I have zero opinion on abortion either way so am neither pro nor anti but just two things
Pro lifers are pro birth not pro life so should be referred to as such for reasons of clarity

Human life is not sacrosanct any more or any less than other forms of life are
Therefore human beings saying human life is sacrosanct does not make it true

I've never really formulated an opinion about abortion, but something did strike me from watching the first few seconds of that video where it was said that "In Ireland today a pregnant woman doesn't have full rights over her own body". But isn't that the point?
That if she's pregnant then there are two bodies to consider, one of them not hers? The crux of the matter, I think. Just chewin' the fat.

jamest wrote:I've never really formulated an opinion about abortion, but something did strike me from watching the first few seconds of that video where it was said that "In Ireland today a pregnant woman doesn't have full rights over her own body". But isn't that the point?
That if she's pregnant then there are two bodies to consider, one of them not hers? The crux of the matter, I think. Just chewin' the fat.

It's up to her, though, if she wants to be an incubator for an unwanted child. In Ireland women can't even abort foetuses that will be DOA. They have to carry to term still births. They also are forced to carry children of rape and incest. Making abortion illegal is insanely cruel. It punishes women for mistakes and exhorts them to live with it.

Animavore wrote:

jamest wrote:I've never really formulated an opinion about abortion, but something did strike me from watching the first few seconds of that video where it was said that "In Ireland today a pregnant woman doesn't have full rights over her own body". But isn't that the point?
That if she's pregnant then there are two bodies to consider, one of them not hers? The crux of the matter, I think. Just chewin' the fat.

It's up to her, though, if she wants to be an incubator for an unwanted child. In Ireland women can't even abort foetuses that will be DOA. They have to carry to term still births. They also are forced to carry children of rape and incest. Making abortion illegal is insanely cruel. It punishes women for mistakes and exhorts them to live with it.

I know, it's a complex issue. I was just struck by that initial statement at the start of the video, since a pregnant individual is in fact two or more (twins etc.) individuals. Should one individual always have complete control (full rights) over what happens to those other individuals? That would be a hard sell, I think. Conversely, I agree that it's certainly stupid not to allow abortions when the unborn individual has died. On that basis alone the law should be changed, but it's the level of change required which is difficult to assess.

jamest wrote:

Animavore wrote:

jamest wrote:I've never really formulated an opinion about abortion, but something did strike me from watching the first few seconds of that video where it was said that "In Ireland today a pregnant woman doesn't have full rights over her own body". But isn't that the point?
That if she's pregnant then there are two bodies to consider, one of them not hers? The crux of the matter, I think. Just chewin' the fat.

It's up to her, though, if she wants to be an incubator for an unwanted child. In Ireland women can't even abort foetuses that will be DOA. They have to carry to term still births. They also are forced to carry children of rape and incest. Making abortion illegal is insanely cruel. It punishes women for mistakes and exhorts them to live with it.

I know, it's a complex issue. I was just struck by that initial statement at the start of the video, since a pregnant individual is in fact two or more (twins etc.) individuals. Should one individual always have complete control (full rights) over what happens to those other individuals? That would be a hard sell, I think. Conversely, I agree that it's certainly stupid not to allow abortions when the unborn individual has died. On that basis alone the law should be changed, but it's the level of change required which is difficult to assess.

An individual should have rights over when they say it's time to have children. We shouldn't be able to make them.

The issue is normally at what point two individuals are involved.

A woman is still pregnant at an early stage, when she is carrying an embryo or foetus that doesn't even have a functioning brain, let alone the capacity to feel pain.

Most countries differentiate between the cases where just the woman's rights are considered and those of the foetus as well, with the cut off being something around the 20, 24 or 28 week mark in most cases. After the cut off abortions are provided on a much more restricted basis, usually relating to direct medical needs of either the mother or baby.

Ireland's law is different, in that no distinction is made between cases of early stage pregnancy, or as Animavore points out a deceased foetus/baby. They clearly are not considering the needs of individuals at all, instead they have a legacy law relating to religious prescription, which is actively hostile and harmful to women.

Animavore wrote:
An individual should have rights over when they say it's time to have children. We shouldn't be able to make them.

