obviously, you would think that, because you're a moralising sanctimonious fuckwit.

Duh!

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

How about if, like me, they have considered the likelihood of whether the foetus is suffering, and discovered that it's unlikely that it does suffer, up to our legal abortion limit?

It is a very vexing issue. I have seen video footage of aborted foetuses who were quite clearly attempting to evade the machinery before 24 weeks.

I would think it is closer to say that suffering can take place in context of a well structured central nervous system which would again appear to be earlier.

The law is about striking a balance in a whole bunch of ways and Im not massively for reducing the current terms - but more for increasing education, genuine information and informed debate. But we must always remember that the aborted are voiceless and weigh that up in decisions.

What we tend to get instead is entrenched cliched positions on both sides rather than genuine independent critical thinking.

I believe that although abortion should be permitted within the law as it stands we should be moving to reduce the number of abortions. No one in their right mind would say that abortion is per se "a good thing" - it is only that it is seen by many as the lesser of 2 "bad things".

Abortion can be a horrendous thing to go through, the number of abortions that take place in this country is treated quite casually. I believe the whole issue is treated casually and this ought to interest those of the broad left / green persuasion because it points at the casualisation of life and the commodification of the doing away with it at a pre-birth stage.

 

[the button]

My own contribution to the "what should we call it instead of 'pro-life'?" debate. Personally, I'd go for "pro-coathanger" or "pro-backstreet" myself.

That is all.

(Voted "pro-choice" btw).

 

[urbanrevolt]

Abortion is a political issue because the attemtps to stop it by the state are an attack on women's right to choose.

The foetus is not a person until it is seperate from the hosting body and to treat it as having any rights -which anyhow flow from society- is absolutely absurd.

The attempt to make into a moral issue by the church is a clever way to justify their nonsense about wanting to restrict choice around issues around fertility and sexuality.

 

[the button]

The attempt to make into a moral issue by the church is a clever way to justify their nonsense about wanting to restrict choice around issues around fertility and sexuality.

It's also an attempt by the clergy to maximise the number of children in the world, so's they never have to fuck an adult.

 

[roryer]

My two pence worth... I've been involved in one abortion, I wanted to have it but the girl hated my guts and decided to get rid of it. I supported her in that decision, afterall I am a complete c**t, who can blame her for not wanting anything to do with me? I bet she regrets it more than me though. When push came to shove I was opposed to an abortion, but remain strongly pro-choice.

With a massive overpopulation problem causing huge environmental problems we need to avoid as many unwanted children as possible.
A Worldwide one child policy sounds like a sensible idea to me, then again the coming great economic depression following peak oil will wipe out a few billion of us.

 

[_angel_]

I will not tolerate anti-abortion arguments from meat-eaters.

Neither do "pro-choice" arguments from non-meater eaters stack up.

.

Bizarre.

 

[_angel_]

I think you have to be a vegan, not a vegetarian to feel smug about not partaking in ANY animal suffering, really.

 

[chilango]

I think you have to be a vegan, not a vegetarian to feel smug about not partaking in ANY animal suffering, really.

yeah, but looked at holistically even that doesn`t stack up...how many animals (human and nonhuman) die and/or suffer during the process of making vegan plastic shoes, soya based foods etc....

 

[urbanrevolt]

Vegetairanism/veganism has nothing to do with it at all- the anlaogy is based on the false logic of seeing the foetus as a sentient being independent of its mother- it isn't (any arguments about premature births are irrelevant also as then it is an independent being- a baby which should have the same rights as any other person if it'a a viable life form.

Abortion restriction is about an attack on women's rights and has nothing to do with veganism.

 

[chilango]

Abortion restriction is about an attack on women's rights and has nothing to do with veganism.

Yup.

I don`t believe there is an analogy...but the one he is attempting is flawed anyaway.

 

[_angel_]

Vegetairanism/veganism has nothing to do with it at all-

Of course it's not. Suggesting it has is one of the weirdest fruitloopy things I have ever read on here and as you can imagine he's up against some stiff competition!

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

I think you have to be a vegan, not a vegetarian to feel smug about not partaking in ANY animal suffering, really.

