The Abortion Debate (continued) (1 Viewer)

[Dougie]

But how can it ever be proved that this is the case? If we cannot prove it then why assume that they do not posses the abilty?

it can't be proved either way, so it's a personal belief

 

[Xayma]

Though of course, if it comes down to self-awareness, you could technically slay a child when they are 1 month old, which in theory should be about the same as killing a cow for beef. So clearly killing a fetus, when it comes down to self awareness does not equal to kill a human (under the idea of self-awareness)

I think it has more to do with the issue that humans have come to accept partial acceptance of responsibility for all other humans. In a similar way one would probably advocate for the placement of kittens or puppies into an animal shelter preferentially to being put down if there is nothing wrong with them. As the use of dead humans for other purposes is illegal (eg we won't be getting leather from them) it is pointless to kill them when they don't rely on ones individual contribution and society will fully support them (although it could be argued that they will sitll partially be responsible for the child through any money going towards state care this is minimal and doesn't involve their body).

 

[ur_inner_child]

I think it has more to do with the issue that humans have come to accept partial acceptance of responsibility for all other humans. In a similar way one would probably advocate for the placement of kittens or puppies into an animal shelter preferentially to being put down if there is nothing wrong with them. As the use of dead humans for other purposes is illegal (eg we won't be getting leather from them) it is pointless to kill them when they don't rely on ones individual contribution and society will fully support them (although it could be argued that they will sitll partially be responsible for the child through any money going towards state care this is minimal and doesn't involve their body).

Yes, of course. That, rather than self-awareness. I'm actually more merely confused with why we are talking about self-awareness as the line between what you are allowed to abort - the above conversation debates one whether a fetus is like killing a plant/animal and if killing animals is like killing adult humans, or whatever, and then an issue of self-awareness arises. I don't think self-awareness is an effective argument, it always has been a "whether-it-feels-pain".

I can't seem to express what I'm trying to say, I'm stumbling on all my words and re-editting what I'm saying. Why we are debating on self-awareness and animals seems beyond me, or more or less pointless, in relation to abortion.

I think I know what I'm saying....

 

[BradCube]

I can't seem to express what I'm trying to say, I'm stumbling on all my words and re-editting what I'm saying. Why we are debating on self-awareness and animals seems beyond me, or more or less pointless, in relation to abortion.

I think I know what I'm saying....

I'll try to clear it up for you then stef

The reason we are looking at self-awareness of animals is to see if we can point out a difference between humans and animals whereby we have more right to life then them.

If we cannot, then the pain argument is nullified because animals can also feel pain yet we kill them.

Therefore, neither self-conciousness nor the ability to feel pain, can be used as a rebuttal as to why abortion should be regarded as morally permissable if a featus is the equivelent of an animal.

 

[ur_inner_child]

I'll try to clear it up for you then stef

The reason we are looking at self-awareness of animals is to see if we can point out a difference between humans and animals whereby we have more right then them to life.

If we cannot, then the pain argument is nullified because animals can also feel pain yet we kill them.

Therefore, neither self-conciousness nor the ability to feel pain, can be used as a rebuttal as to why abortion should be regarded as morally permissable.

Oh

I thought self-awareness as in to determine when it is okay to have an abortion, like how many consider the cutoff point is pain, which is why many pro-choicers do not support late abortions.

Meh.

 

[BradCube]

Oh

I thought self-awareness as in to determine when it is okay to have an abortion, like how many consider the cutoff point is pain, which is why many pro-choicers do not support late abortions.

Meh.

Self-awareness cannot be used simply in that manner because as you have shown, babies do not gain conciousness until after birth.

It is because of this that many use the pain argument instead, which is nullified for my reasoning as shown above anyway.

You alredy knew that though, so this post is of more benifit to other readers.

 

[bshoc]

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/documents/articles/what_australians_really_think_about_abortion.pdf

Believe abortion involves the taking of a human life - Yes 54%, No 34%

Believe that an unborn child by 20 weeks is a person with human rights
– Yes 57%, No 26%

Believe that abortion can harm a woman’s physical and/or mental health
– Yes 79%, No 12%

Support abortion on demand – Yes 60%, No 32%

Support abortion for non-medical, that is for financial or social reasons – Yes 39%, No 51%

Believe that a woman should receive free independent counselling before abortion – Yes 95%, No 2%

Believe there should be a cooling-off period of several days between appointment and abortion – Yes 86%, No 9%

Support conscientious objection provisions for doctors and nurses – Yes 73%, No 15%

