Ben Shapiro v Andrew Neil

[Caracus2k]

Well that's a bit different, isn't it? One's an actual living child, the other is an unborn foetus. If a mother is 7 months pregnant and decides to abort her baby it's her decision. This means she's already carried the baby for 7 months, making it quite possibly the most difficult thing she will ever do, so she'll have one hell of a reason for doing so. That's her decision and nobody else's. I know someone who aborted a child at 4 months because she was in an accident which killed the father and rendered her brain damaged and partially paralysed. It completely broke her and she eventually took her own life.

Should she have brought that child in to the world? Would that have been fair to the child?

Stop dodging the question.

You have a health full term fetus in a woman

1) should the woman be allowed to abort the fetus (which will still need to be clinically removed from her bodyl

2) and if she should be allowed to abort the fetus at this stage other than the name applied to it (fetus vs new born baby) what is the difference between the two?

Does some magical process occur when a fetus passes through the birth canal or is cut out of its mothers womb that suddenly means its capacity to suffer has changed?

My position is that early term abortion (based on the best scientific understanding of fetal deveoplement and accompanying ability to suffer and feel pain) should be legal 'on demand' but that after that point there should be a compelling medical reason for an abortion to go ahead.

'Early term' is likely to be in the first trimester

 

[Diddums]

So dodging the question.

You have a health full term fetus in a woman

1) should the woman be allowed to abort the fetus (which will still need to be clinically removed from her bodyl

Yes.

2) and if she should be allowed to abort the fetus at this stage other than the name applied to it (fetus vs new born baby) what is the difference between the two?

Again, one's a living child, the other is an unborn organism.

Does some magical process occur when a fetus passes through the birth canal or is cut out of its mothers womb that suddenly means its capacity to suffer has changed?

Yes. A magical process does occur.

My position is that early term abortion (based on the best scientific understanding of fetal deveoplement and accompanying ability to suffer and feel pain) should be legal 'on demand' but that after that point there should be a compelling medical reason for an abortion to go ahead.

Not dodging any questions, you need to learn to ask them properly. My answers are in your post.

 

[Freakbro]

And yes I do believe if you deliberately mispronounced or spell a name typical or one or more national /racial/ethnic groups that it consistutes a mild form of causal racism.

Or as most people would call it, satire.

 

[Caracus2k]

Answers in quote.

Might help if you highlighted which bit?

 

[Diddums]

Might help if you highlighted which bit?

Wait, what? You can't tell the difference between what you wrote and what I added? Really?

To answer however: they're right under the questions, as answers tend to be. I haven't exactly scribbled them on the back of a pub toilet door now have I?

 

[dowie]

The post you quote was an answer to Diddums question so maybe you're confused?

Nope, you might be - I think you might want to re-read the chain - you made a claim about a wider agenda in response to my post, Diddums asked you what that agenda was and you replied with "The agenda I believe is unrestricted abortion on demand at any stage." hence my question about the basis for that.

You posed a question about 'rape babies' suggesting that whether or not a mother claims to have been raped should be a relevant criteria for whether an abortion should be permitted or not

No I didn't suggest that.

It is a criteria/exception in some countries where abortion is otherwise illegal. I didn't state that it should be - IMO abortions should be available to women in general albeit with limits later in the pregnancy.

and I stated that my opinion was that it should be deemed irrelevant to this decision unless it could be shown that it was putting a party at very significant medical risk if the pregnancy continued.

No you made a big post about JRM's views, time limits etc.. which had nothing to do with my post you quoted. You've then made some additional claim about an agenda which again has no basis.

Why not deal with what has actually been posted rather than make up arguments against points that haven't been raised or assumed agendas?

As in doing so you've made an assumption about an agenda that you've got completely wrong and you've made irrelevant arguments about time limits that had nothing to do with the post you were quoting.

 

[Diddums]

Or as most people would call it, satire.

I can't stop grinning at this whole thread. I'm sure Caracus must be on the wind up, it's fantastic

 

[Caracus2k]

Not dodging any questions, you need to learn to ask them properly. My answers are in your post.

