LAB

You asked, "Yes, women should be fully informed. But how many women have actually seen a 10-week old foetus? Have you?"

Along with the plethora of information available for women through hospitals, medical clinics, family planning centres etc I have also been a direct witness of my own 12 week old foetus when I miscarried into a toilet a number of years ago.

I still claim sovereignty over my body and fertility.

I do not see abortion as murder - I never will. I do see anti-choice people as fixated on control over others in the guise of pro-life. Given the poverty throughout much of this world, I believe in supporting those who already draw breath.

Cheers

ALB, I think you are kidding yourself, if you think that you will teach men to respect women, by removing a woman’s right to an abortion. In fact you would achieve the opposite. Women were seen as chattels, when they became totally dependant on men, with little chance of an alternative.

Having a few kids to a guy and no other source of money then him, makes it
pretty difficult for her to leave, for both emotional as well as financial reasons.
Other things teach people to respect one another, including education.

The testosterone driven male that you talk about, is not going to pay too much
towards any kids either. He’ll be in jail or find a loophole, or on the dole.

The thing is, people will make mistakes in life, we all do. Those people need
various options and assistance to bring their lives back on track, in the way they best see fit.

At the end of the day, morality is subjective. There are various objective claims to it, by various religions etc, but they all squabble amongst themselves which one is right. So there is no clear objective morality on this planet.

So all we have to go on is reason and evidence. My personal morality revolves around inflicting the least possible conscious pain and suffering on the least amount of thinking, feeling creatures, of whatever species.

I don’t rate the rights of organisms as the same as that of people. They don’t feel or think. They can be produced in unlimited amounts. So the question arises, when does a fetus become a baby. The evidence suggests that when it has a developed human brain that might be able to start to feel and think.

That happens at around week 25, when those connections to the cortex finally are formed

Yabby,

I agree with most you say on this and other "abortion" forums.

I'm curious about your views on how consistent a pro-abortion stance (based on reducing suffering to thinking creatures at the expense of non-thinking creatures like a foetus) is with the many horrible practises done to non-human, thinking feeling creatures supported by pro-abortionists who, for example, consume meat.

If your "...personal morality revolves around inflicting the least... pain... on...thinking, feeling creatures, of whatever species.",I hope this means you support animal "rights".

Arguments that we can kill thinking, feeling non-human animals, though not thinking, feeling humans, but can also kill non thinking (foetal) humans seem nonsensical, without an extra source of moral value for humans that anti-abortionists must use (eg- human souls).

What about criticisms that the development of thinking (and feeling) is a continuum with no distinct time from when a being can not think to when it develops that capacity?

I like your attitude that "...all we have to go on is reason and evidence".

We use arbitrary times to mark many development dates, that could be on a continuum (voting? first communion?).

The "benefit of the doubt" seems to fall on the side of least harm-eg we legally vote well after most of us can rationally vote.

Anti-abortionists can (and have) claim that the benefit of the doubt means abortion is never right (though why would sperm think less than zygotes?).

The answer emerges from a clash of "rights"-the right to not be destroyed Vs the right to have personal physical sovereignty. Ceribus paribus, the first right "wins".

We know with certainty women can think and feel.
To me this means the benefit of the doubt must make abortion ok until we're reasonably certain a foetus thinks as well as any other creature we would protect at the cost of sovereignty.

I don't believe we reach this point even at week 25, with the connections in the cortex that are formed not particularly more impressive than in the cortex of a fish, but I'm happy to cede the benefit of the doubt at this point.

I am indignant.

Why didn’t you look at the pictures of abortion?

Afraid to? Is the reality of abortion at will too confronting for you?

But Col you should be the most comfortable you’ve argued for the moral rightness of abortion on pretty much any grounds.

You miss much being emotionally fixated on the shadows of the Church. If all you’re interested in are shadows all you have to offer is a shadow play. Deliberately step in puddles and you make the way harder for yourself.

