Rationalia Abortion Thread (A New Start)

[Seth]

Does anyone think that reducing access to termination services decreases the demand for abortion?

Probably not, but how is that relevant?

Does anybody think that reducing access to women decreases the demand for rape?

[Seth]

Does anyone think that reducing access to termination services decreases the demand for abortion?

Not I. Unsafe practices involving coathangers and septic conditions will return instead, and, as is still the case in Ireland, travel to other countries will increase. As usual, the women with lesser means will suffer from such reductions the most.

Slippery slope fallacy.

If a woman chooses an unsafe abortion over carrying the child, that is her decision and she has to live with the consequences of doing so.

No one is forcing her to have a coathanger abortion, now are they?

You do not explain why society is obliged to make her access to abortion either more convenient or more safe if that society values the life of the fetus and makes it illegal to kill it at some point in the pregnancy. The fact that a bank robber or carjacker might get shot and killed, or get caught and sentenced to prison while committing an illegal act that he or she thinks is "necessary" for his or her satisfaction is hardly any sort of rational argument against the laws against bank robbery or carjacking.

And if a woman desires to travel to another country to procure an abortion where it is legal, why is her own society obliged to conform its laws to those of that other society merely for her convenience?

[Seth]

Apparently, the popular way for girls to induce abortion in Chile is to step out in front of a car.

Sounds like an insurance scam to me.

Or diving down stairs.

Sounds like a building code issue to me...wider steps and handrails will help.

It's the enormous stigma attached to being pregnant.

So the child is required to die because the mother feels embarrassed? She probably should have keep her knickers on and her knees together.

Even though many of them were raped by their fathers.

You have some critically robust scientific and forensic evidence proving that "many" women in Chile are "raped by their fathers," do you?

Please present it.

I rather suspect that the vast majority of women everywhere get pregnant the same old way for the same old reasons: they are horny and in love and let some guy screw them without thinking about the consequences of doing so.

But, if they are raped by their fathers, that's a different issue entirely, which represents the exception and not the rule, which may make compromise appropriate.

[Hermit]

...you cannot rationally argue that a new organism is not created by the formation of the zygote.

And I don't. A new organism is created by the formation of a zygote. The question is: Is a zygote a human, a slug, a bear or whatever at he point of conception? The definition you quote does not answer that at all. Instead it explicitly states that "The zygote's genome is a combination of the DNA in each gamete, and contains all of the genetic information necessary to form a new individual. The wording is deliberate because the fact that a zygote contains all of the genetic information necessary to form a new individual is a scientific fact, while the point at which that new organism can be said to be a human being, a cow, a slug or whatever, is not. An acorn is not an oak tree, you know?

[Hermit]

Does anyone think that reducing access to termination services decreases the demand for abortion?

Not I. Unsafe practices involving coathangers and septic conditions will return instead, and, as is still the case in Ireland, travel to other countries will increase. As usual, the women with lesser means will suffer from such reductions the most.

Slippery slope fallacy.

Slippery slope or not, it is what is going to happen. No fallacy about that prediction.

[surreptitious57]

You do not explain why society is obliged to make her access to abortion either more convenient or more safe if that society values the life of the fetus and makes
it illegal to kill it at some point in the pregnancy. The fact a bank robber or carjacker might get shot and killed or caught and sentenced to prison while committing
an illegal act that he or she thinks is necessary for his or her satisfaction is hardly any sort of rational argument against the laws against bank robbery or carjacking

Completely false analogy here. No one disputes that bank robbery or carjacking is wrong including those that do it. The same however cannot
be said about abortion. Which is permissible in some circumstances but not in all. Unlike bank robbery or carjacking which are not permissible
at all regardless of the circumstances. And so for the analogy to be true then abortion could not be permissible under any circumstances at all

[Seth]

...you cannot rationally argue that a new organism is not created by the formation of the zygote.

And I don't. A new organism is created by the formation of a zygote.

Okay, I'm glad we finally got that resolved. Thanks!

The question is: Is a zygote a human, a slug, a bear or whatever at he point of conception?

None of the above. The "point of conception" is ordinarily defined as the moment that the sperm penetrates the egg and the egg membrane hardens to keep other sperm out. The zygote does not form until about 22 to 26 hours after that event. In that period a number of biological and chemical processes take place but until the moment the paternal and maternal chromosomes align along the spindle apparatus the reactions take place within the respective parental gametes, which are in the process of combining. Only at the moment the chromosomes align along the spindle apparatus in a new and unique genetic combination is the zygote formed, and from that clearly identifiable moment in time until the death of the organism, it is a separate, distinct, genetically unique living individual.

The definition you quote does not answer that at all. Instead it explicitly states that "The zygote's genome is a combination of the DNA in each gamete, and contains all of the genetic information necessary to form a new individual. The wording is deliberate because the fact that a zygote contains all of the genetic information necessary to form a new individual is a scientific fact, while the point at which that new organism can be said to be a human being, a cow, a slug or whatever, is not. An acorn is not an oak tree, you know?

But you're wrong, an acorn is an oak tree, merely an oak tree in a particular stage of development. It can only ever be an oak tree. It cannot be a bear or an apple tree, it is always an oak tree in one or another stage of development, although using a tree as an example is rather inapt. You'd be better off using another mammal, or even a primate, but you won't because the logic I espouse with respect to the zygote's status as a "new individual" of whichever species it happens to be destroys your argument that a human zygote is anything other than a human being at the zygote stage of development.

[Seth]

Does anyone think that reducing access to termination services decreases the demand for abortion?

Not I. Unsafe practices involving coathangers and septic conditions will return instead, and, as is still the case in Ireland, travel to other countries will increase. As usual, the women with lesser means will suffer from such reductions the most.