Support Medicare funding for abortions for non-medical, that is for financial or socialreasons – Yes 39%, No 53%

Believe that partial birth abortion should be banned – Yes 59%, No 20%

Key findings of the Southern Cross research included:
• 71% want greater public discussion
• 76% say men have equal right to public comment (71% of women)
• 87% want number of abortions reduced
• 78% want mandatory counselling
• 86% want this to be independent of the abortion provider
• Only 15% believe abortion is moral when mother and baby are healthy

Anyway its a 52 page report and I dont feel like copy/pasting the whole thing anyway, and for the moron who argued that "support current laws" equated to outright and popular support in this country:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:AbortionLawsAustraliaMap.png

I would question your assumptions considering the discrepancy, plus the relative population quotas the two red states contribute in terms of total aus pop.

 

[Generator]

A report commissioned by the Australian Federation of Right to Life Associations, bshoc?

 

[transcendent]

You took it from an online opinion poll that most likely will have anti-abortionists rallying their friends to vote no.
Besides if I was a girl I'd abort whether it was 1 month or 240 months.

 

[bshoc]

A report commissioned by the Australian Federation of Right to Life Associations, bshoc?

Commissioned, not conducted. The conducter was Market Facts (QLD). Also notice how the Market facts poll doesent contradict anything in the AC Neilsen poll, but rather elaborates more clearly on the catagories.

In a February 2005 ACNielsen poll, as reported in The Age, 56% thought the current abortion laws

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:AbortionLawsAustraliaMap.png

Btw you blantant mindless leftism is showing. For example the Age is leftist posterboy publication, they pick and chose parts of the AC Neilsen poll and screwed with the wording to fit their aimed headline, no doubt some anti-abortionist group will do the same, that does not invalidate the report itself.

 

[ur_inner_child]

If you're referring to me as a "moron", I suggest you do otherwise. Many people roam these forums with an open mind and willingness to be proven wrong if adequetley justified, so there is really no need for abuse. You've had enough warnings, have you not?

Anyway, looks interesting. Very interesting, so good work on your efforts. The unusual thing is I've probably answered those questions in my head too, and side with the majority vote e.g. Believe that an unborn child by 20 weeks is a person with human rights– Yes etc. I took a good look at some of the other facts in your link, facts such as an overwhelming majority want the number of abortions reduced, well so do I, but I'm still not against it entirely. There's a difference.

As for this question

Support abortion for non-medical, that is for financial or social reasons – Yes 39%, No 51%

Does not necessarily downright oppose this

Wiki Link (since everyone is using it)

Abortion law in New South Wales is primarily based upon the Levine ruling of 1971 (itself derived from the Victorian Menhennitt ruling of 1969), which declared abortion to be legal if a doctor found 'any economic, social or medical ground or reason' that an abortion was required to avoid a 'serious danger to the pregnant woman's life or to her physical or mental health' at any point during pregnancy. This was expanded by the Kirby ruling of 1994, which expanded the period during which health concerns might be considered from the duration of pregnancy to any period during the woman's life, essentially precluding any successful prosecutions for illegal abortions.

But then again I'm speed reading. You'd be awesome if you could find a particular question which totally hurts the current NSW Law on abortion and show that the majority indeed does not agree with the current laws. I don't mean that as a challenge, just gentley direct me to where. I've even bookmarked it, because it is a very interesting find.

I find abortions a terrible thing as well, bshoc, but that doesn't mean I'm against it.

EDIT: I saw your other posts and had a look at your wiki link, and it states socioeconomic reasons as legal. This calls for a source better than wikipedia, but even so, socioeconomics vs health is not entirely black and white (ie they do like to overlap).

 

[transcendent]

Nurses who disagree with abortion can choose not to work in that situation. I will however gladly apply.

I agree it's murder.
I don't agree that it's wrong.

 

[bshoc]

If you're referring to me as a "moron", I suggest you do otherwise. Many people roam these forums with an open mind and willingness to be proven wrong if adequetley justified, so there is really no need for abuse. You've had enough warnings, have you not?

My post never singled anyone out, infact I cant remember who (if any) it was and am too lazy to look.

Anyway, looks interesting. Very interesting, so good work on your efforts. It's a good read. The unusual thing is I've probably answered those questions in my head too, and side with the majority vote e.g. Believe that an unborn child by 20 weeks is a person with human rights– Yes etc. I took a good look at some of the other facts in your link, facts such as an overwhelming majority want the number of abortions reduced, well so do I, but I'm still not against it entirely. There's a difference.

