To really want to say something to these abortion protestors?

[Crocodileclip]

Firstly, I know I will probably never say anything as I appreciate that the protestors have the right to protest but it really pisses me off.

A small group of people have been protesting outside the Marie Stoppes clinic in Belfast since it opened in 2012. They stand outside the door on the days it is open holding anti abortion posters and trying to gather signatures for a petition. I pass them on my way to get to the station at home time and every time it annoys me. I can't imagine how offputting they would be if you were young and scared and just wanting some advice. Lots of pics of aborted foetuses etc. I find it intimidating enough myself and I am just walking past. I actually put my head down and walk quicker so that nobody asks me to sign the petition.

I'm currently pregnant with my second and am lucky never to have been in a position where abortion was an option but am of the opinion that there are situations in which it may be the best option available.

The clinic itself operates within NI law so only offers abortions up to 9 weeks and as far as I know is the only such clinic in Northern Ireland. I think I would be ok with the protestors doing their stuff elsewhere in the city centre it is the fact that it is just outside the only entrance to the clinc that makes me irrationally angry. Does this happen at other Marie Stoppes clinics elsewhere in the UK?

Here's the thing with analogies: they're basically models - and models are always a simplified view of reality focussing on only a few particular aspects of it.

Organ donation is a good model for looking at the question of bodily autonomy of one individual vs their obligation to sustain the survival of another, as well as issues of consent. It's not a particularly good model for the concept of pregnancy, though.

A better analogy for pregnancy itself might be something like the example of a pilot, flying an aircraft full of people: if they decide to parachute out at any stage, the plane crashes and all the passengers die. But once more, this model has some severe limitations: Pilots don't generally find themselves airborne without previously having agreed to fly this particular machine from A to B. The're also trained for their job and have all the ressources needed to succeed at their disposal.

I suppose bumbley looks at the abortion issue predominantly from an airborne plane angle - someone like myself (and I'm guessing several other posters) is leaning toward a kidney donation point of view.

Sorry to go off on a tangent here, but this is kind of my area of expertise and I tend towards pedantism on the issue.

Maid, why? Can you not think of an organ example? Why were you using the analogy to begin with then?

Magical, I've actually heard the plane one another way - the pilot decides during the flight that he doesn't want passengers on his plane so he has them thrown out/killed by the air hostesses.

Why would you lean towards donation of a kidney when the process of donating a kidney does not involve the kidney already being used by another party?

sorry - cabin crew.

Simple: because my focus (analytically as well as 'morally' so to speak) is on the POV of the woman involved. It's a great analogy from that perspective. As stated above, though, it's limited - as is any other model.

Your version of the plane analogy is really insulting towards women, by the way. It's vile!

I'm not usually one to use strong language like this, but here's why it angers me: it implies that the focus of a woman seeking an abortion is to get rid of/end the life of the fetus (throw out the passengers). It also suggests, that carrying a pregnancy to term would not really make a fundametal difference to the woman involved: after all, the pilot in this versionis going to fly the aircraft to some destination and presumably safely land it somewhere - throwing out the passengers is a purely unnecessary, spiteful act. Portraying a pregnant woman in this way is beyond the pale!

IMHO the parachuting version - while still an analogy usually used by pro-lifers - at least gets the basic premise right: the pilot's goal is to not be flying an aircraft full of people any longer, not to maliciously kill them at no tangible benefit to themselves. I've already pointed out the limitations this model has as well: namely the issues of consent and ressources. That's not the point here.

Please stop peddling the throwing out passengers version of this, though, if you habitually do (and I don't know you, so I couldn't possibly tell). It's disgusting!

"because my focus is on the POV of the woman involved." That does not explain why you are considering an analogy in which the donation of the organ is not the same as the 'donation' of the uterus that you are trying to compare it to.

"Your version of the plane analogy is really insulting towards women, by the way. It's vile!" Oh good grief. It's not my analogy. It's the version of the analogy that I have heard/read and it's different to the one you've heard. (I've never heard your version before from pro-lifers or anyone else) I'm not even sure how the pilot jumping out is supposed to be a representation of a woman terminating a pregnancy. She doesn't just step out of her body and leave it behind.

I'm not even sure why you are trying to argue that jumping out of a plane and leaving everyone to die is any better than killing the people on board and flying yourself to safety. In both cases, you survive and everyone else dies.

Maid, why? Can you not think of an organ example? Why were you using the analogy to begin with then?

As I and others have reiterated many times, most recently by MagicalHam in a very eloquent fashion, the organ analogy is meant to address only one question: can we compel people to sacrifice bodily autonomy to save or maintain the life of another?

As far as I can see, you have NEVER answered this question. Instead, you have picked holes in the analogy and tried to ignore the real purpose of it.

And now I've come up with an idea that closes one of the big holes you've been picking, you refuse to engage.