They do have those rights normally since most pregnancies don't arise from rape/abuse, by either abstaining from sex or being ultra-safe when it comes to using contraception. The rape/abuse pregnancies are a separate issue, but for the most part the law does not care whether you have a child or not, so they give you full rights to make the aforementioned choice.

The problem is that in most cases I suspect that unwanted pregnancies arise from having irresponsible sex. Personally, I don't think individuals should be killed (aborted) just because the person(s) involved cannot be arsed to raise a child which their irresponsible actions have 'created'. I mean, why stop there? Why not create a law which allows us to kill our kids when they're toddlers, because they're making our lives miserable?

You're framing the discussion within the importance of rights for individuals, yet show so little concern for individuals/life itself that one wonders why you argue so concertedly for their rights? I think you have a self-conflicting opinion.

Thommo wrote:The issue is normally at what point two individuals are involved.

Yes. That itself seems to me like a completely arbitrary decision to make.

jamest wrote:

Animavore wrote:
An individual should have rights over when they say it's time to have children. We shouldn't be able to make them.

They do have those rights normally since most pregnancies don't arise from rape/abuse, by either abstaining from sex or being ultra-safe when it comes to using contraception. The rape/abuse pregnancies are a separate issue, but for the most part the law does not care whether you have a child or not, so they give you full rights to make the aforementioned choice.

The problem is that in most cases I suspect that unwanted pregnancies arise from having irresponsible sex. Personally, I don't think individuals should be killed (aborted) just because the person(s) involved cannot be arsed to raise a child which their irresponsible actions have 'created'. I mean, why stop there? Why not create a law which allows us to kill our kids when they're toddlers, because they're making our lives miserable?

You're framing the discussion within the importance of rights for individuals, yet show so little concern for individuals/life itself that one wonders why you argue so concertedly for their rights? I think you have a self-conflicting opinion.

Even if it is from "irresponsible sex", why should society dictate to women when the time is right for them?
Men have no such limitations imposed on them.

jamest wrote:

Animavore wrote:
An individual should have rights over when they say it's time to have children. We shouldn't be able to make them.

They do have those rights normally since most pregnancies don't arise from rape/abuse, by either abstaining from sex or being ultra-safe when it comes to using contraception. The rape/abuse pregnancies are a separate issue, but for the most part the law does not care whether you have a child or not, so they give you full rights to make the aforementioned choice.

The problem is that in most cases I suspect that unwanted pregnancies arise from having irresponsible sex. Personally, I don't think individuals should be killed (aborted) just because the person(s) involved cannot be arsed to raise a child which their irresponsible actions have 'created'. I mean, why stop there? Why not create a law which allows us to kill our kids when they're toddlers, because they're making our lives miserable?

You're framing the discussion within the importance of rights for individuals, yet show so little concern for individuals/life itself that one wonders why you argue so concertedly for their rights? I think you have a self-conflicting opinion.

Jesus wept. Even by your standards Jamest......!

There is no requirement for one individual to take any risk themselves for the life of another. Pregnancy is a risk. So on a simple equality basis if for no other reason, a woman should not be forced to continue a pregnancy she does not wish to. Full legal protection begins at birth, the ramifications of treating all pregnancies as citizens are not insignificant.

Animavore wrote:

jamest wrote:

Animavore wrote:
An individual should have rights over when they say it's time to have children. We shouldn't be able to make them.

They do have those rights normally since most pregnancies don't arise from rape/abuse, by either abstaining from sex or being ultra-safe when it comes to using contraception. The rape/abuse pregnancies are a separate issue, but for the most part the law does not care whether you have a child or not, so they give you full rights to make the aforementioned choice.

The problem is that in most cases I suspect that unwanted pregnancies arise from having irresponsible sex. Personally, I don't think individuals should be killed (aborted) just because the person(s) involved cannot be arsed to raise a child which their irresponsible actions have 'created'. I mean, why stop there? Why not create a law which allows us to kill our kids when they're toddlers, because they're making our lives miserable?

You're framing the discussion within the importance of rights for individuals, yet show so little concern for individuals/life itself that one wonders why you argue so concertedly for their rights? I think you have a self-conflicting opinion.

Even if it is from "irresponsible sex", why should society dictate to women when the time is right for them?
Men have no such limitations imposed on them.