Slippery slope fallacy.

Slippery slope or not, it is what is going to happen. No fallacy about that prediction.

It only happens if women voluntarily choose to allow it to happen. They must choose to take that risk, and I'm fine with them having the freedom to choose that risk if they want, even if their choice is an illegal and dangerous one. But approving of their right to choose does not mean I approve of their choice, nor does it mean that I necessarily approve of society or anyone else conspiring with them to either break the law or to free them from the consequences of their choices.

I take no position on their choices either for or against because it's not my place or right to do so. It is, however, within the authority of a particular society (according to socialist doctrine) to choose to constrain an individual's choices when those choices negatively impact others or society itself.

Freedom of choice, any sort of choice, does not mean freedom from the consequences of those choices, nor does it mean society is obliged to save the individual from his or her bad choices which may harm or even end his or her life.

[mistermack]

I love to see you making foolish and ignorant claims masquerading as rational arguments in spite of the fact that every time you do, I authoritatively refute them. Thanks for being such a perfect troll-foil.

You're welcome. I enjoy seeing the somersaults that you perform, to get out of your previous stupid posts.
Unlike most trolls, you seem to care that there is some thread of logic going from one to the other, (no matter how twisted), so you are not a very good troll, but you are amusing with it.

You might like to know that most of your dna is from viruses, that lived "separate" lives, and another good chunk, your mitochondrial dna, is from beneficial bacteria, that also lived "separate" lives from our ancestors. (by your definition of separate).

They are now so "separate" that they reproduce with the sperm and egg.
You are really a colony of old viruses and bacteria.
Your idea of "separate" is a grey blur, not a line.

But you're wrong, an acorn is an oak tree, merely an oak tree in a particular stage of development. It can only ever be an oak tree.

In botany, a tree is a perennial plant with an elongated stem, or trunk, supporting branches and leaves in most species.

The acorn, or oak nut, is the nut of the oaks and their close relatives

Let's see what cartwheels of logic can get you out of that one.

[Seth]

I love to see you making foolish and ignorant claims masquerading as rational arguments in spite of the fact that every time you do, I authoritatively refute them. Thanks for being such a perfect troll-foil.

You're welcome. I enjoy seeing the somersaults that you perform, to get out of your previous stupid posts.
Unlike most trolls, you seem to care that there is some thread of logic going from one to the other, (no matter how twisted), so you are not a very good troll, but you are amusing with it.

You might like to know that most of your dna is from viruses, that lived "separate" lives, and another good chunk, your mitochondrial dna, is from beneficial bacteria, that also lived "separate" lives from our ancestors. (by your definition of separate).

I'm well aware of that, actually.

They are now so "separate" that they reproduce with the sperm and egg.
You are really a colony of old viruses and bacteria.
Your idea of "separate" is a grey blur, not a line.

Which has nothing whatever to do with the subject.

But you're wrong, an acorn is an oak tree, merely an oak tree in a particular stage of development. It can only ever be an oak tree.

In botany, a tree is a perennial plant with an elongated stem, or trunk, supporting branches and leaves in most species.

The acorn, or oak nut, is the nut of the oaks and their close relatives

Let's see what cartwheels of logic can get you out of that one.

And yet an acorn is nothing other than an oak, ever.

[Hermit]

The definition you quote does not answer that at all. Instead it explicitly states that "The zygote's genome is a combination of the DNA in each gamete, and contains all of the genetic information necessary to form a new individual. The wording is deliberate because the fact that a zygote contains all of the genetic information necessary to form a new individual is a scientific fact, while the point at which that new organism can be said to be a human being, a cow, a slug or whatever, is not. An acorn is not an oak tree, you know?

But you're wrong, an acorn is an oak tree

That is not what the definition you provided says. An acorn merely contains all of the genetic information necessary to form an oak tree. Most acorns don't in fact become trees. They are more likely to become food for squirrels and pigs. And you'll definitely have an uphill battle trying to make a table out of acorns.

[Hermit]

Does anyone think that reducing access to termination services decreases the demand for abortion?

Not I. Unsafe practices involving coathangers and septic conditions will return instead, and, as is still the case in Ireland, travel to other countries will increase. As usual, the women with lesser means will suffer from such reductions the most.

Slippery slope fallacy.

Slippery slope or not, it is what is going to happen. No fallacy about that prediction.

It only happens if women voluntarily choose to allow it to happen.

Yes. And "women voluntarily choose to allow it to happen" on a more frequent basis when access to legal and safe means of abortion is reduced. Brian Peacock's question was correctly answered. No fallacy to be seen anywhere.

[mistermack]

You might like to know that most of your dna is from viruses, that lived "separate" lives, and another good chunk, your mitochondrial dna, is from beneficial bacteria, that also lived "separate" lives from our ancestors. (by your definition of separate).

I'm well aware of that, actually.

Good. At least you've learn't something today.

And yet an acorn is nothing other than an oak, ever.

Yeh, but it's not a fucking tree, ever.
It's either an acorn or a tree. Never both.

This is like teaching three-year-olds.

[surreptitious57]

And yet an acorn is nothing other than an oak

The potential for something to become something else does not mean it is that thing
already. And by no stretch of the imagination now can something as small as an acorn
simultaneously be something as large as an oak. Since there is an evolutionary process
allowing such a transition over time. It is not something which happens instantaneously

[JimC]

And yet an acorn is nothing other than an oak

The potential for something to become something else does not mean it is that thing
already. And by no stretch of the imagination now can something as small as an acorn
simultaneously be something as large as an oak. Since there is an evolutionary process
allowing such a transition over time. It is not something which happens instantaneously

To add to this, cutting down or otherwise destroying a mature oak tree is a very different action in terms of ethics or consequences than feeding an acorn to a hog...