I don't know how I feel about abortion anymore

[sirlee66]

I've always been very pro-choice. A woman's body. A woman's right to choose.

I'm currently 34 weeks pregnant with my first and now I think my thoughts are changing.

I believe the cut off is 24 weeks? There was a lovely lady on here the other day whose waters broke and she gave birth to a baby girl at 25 weeks! If a baby can survive that early... It just seems...wrong!

Maybe the cut off could be lowered. I started feeling flutters at about 15 weeks so maybe before then.

I don't know what the answer is. I still feel really strongly that ultimately, the mother should decide but I just can't get past babies surviving outside the womb at the same age as a baby that could be aborted.

Maybe it's just pregnancy hormones. I also can't stop think about the poor women who have to make that decision. It must be so awful and I just want to give them a big hug.

I guess my question is, AIBU to not really know how I feel about it?

Only a total looney tunes could fail to see the irony in someone being anti abortion but pro capital punishment.

probably 2 because you could guns help self defence capital punishment could act as a deterrent and some wars could lead to peace.

On the first two: not if you cared about evidence, no. There are good evidence bases for both those things.

^therefore straw man and also blatantly Ad Hominem (Guilt by Association)
and also wrong because there are some that are against those 3 and against abortion^

I’d suggest not using terms you don’t understand.

Thing is, Smoove, no one cares what you think. Women get to choose. You do not get to choose for other people. Women are more important than foetuses, so they get rights and personhood; a foetus becomes a person when it's born.

it’s worse than sixth form debating society (actually that is not fair on sixth form debaters - they do tend to at least understand the terms even if they overuse them)

it’s worse than sixth form debating society (actually that is not fair on sixth form debaters - they do tend to at least understand the terms even if they overuse them)
strawman like saying pro life people dont care about the scantity of life after birth. you argue that is true but they argue its not so you are misrepresenting their views clearly
guilt by association republicans believe this therefore its bad.

strawman like saying pro life people dont care about the scantity of life after birth. you argue that is true but they argue its not so
^you are misrepresenting their views clearly
guilt by association republicans believe this therefore its bad.^

No, the only straw man there is yours. No one said any of those things, rather they questioned the logic of holding some policy positions on the basis that life is sacred, while holding others that do not prioritise the sanctity of life.

Not quite as off base as having my life described as a straw man earlier but still, you’ve got time to do better.

Try engaging on the actual issues rather than trying to derail.

No one said any of those thing thats a lie Lizzie48 Sat 03-Mar-18 14:40:08
I was just pointing out that the discussion isn't as black and white as those wanting a ban on abortion like to think. What life is sacred? It appears that for some the life of a foetus is sacred, life after birth not so much. id of thought you would at least checked the previous page before saying something so untrue

Smoove, just stop it. You aren't following even your own arguments, let alone anyone elses.

strawman like saying pro life people dont care about the scantity of life after birth. you argue that is true but they argue its not so

That's not a strawman. Trump and his administration are 'pro-life'. However, they are also pro-welfare cuts and want to build a huge wall, keeping people out of the country. A strawman is where you say 'if you argue X, you must also mean Y'. That pro-lifers don't care much about post-birth life is based on the fact that they are nearly always to the right of the political spectrum and do not agree with policies designed to alleviate poverty and hardship.

Oh yawn. Your statement was a massive misrepresentation (care/don’t care) of the poster you quoted (it appears/sacred/not as sacred).

Is honesty not a high priority for you?

That's not a strawman. Trump and his administration are 'pro-life'. However, they are also pro-welfare cuts and want to build a huge wall, keeping people out of the country. A strawman is where you say 'if you argue X, you must also mean Y'. That pro-lifers don't care much about post-birth life is based on the fact that they are nearly always to the right of the political spectrum and do not agree with policies designed to alleviate poverty and hardship.Substituting a person’s actual position or argument with a distorted, exaggerated, or misrepresented version of the position of the argument. thats what a strawma is and i am correct in saying lizzie said 'It appears that for some the life of a foetus is sacred, life after birth not so much.'

Substituting a person’s actual position or argument with a distorted, exaggerated, or misrepresented version of the position of the argument. thats what a strawma is

Oh good! We agree! Now will you stop doing it?

Lizzie didn’t, by the way. She said that based on the available evidence, it appears that some pro-lifers care more about the sanctity of life before birth (abortion should be illegal) than afterwards (capital punishment is fine), and questioned the logical consistency of those two policy positions.

Lizzie's statement is spot on. There is a political movement that opposes abortion whilst also being against welfare, universal healthcare etc for born children. These individuals have no interest in the life of the child when it is born, only when it is in utero.

Anyway, well done on a successful derail, smoove! Shall we head back in the direction of the topic?

i am correct in saying lizzie said 'It appears that for some the life of a foetus is sacred, life after birth not so much

She did say that and was totally right. There are large numbers of people who call themselves pro life and are against abortion, but are pro death penalty and pro guns. They will tell you this if you ask them. This is a fact. If you don't understand basics like this, you should not be arguing.

Lizzie didn’t, by the way. She said that based on the available evidence, it appears that some pro-lifers care more about the sanctity of life before birth (abortion should be illegal) than afterwards (capital punishment is fine), and questioned the logical consistency of those two policy positions. yes that is a different fallacy the fallacy of Ad Hominem (Tu quoque) Claiming the argument is flawed by pointing out that the one making the argument is not acting consistently with the claims of the argument.

Smoove So do you help women who are struggling and suffering then? As in, help them out financially, look after their children for them, bought them a house, etc....
If not then STFU. You're just one of the many millions who don't give a shit once the baby is born. There is more to raising a child than just being pregnant and giving birth FFS.

smoove, those words don't mean what you think they mean.

yes that is a different fallacy the fallacy of Ad Hominem (Tu quoque) Claiming the argument is flawed by pointing out that the one making the argument is not acting consistently with the claims of the argument.

But she’s not doing that. You’re inventing again. She’s questioning the consistency of the behaviour and beliefs of individuals who advocate both (or more) policy positions, rather than saying that one of those policy positions is incorrect as a result.

Try being honest. Seriously. Engage in honest debate. This level of misrepresentation makes you look ridiculous and like you can’t back up an argument.

Stop googling ‘logical fallacy’ and misapplying what you find there, and try actually discussing on a fair, truthful basis.

The namechange hasn't made your posts any less nonsensical.

For you, smoove

I had no intention of causing such a reaction on here with my post, though I probably should have anticipated it. It's just that, as I get older, I'm becoming less patient with the disingenuousness of the conservative right in the US. They care so much about the sanctity of life of the foetus but don't care about the child that grows up with a mother who can't cope? And if that child is later one of the victims of a mass shooting, who cares as long as our right to bear arms is upheld?

And does an unborn foetus matter more than a child in Iraq or Syria caught up in a bombing raid, or are they just 'collateral damage'?

Lizzie you were totally right in pointing out the enormous cognitive dissonance in the position many social conservatives/militant pro-lifers take. But the truth can be uncomfortable to hear for some.

Lizzie I completely agree with you about the US.
They are so anti abortion but when it comes to actual existing humans who are born it all goes out the window.