Free Speech on Campus

[Ben Kenobi]

Ben, by his own tacit admission, accepts that some terminations are medically justified- such as ectopics.

True, because it is better to save one life than to allow both to die. Either way the child will die.

Therefore he has just accepted that there are circumstances in which medical action is justified to intervene, by means of weighing the rights of the foetus against the rights of the mother and concluding that the termination of the pregnancy is acceptable.

No, in an ectopic pregnancy, because we currently lack the means to save the child, you are not balancing one right against another, but rather, you are saying that there is only one right to consider, the mother.

Should it be possible to save the life of the child along with the mother, than abortion in the case of an ectopic pregnancy would not be justified.

At what point do you say to the mother "The risk of your death is sufficiently small that we're going to force you to go through with it."?

I make no such consideration. An ectopic pregnancy will kill the mother, so such considerations do not enter the debate.

Then don't stop there. What about non-lethal consequences? What about severe mental illness? Not just severe depression, but something like Hebrephenia or permanent Catatonia? Death with a pulse? Is it justified when there's a 100% likelihood of that happening? Or a 50%? Or a 10%?

If you can suggest medical conditions which are likely to result from pregnancy that bring about these conditions, then I am willing to consider each in turn.

Secondly, you not only need to show that these conditions are likely, but that it is also not possible to induce premature labour in order to save the life of both the child and the mother.

Finally, consider this. Abortion is not without risk factors. Abortion is not 100% safe. How tragic would it be to tell the mother to have an abortion because she may die, and have her die on the operating table anyways?

What about complex cumulative factors? How about if there's a 30% chance that the baby's anencephalic, combined with a 10% chance that eclampsia will cause severe health risks to the mothere and a 15% chance that she'll be depressed for several years after?

Eclampsia. Thank you. Is it possible for the mother to have labour prematurely induced to avoid the worst consequences of eclampsia?

Let's have some precise answers, please. Then explain to me why your position on this sliding scale of value calls bears the weight of God, Allah, Buddha and/or the bloke down the pub whereas mine doesn't?

I've never said that your opinions are not without merit, nor that they bear more consideration than my own.

Neither do I base my reasoning upon religious teachings. So can't you leave that battered strawman at home?

Then, just to cap things off, explain to me the sliding scale of circumstances under which you consider the Holocaust to be ustified.

I have already told you what I believe. I suggest you read my prior answer so that I do not have to repeat myself once again.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

I think the key admission we want to see is that the Holocaust was not justified at all, whereas abortions sometimes are.

Do you think that's a fair comment?

[Ben Kenobi]

Make big posters graphically detailing medical processes in bloody detail. Ideally have enough of these that you'll outnumber the pro-life posters by about 20 to 1. Then just crowd around so that they are ablut two thirds of the way along the line. Ensure that the really gruesome ones are at the ends and middle, like a hemorrhoidectomy or something. Talk, in visceral detail, about the blood and gristle resulting.

By the process of overkill, you have exercised your freedom of speech. Rather than turning a protest into a drama that will get people into trouble, you will have turned it into performance art.

And any sane person, faced with performance art, will just walk away.

Well, that's a very creative approach.

However this requires two concessions.

1. It is perfectly okay for you to use gross pictures to get your point across.

2. That we are perfectly justified in bringing GAP on campus.

Both of these concessions are fatal to the current pro abortion movement on campus. They refuse to admit that there can be any such right to freedom of expression.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

No, in an ectopic pregnancy, because we currently lack the means to save the child, you are not balancing one right against another, but rather, you are saying that there is only one right to consider, the mother.

Should it be possible to save the life of the child along with the mother, than abortion in the case of an ectopic pregnancy would not be justified.

So if it's merely 99% certain that the mother will die, abortion is not justified?

[Ben Kenobi]

I think the key admission we want to see is that the Holocaust was not justified at all, whereas abortions sometimes are.

Do you think that's a fair comment?

No. Abortions are not justified in 99% of the cases in which they are performed.

If you are willing to agree with me on this point, then I have no further argument with you, and I am willing to drop the entire analogy with the holocaust.

After all, abortion, by the numbers, cannot adequately be represented by the holocaust. To compare abortion with the holocaust misrepresents the true tragedy of abortion.

[Ben Kenobi]

So if it's merely 99% certain that the mother will die, abortion is not justified?

Is such the case in eclampsia?

Or is this just a hypothetical with no bearing in reality?

Are you willing to agree with me that abortion is not justified in all other cases?

[Ben Kenobi]

Delivery is the treatment of choice for eclampsia in a pregnancy over 28 weeks. For pregnancies less than 24 weeks, the induction of labor is recommended, although the likelihood of a viable fetus is minimal.

http://health.yahoo.com/health/centers/pregnancy/422.html

So I have to concede nothing with respect to eclampsia.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

No. We've only just started on that sliding scale of value calls I mentioned earlier.

What if the risk of death to the mother is only 30% Ben? Would you force her to go to term then?

[Agathon]

The problem with abortion is that the key element in any argument about it (the issue of fetal personhood) is essentially a religious matter.

Given the necessity of the separation of church and state in multifaith societies, the government cannot rule on this. Hence, abortion is a matter of individual conscience.

If God exists, then let him sort out the aborters.

[Ben Kenobi]

What if the risk of death to the mother is only 30% Ben? Would you force her to go to term then?

Answer my question first.

I have answered many of yours, and you have not answered any of mine.

Are you willing to say that abortion, in all other cases, ought to be considered illegal?

[Ben Kenobi]

The problem with abortion is that the key element in any argument about it (the issue of fetal personhood) is essentially a religious matter.

Is it?

Have any of my arguments in this thread been based on religious principles?

Again, I suggest tackling the arguments before you rather than making up your own strawmen.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

I'll think you find I have, and very clearly.

No I certainly don't think abortion in all other cases should be made illegal.

What if the risk of death to the mother is only 30% Ben? Would you force her to go to term then?

[Ben Kenobi]

I'll think you find I have, and very clearly.

No I certainly don't think abortion in all other cases should be made illegal.

Then why do you care about the percentage?

Obviously you will not agree with me regardless of what percentage I cite so this exercise is pointless.

[Agathon]

Have any of my arguments in this thread been based on religious principles?

Perhaps not, but our notion of a "person" is extremely plastic. Almost everyone agrees that children are persons at birth (I think this is somewhat dubious, but I am in the minority). The abortion debate asks us whether fetuses are persons. There is no way you can decide this one way or the other that doesn't introduce ridiculous counterexamples or require dubious metaphysics to back it up. No one has thus far managed to provide a set of necessary and sufficient conditions that would prove that fetuses are persons, and no one has managed to prove that they aren't. Our concept of personhood is being asked to take a weight it was never expected to bear.

In the end, it is a matter for decision and not for debate.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Then why do you care about the percentage?

Obviously you will not agree with me regardless of what percentage I cite so this exercise is pointless.

No it isn't. It'll show we both accept a grey scale, Ben. A sliding scale of opinions and justifications as to when abortion is justified. Why are you being so coy on this matter?

30% chance of death to the mother, Ben. Is abortion justified then? Give me an answer. Yes or no.