I suspect I am playing chess with a pigeon.

How about this:

You win. The organ analogy is crap. It doesn't work. We shall drop it right now.

Let me propose a new analogy. In this thought experiment, we will compare the donation of a uterus to the donation if blood in a direct transfusion (admittedly this may seem somewhat familiar....)

So, with our new analogy, answer me this. Can we compel a person donating blood via direct transfusion to a recipient whose life depends on the continuation of the blood donation to proceed with the blood donation against their will?

BOB, where two lives are threatened and only one life can be saved doctors are obliged to save that life. Nothing unusual there. That doesn't necessarily mean they have to actively terminate the other life either.

Actually I think you knew what I meant, but I'll spell it out.

Assume a risk to the mother's life in continuing the pregnancy, but it's not certain. Both might survive.

If you believe that both lives are equally important then presumably you will not support terminating the pregnancy to remove just a risk to the mother's life because that requires actively ending the 'life' of the foetus.

bumbley I lean towards an organ donation model of the abortion debate because in my view the interests of a grown woman will always outweigh those of a fetus. Simples.

This is the very essence of the distinction between pro-lifers and pro-choicers: pro-choicers favour the woman, pro-lifers often (but not always) claim to value both the woman and the fetus equally - but because the fetus depends on the woman whereas the woman is quite capable of sustaining herself without the fetus, they end up de facto favouring the fetus.

I won't argue analogies with you anymore. We obviously don't see eye to eye on how they work, and I'm absolutely not going to explain how gratitious violence differs from accepting adverse side-effects of an action.

Maid 'eloquent' is not exactly the word people usually apply to my ramblings. But thanks. Have a !

bumbley, because we are on a thread discussing abortion. I thought that would be obvious

Maid, I know what it is trying to address but it fails because donating an organ is different to 'donating' a uterus. In the case of a pregnancy the uterus has already been 'donated' - it is already in use by another party. People already agree that if your organ has been donated you lose bodily autonomy over it. They want to use the same principles that apply to organ donation (ie. I can't be forced to donate an organ) in a situation that is different. If your organ has already been donated (as in the case of pregnancy) then you no longer have autonomy over it. Question answered - again!

Maid, I addresses that earlier as well - right to life is right not to be killed. In the middle of a blood transfusion you can stop donating blood but you are not entitled to stab the guy that you were attached to.

Bob, you don't need to spell it out. I understood your question and I answered it. It's not my problem if you don't like the answer.

Magical, "I lean towards an organ donation model of the abortion debate because in my view the interests of a grown woman will always outweigh those of a fetus."

Again, this doesn't explain why you are clinging to a flawed analogy.

"gratitious violence differs from accepting adverse side-effects of an action."

Quite similar to the not being allowed to live vs being killed situation. Abortion is not 'an adverse side effect'.

If you believe that both lives are equally important then presumably you will not support terminating the pregnancy to remove just a risk to the mother's life because that requires actively ending the 'life' of the foetus.

I would also love to hear bumbley's response to this. I asked about a woman's autonomy during pregnancy and at what point the woman stops having full autonomy pages ago. I really would like to know what bumbley thinks, for example, about a case like Savita Halappanavar's, where the mother is at risk, requests an abortion and is denied it.

It should be possible to provide a really simple response to this, along the lines of 'I would/would not grant the woman's request if the fetus had even a minimal chance of survival' and/or 'I would/would not grant the woman's request if the fetus had no chance of survival.'

I'm really interested to hear bumbley's response to this - one that doesn't involve 'other people think...' 'the pilot this...' 'kidneys that...'

I don't mean to 'pick on' you, bumbley, but, as this seems to be a fundamental issue in any debate about abortion, I'm really interested to hear an anti-abortionist's response to this, and you seem to be the only one the thread.

Bumbley but if you force a woman to have an unwanted baby you are saying that the negative impact that would have on her health, wellbeing and life is of no importance.

An equal right to life is a wonderfully pink and fluffy statement but conveniently ignores what kind of a life the mother (and probably the baby) will have as a result. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, pro life groups have no interest in supporting the children born as a result of their campaigning - let alone the mothers.

"I would also love to hear bumbley's response to this. I asked about a woman's autonomy during pregnancy and at what point the woman stops having full autonomy pages ago. " I answered that ages ago and reiterated it in my above post.

Savita's tragic case was about a mismanagement of miscarriage. She requested abortion as 'treatment' for her miscarriage but even if a patient requests a certain remedy/treatment, it is the doctor's decision as to whether that treatment is necessary and in this case, they did not think it was.

"you are saying that the negative impact that would have on her health, wellbeing and life is of no importance."
No, you are saying that it is not as important as the right to life.

"An equal right to life is a wonderfully pink and fluffy statement"

That pink, fluffy statement is a pretty important part of humanity. People like to focus on bodily autonomy but without the right to life you wouldn't have bodily autonomy.