Well I can see that you are now 'literally' saying that you don't see a problem with aborting a health viable fetus and think this is OK because it's a hard choice to make.

How about the newborn child though... OK with killing them to or do you think something magical occurs during the delivery that means they should no longer be killed and if so can you tell us all what that might be?

 

[Caracus2k]

I can't stop grinning at this whole thread. I'm sure Caracus must be on the wind up, it's fantastic

As opposed to the person saying they are willing to allow healty, viable fetuses to be killed because someone really had to think about it?

 

[Zatoichi.uK]

Can't say I particularly like Shapiro for various reasons, gun control, abortion etc. But its beyond tiresome to hear yet another interview of quote mining old tweets for "Gotcha" moments. It detracts from talking about the things people actually care about.

 

[Diddums]

Well I can see that you are now 'literally' saying that you don't see a problem with aborting a health viable fetus and think this is OK because it's a hard choice to make.

How about the newborn child though... OK with killing them to or do you think something magical occurs during the delivery that means they should no longer be killed and if so can you tell us all what that might be?

Am I speaking Swahili or something here?

You're asking the same questions over and over:

The process is called childbirth.

As opposed to the person saying they are willing to allow healty, viable fetuses to be killed because someone really had to think about it?

You're showing yourself here. This seems to be a binary thing for you, you either abort or you don't. Do you think if it was that simple we'd have countless charities, support groups, medical centers, psychological evaluations and all the other things surrounding abortion? No. No we wouldn't. You know why? Because it's an extremely difficult thing for any family to do. You can bet your bottom dollar that a family / mother who decides to abort has more than likely exhausted every other option available to them, it's a last resort once all the other last resorts are run out, so why should anyone prohibit them from doing so? It's a frankly stupid and outdated mentality.

You didn't answer my previous question though, so here it is again. Answer this time:

I know someone who aborted a child at 4 months because she was in an accident which killed the father and rendered her brain damaged and partially paralysed. It completely broke her and she eventually took her own life.

Should she have brought that child in to the world? Would that have been fair to the child?

 

[Caracus2k]

Am I speaking Swahili or something here?

You're asking the same questions over and over:

The process is called childbirth.

Well I'll confess in didn't notice (on my mobile) that you had edited my quote and made no prior effort to highlight the change in the quoted section so I skipped past my own quoted part to see what you had written afterwards and missed that your indicted the changes were in my part thinking you were perhaps refering to a previous post you had made (with you part having edits made to change what it said between them and now).

Surfice to say I don't and I suspect others won't see what difference childbirth be it natural or by c section makes to a fetus/child's ability to suffer or even what difference to their viability as a human life there is if modern medical facilities are on hand.

You're showing yourself here. This seems to be a binary thing for you, you either abort or you don't. Do you think if it was that simple we'd have countless charities, support groups, medical centers, psychological evaluations and all the other things surrounding abortion? No. No we wouldn't. You know why? Because it's an extremely difficult thing for any family to do. You can bet your bottom dollar that a family / mother who decides to abort has more than likely exhausted every other option available to them, it's a last resort once all the other last resorts are run out, so why should anyone prohibit them from doing so? It's a frankly stupid and outdated mentality.

You didn't answer my previous question though, so here it is again. Answer this time:

Whether to abort or not is a binary decision there isn't really a half measure in between the two that wont likely lead to the eventual death of the fetus of it being born permanently disabled.

I have already outlined the criteria for when I would suggest abortion should be legal.

I'll just end by saying that I think it is truly barbaric to suggest that healthy, viable fetuses should be aborted with out very compelling medical reasons.

I know someone who aborted a child at 4 months because she was in an accident which killed the father and rendered her brain damaged and partially paralysed. It completely broke her and she eventually took her own life.

Should she have brought that child in to the world? Would that have been fair to the child?

Was the child known to be damaged in the accident, was it likely to be viable if held to full term? What was the medical opinion of the risk to the mother if the baby was allowed to grow?

