Contraception, abortion and stem-cell research [Split and merged] | PUNT ROAD END | Richmond Tigers Forum
  • IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.

Contraception, abortion and stem-cell research [Split and merged]

Dyer'ere

Licensed to kazoo
Sep 21, 2004
17,999
3,741
Re: Women and Equality

Liverpool said:
I don't buy the argument that "a woman can do what she wants with her body" when it comes to abortion.

This is another case of people taking irresponsible actions to begin with and then taking out their poor judgement on others.

This is why we use the raped victim example when discussing the other aspects of the issue, rosy. Stops the discussion of those aspects being sidetracked.

It's to minimise the controversy. So we can make clear judgements. One step at a time.
 

Rosy

Tiger Legend
Mar 27, 2003
54,347
9
Re: Women and Equality

Tiger74 said:
Can we please be very careful about the abortion discussion (if this is where this is going)?

Odds are there are at least a few posters who have had personal experience with the situation, and while its great to talk about it as an idealogical issue, for these people it is something much more personal.

I've split Dyer's post from your thread and merged it with previous discussion about abortion which interestingly, considering your comments above, you have actively participated in yourself.

Dyer'ere said:
This is why we use the raped victim example when discussing the other aspects of the issue, rosy. Stops the discussion of those aspects being sidetracked.

It's to minimise the controversy. So we can make clear judgements. One step at a time.

I don't agree with that thinking Dyer. There are many reasons for termination ( I hate the word abortion) and I'm sure each is as important as any other to the people involved in individual circumstances. A bill is never going to be passed to decriminalise termination solely on the basis of rape and I don't see how using the rape example minimises the controversy any more than discussing other aspects.

Possibly too much info for some but I was once faced with a very difficult choice when I was pregnant. Scans showed my baby had stopped growing and the option of termination was discussed in passing but I was told by the local GP to go home and let nature take it's course. With no knowledge of what was ahead for me, and no councelling or specialised advice, I opted for the second option. It was horrible going about day to day life for a few weeks with everyone asking about my pregnancy and having to explain that although I was pregnant there would be no joy.

I was alone in the middle of the night when I had my miscarriage and it very nearly cost my life. Luckily I managed to crawl to the phone before I blacked out, and somehow my father in law managed to get me into his car and to hospital where I was rushed into emergency theatre. It was a horrible experience, painful, frightening and heartbreaking.

If my daughter was ever in a similar position I'd advise her, without any hesitation, to have a termination. I'd like women to have that option without any burden of guilt in regard to social or moral stigmas or 'criminal' action that conjures up images of seedy back lanes and coat hangers.
 

Dyer'ere

Licensed to kazoo
Sep 21, 2004
17,999
3,741
Rosy, JJT's point is a philosophical one. In a really narrow sense. It's about a kind of strict view of what little can we know and what little can we do with that? Can we prove something that many of us can agree on? It's a narrow argument. To find common ground on a very small distinction.

So if an ethicist were looking to prove, for example, that apartheid is immoral they might take extreme examples just to find common ground, to eliminate sidetracking. And then the exercise is pretty much one of logic.

We know that this kind of philosophy played only a small part in dismantling the apartheid system. It did bugger all after its narrow early recognition to facilitate change or repair the damage.

It was the much more complex process of emotional idea exchange that brought about the change. And emotion and personal experience was, in part, a focus of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

And so it is with this vexed issue. Most of the meaningful exchanges are about personal experience, emotional cost, often the depths of this experience and occasionally a triumph. But sometimes in the midst of this turmoil some of us would like something firm to hold on to. We have no God. Just the glimpse of reason. And that's where the logic comes in.

So JJT's story started it way back. A glimpse of reason.

And in the emotional turmoil that confronts the Victorian Parliament right now, that might be a precious thing.



You might like to compare the clarity of Judith Jarvis Thomson's case to this:

http://www.abc.net.au/stateline/vic/content/2006/s1984246.htm
 

RoarEmotion

Tiger Superstar
Aug 20, 2005
2,370
2,359
Texas allowing citizens to sue people who help someone (give advice!) on abortion.


Compelling evidence (although not everyone agrees) that abortions lead to way less crime and human misery. Not surprising that mainly unwanted, under resourced and unloved children fall into crime.


The hypocrisy is mind numbing

 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users

Brodders17

Tiger Legend
Mar 21, 2008
14,376
5,195
Texas allowing citizens to sue people who help someone (give advice!) on abortion.


Compelling evidence (although not everyone agrees) that abortions lead to way less crime and human misery. Not surprising that mainly unwanted, under resourced and unloved children fall into crime.


The hypocrisy is mind numbing

There is no one more hypocritical than the religious right.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

DavidSSS

Tiger Legend
Dec 11, 2017
8,098
11,636
Melbourne
I remember reading some time ago that Roe v Wade (supported by the Republicans at the time, how far they have moved to the right!) was argued on the basis of privacy. In other words, the argument was that the government should not be intervening in peoples' private business. The same argument the right use in relation to so many other things. I think they should bring this argument back - what I do with my body is my business and the government should not be sticking its nose in where it is not wanted.

DS