True. It's not just a question of "smugness" though. More about consistency.

 

[Poot]

Something else I'd like to throw into the mix is this:

My local authority only provides one scan per pregnancy. It's at 20 weeks (or 22 weeks if you're on holiday when it comes around, like I was, or 26 weeks in the case of my friend who turned out to be much more pregnant than she thought. 26 weeks is about 6 months by the way). If there's something wrong with the baby then you have no way of knowing until you have the scan. The baby starts kicking at 18 weeks or so. To say that you've grown pretty attached to it by the time you've had your scan would be an understatement.

Is it just me or does anyone else think that's really, really unfair? And, more conroversially, does anyone think the legal limit for abortions being 24 weeks might be so that those discovering there's something wrong with the baby at the 20 week scan have time to terminate the pregnancy?

Btw, 20 weeks is not just an arbitrary amount of time, apparently this is the optimum time for picking up some abnormalities (though not all, by any means).

In my opinion, if more scans were available around here earlier in pregnancy, we'd probably save countless late abortions and all the heartache that goes with them.

 

[phildwyer]

But obviously, you would think that, because you're a moralising sanctimonious fuckwit.

Over the years, I've encountered quite a few idiots on these boards. People whose own stupidity prevents them from engaging constuctively with anyone else, whose lack of social skills has rendered them bitter, who have been twisted out of shape by their inability to understand what is going on around them. But I have to say that you, Pigeon, are by a comfortable distance the most inadequate, pathetic, pitiful, miserable, hopeless, depressed, depressing and generally wretched creature I have *ever* come across. You are entirely worthless and without any redeeming features whatsoever. Except of course for the outlet you provide for others to vent their scorn. Go away, you are not welcome here.

 

[phildwyer]

Oh, fuck off.

You just can't help yourself, can you? I don`t want to see you on these boards again. Get lost, moron.

 

[phildwyer]

Yes. Or a woman could get really lucky and go out with a sanctimonious moralising fuckwit. I'd imagine that would reduce the need for contraception immeasurably.

Is there anyone at all who wants this twat to carry on polluting this thread?

 

[phildwyer]

My head hurts.

Good.

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

the anlaogy is based on the false logic of seeing the foetus as a sentient being independent of its mother- it isn't

Of course there will be a period of separate sentience in the foetus prior to birth. You saying "it isnt" doesnt change that. Sentience doesnt just appear on emergence, that simply doesnt make sense. If what you were saying was true then videos wouldnt show that a foetus can try to evade abortion.

The principle of being against the causing of suffering needs to spoken for. A foetus with a sufficiently advanced central nervous system can obviously suffer.

 

[phildwyer]

The principle of being against the causing of suffering needs to spoken for. A foetus with a sufficiently advanced central nervous system can obviously suffer.

True, but that´s not an argument against abortion. Animals can suffer too, and yet we kill them for sport and nutrition. The question is whether a foetus is a human being, with the rights and entitlements that brings. Personally I don´t think it is, because I believe that human beings are by definition social creatures, and a foetus is entirely unsocialized.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Of course there will be a period of separate sentience in the foetus prior to birth. You saying "it isnt" doesnt change that. Sentience doesnt just appear on emergence, that simply doesnt make sense. If what you were saying was true then videos wouldnt show that a foetus can try to evade abortion.

The principle of being against the causing of suffering needs to spoken for. A foetus with a sufficiently advanced central nervous system can obviously suffer.

Where is the line drawn?

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

Something else I'd like to throw into the mix is this:

My local authority only provides one scan per pregnancy. It's at 20 weeks (or 22 weeks if you're on holiday when it comes around, like I was, or 26 weeks in the case of my friend who turned out to be much more pregnant than she thought. 26 weeks is about 6 months by the way). If there's something wrong with the baby then you have no way of knowing until you have the scan. The baby starts kicking at 18 weeks or so. To say that you've grown pretty attached to it by the time you've had your scan would be an understatement.

Is it just me or does anyone else think that's really, really unfair? And, more conroversially, does anyone think the legal limit for abortions being 24 weeks might be so that those discovering there's something wrong with the baby at the 20 week scan have time to terminate the pregnancy?