My answer is that it should have been made on the basis of sound medical opionon. That you state that she went on to kill herself suggests that it wasn't bad necessarily the best intervention for all concerned

So how about you answer about killing of newborns now?

 

[Suicidal Ferret]

As usual on ocuk. People with no idea about the subject, wade in as if they do. Just stop.

 

[Caracus2k]

As usual on ocuk. People with no idea about the subject, wade in as if they do. Just stop.

Thanks for your (non) contribution.

Perhaps you could do will a refresher on what typically occurs in online dicussion forums?

 

[Diddums]

Well I'll confess in didn't notice (on my mobile) that you had edited my quote and made no prior effort to highlight the change in the quoted section so I skipped past my own quoted part to see what you had written afterwards and missed that your indicted the changes were in my part thinking you were perhaps refering to a previous post you had made (with you part having edits made to change what it said between them and now).

Surfice to say I don't and I suspect others won't see what difference childbirth be it natural or by c section makes to a fetus/child's ability to suffer or even what difference to their viability as a human life there is if modern medical facilities are on hand.



Whether to abort or not is a binary decision there isn't really a half measure in between the two that wont likely lead to the eventual death of the fetus of it being born permanently disabled.

I have already outlined the criteria for when I would suggest abortion should be legal.

I'll just end by saying that I think it is truly barbaric to suggest that healthy, viable fetuses should be aborted with out very compelling medical reasons.



Was the child known to be damaged in the accident, was it likely to be viable if held to full term? What was the medical opinion of the risk to the mother if the baby was allowed to grow?

My answer is that it should have been made on the basis of sound medical opionon. That you state that she went on to kill herself suggests that it wasn't bad necessarily the best intervention for all concerned

So how about you answer about killing of newborns now?

I can't keep going round in circles with you, if you can't / won't understand my viewpoints from the abundance of replies you've had from me then I'm merely wasting time here.

 

[Colonel_Klinck]

I'm "pro choice" as it were, but you should look into late term abortions in America, there are limits to my acceptance of abortion and some of the things I heard that were happening are disturbing.

Every abortion is a tragedy. I've have friends who had them, an ex girlfriend had one when we were together. For those women that have late term be is because there is something physically wrong with the foetus or mother or perhaps the mother has mental health issues that make this an option it must be horrific. No man has the right to tell them what they can do with their bodies though. I can't even imagine a world where women would have a say over what we can do with our bodies. If religious nut jobs don't want to have abortions then don't, the irony is a was listening a podcast about abortion clinics in the US recently and the same women that scream abuse at other women as they enter the clinics can end up in the clinics themselves when they fall pregnant by mistake or though being raped.

 

[Caracus2k]

I can't keep going round in circles with you, if you can't / won't understand my viewpoints from the abundance of replies you've had from me then I'm merely wasting time here.

I think that was what Shapiro thought when he ended the chat with Neil.

We willl just have to remain wondering what actual difference giving birth or having a c section makes to the living organism concerned ability to suffer or its viability with medical assistance and whether or not you would be OK with a newborn child being killed if the mother had a difficult time deciding whether or not to do so in the first place.

 

[slipperydave]

And yes I do believe if you deliberately mispronounced or spell a name typical or one or more national /racial/ethnic groups that it consistutes a mild form of causal racism.

So what would Venezuelans think about you defiling their fine city with your username? You racist xenophobe.

 

[Diddums]

I think that was what Shapiro thought when he ended the chat with Neil.

We willl just have to remain wondering what actual difference giving birth or having a c section makes to the living organism concerned ability to suffer or its viability with medical assistance and whether or not you would be OK with a newborn child being killed if the mother had a difficult time deciding whether or not to do so in the first place.

Really? You're trying to bait me with that tactic? Come on, you've already ruined any semblance of a reputation you might have in this thread, you going for gold now?

 

[Caracus2k]

So what would Venezuelans think about you defiling their fine city with your username? You racist xenophobe.

That's Caracas and my username isn't derived from the capital of any country and my is username even if it was derived from Caracas would not belittle or mock the name of the the city.