Neither am I, I support abortion on demand like the majority in that report, that is abortion within the constraints of the law. I side with what most poeple say there. What I mainly wish to see is NSW and perhaps the rest of the country adopt the VIC/QLD position -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:AbortionLawsAustraliaMap.png

If that happens I may finally go back to Labour.

As for this question

Support abortion for non-medical, that is for financial or social reasons – Yes 39%, No 51%

Does not necessarily downright oppose this

How so .. ugh not?

I find abortions a terrible thing as well, bshoc, but that doesn't mean I'm against it.

self-contradiction.

 

[Generator]

Whoever (or whichever group) commissions a report determines the nature of the investigation - that it was conducted by a third party doesn't change the fact that the Australian Federation of Right to Life Associations commissioned the report and determined the questions that were asked.

In a February 2005 ACNielsen poll, as reported in The Age, 56% thought the current abortion laws

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:A...straliaMap.png

Current abortion laws what? If it's that they are fine, then I really don't see what you are trying to suggest given that supporting the freedom of a woman to exercise her reproductive rights is hardly indicative of a stance that promotes free abortions for all, no matter the stage of the pregnancy.

btw you blantant mindless leftism is showing.

This isn't necessarily a left vs right issue, bshoc.

 

[ur_inner_child]

Can I just note that on page 9, the lower part of the graph, 60% of voters support abortion for any reason, but immediately after that question, 51% of voters do not support abortion for non-medical reasons.

???

 

[ur_inner_child]

self contradiction

Not really. Of course I want abortion numbers down, but I'm not against people having abortions. I hope that's a better way to phrase what I said, and that you understand that, unless you still feel such opinions are black and white.

EDIT: can you please refer to my other post on the previous page, I edited a tad.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Hey Bshoc, aren't you that moron that claimed you proved utilitarianism wrong using arrow's theorem then when I got some info on in countering you, you just stopped talking about it?

Sup? BTW don't make me quote you on it, but didn't you say you are against abortions for everything but rape?

What I mainly wish to see is NSW and perhaps the rest of the country adopt the VIC/QLD position -

doesn't seem to make sense with that in mind, or have you changed your position now?

To be honest I'm for lowering the number of abortions as you suggest you are, I just think policing it the way you suggested (charging the doctors/mothers with murder) is just absolutely ridiculous.

I find abortions a terrible thing as well, bshoc, but that doesn't mean I'm against it.

I find garbage dumps a terrible thing, does that mean I'm against them?

Btw you blantant mindless leftism is showing.

I wonder if you think me and waf are on the left too?

 

[bshoc]

Can I just note that on page 9, the lower part of the graph, 60% of voters support abortion for any reason, but immediately after that question, 51% of voters do not support abortion for non-medical reasons.

???

Read the paragrph immidiately above the graph.

 

[transcendent]

I still don't like the term 'leftist'. It's anywhere from moderately left to extremely left.

 

[bshoc]

Hey Bshoc, aren't you that moron that claimed you proved utilitarianism wrong using arrow's theorem then when I got some info on in countering you, you just stopped talking about it?

Arrow's theorem isnt really questionable, thats why I stopped talking to you, Arrow's theorem isnt an opinion, its a mathematical proof, thus any argument against it must be conducted on mathematical grounds, you failed to do this, and the random web page exerpts you posted which I read half way and stopped reading becuase they were so far out does not in any way begin to imagine to relate to what is required to challenge the mind of Arrow.

Sup? BTW don't make me quote you on it, but didn't you say you are against abortions for everything but rape? doesn't seem to make sense with that in mind, or have you changed your position now?

Rape, medical, and other unlikely circumstances are exceptions as I've stated here and in the old locked thread countless times, I've never changed my position this whole debate, some parts have been focused on straw men and what if's and this required focus on certain things (such as rape), I've never said "all abortions should be banned" and I've never said "all abortions should be legal" - and if you think otherwise feel free to waste your time searching in vain.

To be honest I'm for lowering the number of abortions as you suggest you are, I just think policing it the way you suggested (charging the doctors/mothers with murder) is just absolutely ridiculous.

Well then people in Victoria and Qld must be rediculous then (hint: illigalizing something, especially with harsh penalties in circumstances secures that far fewer people actually commit the act - the threat of government action is usually enough)

I find garbage dumps a terrible thing, does that mean I'm against them?

No, becuase of what is called the invisible hand, that is - the variance b/w your stated opinion and genuine opinion (after all factors are included)

I wonder if you think me and waf are on the left too?

Nobody outside the left talks about utalitarianism with any genuine belief.