Btw, 20 weeks is not just an arbitrary amount of time, apparently this is the optimum time for picking up some abnormalities (though not all, by any means).

In my opinion, if more scans were available around here earlier in pregnancy, we'd probably save countless late abortions and all the heartache that goes with them.

Definitely right on early scans, but Kids are commodified enough outside of the womb so I always feel a little queazy at the idea that a clearly less than perfect foetus is more likely to be "got rid of".

 

[editor]

Over the years, I've encountered quite a few idiots on these boards. People whose own stupidity prevents them from engaging constuctively with anyone else, whose lack of social skills has rendered them bitter, who have been twisted out of shape by their inability to understand what is going on around them. But I have to say that you, Pigeon, are by a comfortable distance the most inadequate, pathetic, pitiful, miserable, hopeless, depressed, depressing and generally wretched creature I have *ever* come across. You are entirely worthless and without any redeeming features whatsoever. Except of course for the outlet you provide for others to vent their scorn. Go away, you are not welcome here.

Tone down the personal abuse please.

By a considerable margin, if you please.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

I think there have been a few posts here pushing the boundaries of "robust debate"; kindly keep it civil if you would.

edit: snap! see, nobody can say mods aren't on the ball....

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

Where is the line drawn?

It is hard to talk about different levels of consciousness and sentience. Of course, many grown adults are barely consciouss or sentient either.

I think the current law is probably a bit late in where it draws the line, but it is no exact science and I am not calling for a change in that - just more consideration of the truth rather than trying to sweep the suffering of sentient beings under the carpet.

 

[phildwyer]

Definitely right on early scans, but Kids are commodified enough outside of the womb so I always feel a little queazy at the idea that a clearly less than perfect foetus is more likely to be "got rid of".

That's easy to say, but how many people would be comfortable raising a severely disabled kid? Some would, naturally, but many wouldn´t. And if we don't countenance abortion because of disability in the foetus, lots of people would find themselves having to do exactly that.

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

For the record around 185000 abortions take place each year in the UK.

Meanwhile, around 900 million animals here are killed annually.

Speaking about the implicit suffering in both cases is often considered taboo, the preseve of loons or the self selecting sanctimonious and moralising. None of that changes the existence of the suffering.

 

[ViolentPanda]

It is hard to talk about different levels of consciousness and sentience. Of course, many grown adults are barely consciouss or sentient either.

I think the current law is probably a bit late in where it draws the line, but it is no exact science and I am not calling for a change in that - just more consideration of the truth rather than trying to sweep the suffering of sentient beings under the carpet.

This is my difficulty with the dabate around where "the line" is drawn.

We have a very forceful strand of "argument" arising from what could be called "the Christian right" that draws the line at conception, and yet their own theology doesn't, as far as I can see, attribute a "soul" (surely the primary element that makes a person "whole" in their faith) to the child until it is born, foetal sentience notwithstanding.

We also have a "scientistic/technological" strand of argument that allows us to perceive function in the foetus at increasingly early stages of gestation, and yet does function equate to sentience, don't, as you've said, some adults function who are barely sentient?

I suppose that the point I@m trying to make is that the place where any line is drawn is always going to be, to some degree, arbitrary and based on a fairly reductionist reading of "the facts".

 

[ViolentPanda]

That's easy to say, but how many people would be comfortable raising a severely disabled kid? Some would, naturally, but many wouldn´t. And if we don't countenance abortion because of disability in the foetus, lots of people would find themselves having to do exactly that.

Or we'd see a return to the methods that used to be used; exposure, "benign neglect" and other forms of infanticide.

 

[phildwyer]

For the record around 185000 abortions take place each year in the UK.

Meanwhile, around 900 million animals here are killed annually.

Speaking about the implicit suffering in both cases is often considered taboo, the preseve of loons or the self selecting sanctimonious and moralising. None of that changes the existence of the suffering.

I´m amazed at the indifference of people towards the suffering of animals in industrial farming. Its a bit like the prison system: everyone knows what goes on, no-one likes it, no-one does anything about it. I'm no better than most either.