Why should individuals, even unborn individuals, have no rights/protection given to them in law? A pregnant woman is more than one individual. For the most part, a pregnant woman's actions are the consequence of her being pregnant. Therefore, if she as an individual wants to harp-on about her own individual rights afforded to her by the law of her land, then upon what basis does she not understand that the individual within her belly should be afforded the same rights?

Pebble wrote:

jamest wrote:

Animavore wrote:
An individual should have rights over when they say it's time to have children. We shouldn't be able to make them.

They do have those rights normally since most pregnancies don't arise from rape/abuse, by either abstaining from sex or being ultra-safe when it comes to using contraception. The rape/abuse pregnancies are a separate issue, but for the most part the law does not care whether you have a child or not, so they give you full rights to make the aforementioned choice.

The problem is that in most cases I suspect that unwanted pregnancies arise from having irresponsible sex. Personally, I don't think individuals should be killed (aborted) just because the person(s) involved cannot be arsed to raise a child which their irresponsible actions have 'created'. I mean, why stop there? Why not create a law which allows us to kill our kids when they're toddlers, because they're making our lives miserable?

You're framing the discussion within the importance of rights for individuals, yet show so little concern for individuals/life itself that one wonders why you argue so concertedly for their rights? I think you have a self-conflicting opinion.

Jesus wept. Even by your standards Jamest......!

Oh spare me the fucking bullshit you numpty.

There is no requirement for one individual to take any risk themselves for the life of another. Pregnancy is a risk. So on a simple equality basis if for no other reason, a woman should not be forced to continue a pregnancy she does not wish to.

What a load of bollocks. What do you think the risks are for an unborn individual being the victim of an attempted abortion?

What a fuckwitted comment to make.

Full legal protection begins at birth, the ramifications of treating all pregnancies as citizens are not insignificant.

You're wrong, since if full legal protection began at birth then all women could have an abortion any time they wanted. Clearly, they cannot, which also clearly highlights the fact that even materialist cultures such as those in The West recognise that individualism begins before birth.

Suddenly popping-out of a woman's vagina after 9 months should not be the point where you are worthy of consideration. Thankfully, it's not.

I'm an idealist as you know so identifying an individual in terms of the development of its organs or the moment it pops out of a fanny is obviously problematical for me. However, even when being charitable to physicalism/materialism, it leaves a very sour taste in my mouth to hear fucking idiotic self-conflicting arguments harping-on about the rights of certain individuals (women) on the one hand whilst advocating that unborn individuals have no rights and should be executed at any whim of said woman.

You need to prove that an unborn individual has no rights and should/could be executed at any whim, to change my mind. Good luck with that exercise. Alternatively, you could broaden your limited horizons somewhat and change your opinion. Doesn't seem likely, but the suggestion is worthy of consideration for anyone with a glimmer of sincerity and intelligence.

jamest wrote:

Thommo wrote:The issue is normally at what point two individuals are involved.

Yes. That itself seems to me like a completely arbitrary decision to make.

Then don't make it. Leave it to the experts and the women involved.

Arbitrating in the opposite direction is still just as arbitrary.

jamest wrote:Why should individuals, even unborn individuals, have no rights/protection given to them in law?

Nobody is suggesting they should. Inviduals will have rights, even before birth, but those rights will start at the point that they become "human persons", which isn't at conception.

Thommo wrote:

jamest wrote:

Thommo wrote:The issue is normally at what point two individuals are involved.

Yes. That itself seems to me like a completely arbitrary decision to make.

Then don't make it. Leave it to the experts and the women involved.

Arbitrating in the opposite direction is still just as arbitrary.

Arbitrating in the "opposite direction" is not something I've done here, though as an idealist you can probably guess what decision I'd come to and why it wasn't arbitrary.

jamest wrote:

Thommo wrote:

jamest wrote:

Thommo wrote:The issue is normally at what point two individuals are involved.

Yes. That itself seems to me like a completely arbitrary decision to make.

Then don't make it. Leave it to the experts and the women involved.

Arbitrating in the opposite direction is still just as arbitrary.

Arbitrating in the "opposite direction" is not something I've done here, though as an idealist you can probably guess what decision I'd come to and why it wasn't arbitrary.