You keep mentioning the Inquisition haven’t but bothered to get across the real story and can’t bear to put the errors of the Church in context, or in proper proportion.

Individual rights, individual self determination? When you utter the words they seem to me like pious vestments worn to disguise a tyranny. The moral weakness that leads to the killing of those who are defenseless “ .. . . then they came for the trade unionists and I said nothing, then they came for me”

You’ve constantly sought to demolish the moral legitimacy that our society has inherited from its religion, you have replaced it only with “individual rights”. What are your reasons – social, political or philosophical for thinking they exist? The natural state of man is vice and the natural state of government is tyranny you want nothing to interfere with this kind of sovereignty?

Instead of argument “get out of the pulpit” “pure gingoism” “infant terrible” “hissy fit” “self righteous indignation” “messing with emotions” “socio religious smoke” “get down off your pulpit” lol

If imposing my will means revealing things that you would prefer remain hidden then yes that is indeed what I am using my will for. What you really mean by messing with emotions is that you haven’t the courage to face up to the real consequences of abortion. Its ironic you accuse me of preaching and not mixing with real people when you are too afraid to view pictures of real abortions!

Your arguments are fraudulent your name calling is an attempt to cover over that fact.

Wibble, you make some great points, I agree with alot of them, but I think that they go right over the heads of the fundie true believers on here. Most don't understand much about nature at all. They just want their ticket to heaven, agreeing with what their church says is their way of getting it. Life is kind of black and white for them.

I'd be happy to discuss the meat/vegan story with you. I don't agree with you, but as you seem intelligent and a thinker, I'd like to hear your views, either privately or on an appropriate forum. This one is for discussing abortion, so I respect the rights of those who come here for that.

Martin, I looked at those photos and they basically are papal propaganda, as those priests are trying to use emotion to dominate peoples ability to reason. Here is a URL of thinking, feeling beings and what has happened to them, in the name of an ever growing human population.

http://karlammann.com/

Mjpb answers the ‘hissing-fits’ from Yabby and his ideological twin, Col particularly well, however factual content holds little worth for them.

Unsurprisingly Col has acknowledged he won’t look at MIW’s suggested URLs, but then labels it as ‘Papist propaganda’(later mimicked by Yabby)…so much for credibility Col. You refuse to inform yourself first. That explains why you continue to post contradictory and irrelevant posts on this and other threads. (e.g., 4167 and 4192)

Some may have been ‘infants-terrible’, but you haven’t grown out of it Col, check you own image.

Col: ‘Only a complete fool would attempt to justify one by claiming a relatively fewer numbers of deaths (supposedly!) to the other.’

You mean like Yabby did with his 85k rather than 100000 abortions pa in Australia?

Wibble your assertions regarding swatted flies, blobs and other mammals run around in lots of circles ending in a suggestion that, ‘so a foetus is more a "blob" than most of the mammals we eat.’

Are you suggesting that you’d prefer to eat a foetus?

LAB re: Ansell…well, they could always stick to balloons and kitchen gloves…or branch out into car covers.

re: contraception, third world testosterone and women’s rights – a crude but accurate assertion. Perhaps your ‘humour’ will effect some comprehension and understanding by anti-lifer posters where reason and logic have not.

Scout, women who undergo abortions, risk a much higher incidence of spontaneous abortions (miscarriage) later. Ignoring your generalized attacks on pro-lifers, you would find that those organizations offering post abortion counseling do so with compassion and empathy to help you ‘move on’ as you discussed on another thread.

Yabby, you’ve moved the goal posts from the first trimester to 25 weeks …then claim African children are of less worth than the chimps and bonobos they eat. Wrong colour, creed, it can’t be the species can it? Humans are of less worth than chimps and chumps?

Let African babies starve but roll the whales over – is nature taking its course there? Double-standards and blatant hypocrisy?

You can justify anything Yabby, read "Animal Farm", George Orwell must've known you...

tbc