"pro life groups have no interest in supporting the children born as a result of their campaigning "

More assumptions.

In the middle of a blood transfusion you can stop donating blood but you are not entitled to stab the guy that you were attached to

OK, so you agree that the donor has the right to withdraw consent for the donation, mid-donation, and even when the life of the recipient depends on the continuing donation?

PS. you can keep saying that the organ analogy is flawed, but I suspect it may come in useful for you pretty soon.....

So the minute a woman is pregnant (her uterus is 'donated' to use your term) she should have NO autonomy and, as in Savita's case, only a third party should be allowed to decide what happens to her body?

I don't think it's too wild an 'assumption' that anti-abortionists have no interest in supporting the children born as a result of their campaigning. I asked our local group about this and was told it was 'not within the remit of our charitable work'.

People like to focus on bodily autonomy but without the right to life you wouldn't have bodily autonomy.

But you are saying women don't and shouldn't have autonomy... And is it 'right to life' or 'right to be born' that you're concerned with? Presumably for you that 'right' begins the minute an egg is fertilised? from that moment the women has no autonomy?

Again, this doesn't explain why you are clinging to a flawed analogy.

Every analogy is 'flawed'. That's how analogies work. See lengthy explanations by various posters above. Me saying that I lean towards an organ donation POV of abortion means that I regard abortion as a question of bodily autonomy, i.e. that I favour a model that depicts the aspects of these aspects of reality, because they are the central points in how I frame the issue. It doesn't mean that I think it's a perfect model, or that other models are incapable of depicting equally well other aspects of the question, which I may not find equally relevant to my personal perspective.

And, yes, it makes a hell of a difference if you deliberately kill someone (with this being your objective) or accept (the possibility of) their death in the context of some other action you undertake:

In legal terms, the former is murder or manslaughter. The latter can potentially be applied to a whole range of issues from denial of assistance, to gross negligence right down to killing someone in self-defense. Feel free to look up the respective sentences that go with each of these.

And again: claiming to value the woman and the fetus equally leads to a situation that de facto favours the fetus. I woudn't have such a problem with this, if pro-lifers were more willing to be open about this fact.

People like to focus on bodily autonomy but without the right to life you wouldn't have bodily autonomy*

So you think the right to life supersedes that right to bodily autonomy?

bumbleymummy You replied with this:

BOB, where two lives are threatened and only one life can be saved doctors are obliged to save that life. Nothing unusual there. That doesn't necessarily mean they have to actively terminate the other life either.

Which isn't an answer to the question I asked. I get why of course. You don't want to spell out that the risk to the mother of death is not enough to terminate the pregnancy.

You will now of course deny that, but without spelling out exactly where you stand and hope that no one notices.

Pro-life is poorly named. It is Pro-Control and cares nothing for the lives of people.

The term Pro-Life is more than poorly-named. It carries with it an implication that those who are not 'pro' are somehow against life. This is also why they often choose to use 'pro-abortion' rather than pro-choice. Pro-abortion suggests active advocacy. ('You're pregnant? How marvellous. You simply must have an abortion. I'll give you a lift to the clinic...)

'Anti-abortion' and 'pro-choice' are my chosen terms.

where two lives are threatened and only one life can be saved doctors are obliged to save that life. Nothing unusual there. That doesn't necessarily mean they have to actively terminate the other life either

Except for ectopic pregnancy, where active termination of the other life is exactly what the medics do.

Unless you're in Ireland, of course, where they euphemise about fetal death being secondary. My understanding is, in Ireland, they favour salpingectomy (removal of fallopian tube) instead of salpingostomy (removal of the embryo via a cut in the fallopian tube) because the former allows them to claim that it was the medical procedure to save the mother's life that caused the embryo's death....

MaidofStars I should just like to applaud your apt use of the 'playing chess with a pigeon' analogy.

It's something I came across elsewhere t'other day & I would agree that it does indeed sum up this conversation remarkably well...

I should just like to applaud your apt use of the 'playing chess with a pigeon' analogy. It's something I came across elsewhere t'other day & I would agree that it does indeed sum up this conversation remarkably well

Why thank you. It is an excellent analogy and one of my favourites (perhaps I spend too much time debating with, um, pigeons).

My understanding is, in Ireland, they favour salpingectomy (removal of fallopian tube) instead of salpingostomy (removal of the embryo via a cut in the fallopian tube) because the former allows them to claim that it was the medical procedure to save the mother's life that caused the embryo's death....

Just realised this is monumentally unclear.

The salpingectomy is favoured because the procedure, on paper, is "removal of fallopian tube". Embryo death is an unfortunate outcome of this but not the primary goal. The primary intent of the salpingsotomy is to "remove the embryo (and cause its death)", and that looks worryingly like abortion....