Not a clue actually. Idealism would suggest that neither baby nor mother exist, and that the physical form isn't necessarily important. Your solipsism (as you used to call it) would suggest nothing exists outside of your mind, so again, there's no clue there.

Since everything I've ever seen about your "idealism" has given the impression of being completely arbitrary, I'm expecting no surprise here.

Judging from your tone, I think you're possibly going to tell me that you feel that women should do what you think, and not what the experts or they themselves think, but I don't want to overcommit on that front. Also judging from your tone you might not be too clear on what it means for something to be "arbitrary" and how that applies here.

Honestly, I think it would be easier if you would clearly explain than invite me to guess though. Usually people don't like the answers they get when they invite people to guess their opinions on contentious issues.

Thommo wrote:

jamest wrote:Why should individuals, even unborn individuals, have no rights/protection given to them in law?

Nobody is suggesting they should.

Actually, I have inferred from the general convo/links here that a woman should have "full rights" to do whatever she seems to be best for her, which is why I got involved, so I object to that statement of yours.

Individuals will have rights, even before birth, but those rights will start at the point that they become "human persons", which isn't at conception.

Upon what basis do you decide what is and is not 'life' (an individual) other than upon the views of a physicalist scientist who knows far less than they think that they know? That comment refers to both ontology and physical knowledge.

Countless unborn individuals have been executed based upon a law which has its own basis within such expert knowledge. Fuck that bollocks.

I've witnessed the nous of untold numbers of 'individuals', and I know without doubt that almost all of them should not be given "full rights" to selfishly please themselves at the expense of other individuals, even unborn individuals.

I am not advocating that all abortion should be prohibited, only that all fubar reasoning which facilitates abortion should. Certainly, the attitudes and arguments presented here thus far seem to me to be utterly selfish and self-conflicting (unreasonable) in essence. Except the point that even dead individuals should not be aborted. That's just stupid. Of course, there's also the issue of rape and abuse which leads to pregnancy. I'm not yet sure where I stand on that issue, but in an ideal world I'd like to persuade the woman that the child isn't the rapist/abuser and should be given a chance, even if that meant that the State took complete responsibility for the child after birth. Of course, I understand that it's not that easy to persuade such a victim of such, so I personally would be open to allowing abortions for such people.

I'm not presenting an absolute argument against abortion here, just an argument against absolute abortions of argument.

Thommo wrote:

jamest wrote:

Thommo wrote:

jamest wrote:
Yes. That itself seems to me like a completely arbitrary decision to make.

Then don't make it. Leave it to the experts and the women involved.

Arbitrating in the opposite direction is still just as arbitrary.

Arbitrating in the "opposite direction" is not something I've done here, though as an idealist you can probably guess what decision I'd come to and why it wasn't arbitrary.

Not a clue actually. Idealism would suggest that neither baby nor mother exist, and that the physical form isn't necessarily important. Your solipsism (as you used to call it) would suggest nothing exists outside of your mind, so again, there's no clue there.

Idealism does not suggest that 'you' do not exist, but does suggest that you are not 'human'. Hence, the mother and baby exist, but are not essentially mother and baby. The important point is that idealism does not undermine the individual's existence by undermining its humanity.

Also, for what it's worth, I haven't approached this issue as an idealist. I've approached it as someone being charitable to physicalist views yet who still finds utter conflict therein, regards the conflicts of rights of individuals who want to execute other individuals in order to sustain their own rights to be utterly irresponsible and selfish. The Law is a communal protection, not one which favours certain individuals over others. At least, that should be the case.

surreptitious57 wrote:I have zero opinion on abortion either way so am neither pro nor anti but just two things
Pro lifers are pro birth not pro life so should be referred to as such for reasons of clarity

Human life is not sacrosanct any more or any less than other forms of life are
Therefore human beings saying human life is sacrosanct does not make it true

In that case, I'll 'abort' you tomorrow so I don't have to listen to your self-conflicting (unreasonable) bullshit any more.

If life (the individual) is not 'sacrosanct' then any reasonable argument for 'Law' must be utterly pragmatic/utilitarian, in which case it must treat all individuals in equal measure. In which case no individual gets to execute another for individual reasons.

You're an anti-abortionist whether you have the brains to realise it or not.