Abortion >12 weeks

[AdHoc]

Hypothetically, if a person saw pictures of human development from 12 weeks of pregnancy onward and at the same time was able to see pictures of the abortion methods used on those beings do you think this information would support the pro-abortion or the anti-abortion movement?

I looked on wikipedia and was not able to see any pictures and I was wondering if there was a reason for that?

[Bust Nak]

Hypothetically, if a person saw pictures of human development from 12 weeks of pregnancy onward and at the same time was able to see pictures of the abortion methods used on those beings do you think this information would support the pro-abortion or the anti-abortion movement?

Depends what you mean by "support." If you mean as rational support then pictures would not support either position. If you merely mean change people's mind then it will put people off from abortion. That's why pro-life people do it, to get an emotional response from people.

I looked on wikipedia and was not able to see any pictures and I was wondering if there was a reason for that?

Are you implying wikipedia is pro-choice? Seems to me it's just this policy being put into action: "Shocking or explicit pictures should not be used simply to bring attention to an article."

[Furrowed Brow]

Hypothetically, if a person saw pictures of human development from 12 weeks of pregnancy onward and at the same time was able to see pictures of the abortion methods used on those beings do you think this information would support the pro-abortion or the anti-abortion movement?

I looked on wikipedia and was not able to see any pictures and I was wondering if there was a reason for that?

I think opinion would change yes. I think the public who do not already have a strong opinion would be les accepting of late abortion particularly after 12-14 weeks.

The UK population is 62 million 2011. In the UK there were 189,931 abortions in 2011. 91% of abortions were carried out under 13 weeks. 78% under 10 weeks. 1 I would be more comfortable if 91% of abortions came in under 10 weeks, and 100% was under 13 weeks.

[Goat]

Hypothetically, if a person saw pictures of human development from 12 weeks of pregnancy onward and at the same time was able to see pictures of the abortion methods used on those beings do you think this information would support the pro-abortion or the anti-abortion movement?

I looked on wikipedia and was not able to see any pictures and I was wondering if there was a reason for that?

I think opinion would change yes. I think the public who do not already have a strong opinion would be les accepting of late abortion particularly after 12-14 weeks.

The UK population is 62 million 2011. In the UK there were 189,931 abortions in 2011. 91% of abortions were carried out under 13 weeks. 78% under 10 weeks. 1 I would be more comfortable if 91% of abortions came in under 10 weeks, and 100% was under 13 weeks.

Of the ones that were after 13 weeks, how many were due to medical reasons?
Also, how many were 'miscarriages' that a D&C was performed?? Although it is a miscarriage, that would count as an 'abortion' to the records.

[AdHoc]

Hypothetically, if a person saw pictures of human development from 12 weeks of pregnancy onward and at the same time was able to see pictures of the abortion methods used on those beings do you think this information would support the pro-abortion or the anti-abortion movement?

Depends what you mean by "support." If you mean as rational support then pictures would not support either position. If you merely mean change people's mind then it will put people off from abortion. That's why pro-life people do it, to get an emotional response from people.

This my thinking as well but are you implying photographic evidence is not rational? When I look at a picture of a fetus/unborn child at 12 weeks its obvious to me its a human being and when that is juxtaposed with the awful way their lives are ended it makes for a fairly compelling argument.

I looked on wikipedia and was not able to see any pictures and I was wondering if there was a reason for that?

Are you implying wikipedia is pro-choice? Seems to me it's just this policy being put into action: "Shocking or explicit pictures should not be used simply to bring attention to an article."

I definitely don't think wikipedia is anti-abortion if I were to guess I would assume they are pro-abortion as it seems the vast majority of people in the western world are, save possibly south america.

[AdHoc]

Hypothetically, if a person saw pictures of human development from 12 weeks of pregnancy onward and at the same time was able to see pictures of the abortion methods used on those beings do you think this information would support the pro-abortion or the anti-abortion movement?

I looked on wikipedia and was not able to see any pictures and I was wondering if there was a reason for that?

I think opinion would change yes. I think the public who do not already have a strong opinion would be les accepting of late abortion particularly after 12-14 weeks.

And so do you think it right to keep that information from the general public?

The UK population is 62 million 2011. In the UK there were 189,931 abortions in 2011. 91% of abortions were carried out under 13 weeks. 78% under 10 weeks. 1 I would be more comfortable if 91% of abortions came in under 10 weeks, and 100% was under 13 weeks.

I think that would be a great step forward for mankind.

[Bust Nak]

This my thinking as well but are you implying photographic evidence is not rational?

No, I am telling you appealing to emotion is a not rational argument.

When I look at a picture of a fetus/unborn child at 12 weeks its obvious to me its a human being and when that is juxtaposed with the awful way their lives are ended it makes for a fairly compelling argument.

Logical fallacies are all compelling in that sense. That's why we have to guard against it.

I definitely don't think wikipedia is anti-abortion if I were to guess I would assume they are pro-abortion as it seems the vast majority of people in the western world are, save possibly south america.

The question I was asking was, did you think there is no pictures on wiki because they are pro-abortion?

[Goat]

Hypothetically, if a person saw pictures of human development from 12 weeks of pregnancy onward and at the same time was able to see pictures of the abortion methods used on those beings do you think this information would support the pro-abortion or the anti-abortion movement?

Depends what you mean by "support." If you mean as rational support then pictures would not support either position. If you merely mean change people's mind then it will put people off from abortion. That's why pro-life people do it, to get an emotional response from people.

This my thinking as well but are you implying photographic evidence is not rational? When I look at a picture of a fetus/unborn child at 12 weeks its obvious to me its a human being and when that is juxtaposed with the awful way their lives are ended it makes for a fairly compelling argument.

I looked on wikipedia and was not able to see any pictures and I was wondering if there was a reason for that?

Are you implying wikipedia is pro-choice? Seems to me it's just this policy being put into action: "Shocking or explicit pictures should not be used simply to bring attention to an article."

I definitely don't think wikipedia is anti-abortion if I were to guess I would assume they are pro-abortion as it seems the vast majority of people in the western world are, save possibly south america.

So, this is a human being??

[Furrowed Brow]

This my thinking as well but are you implying photographic evidence is not rational?

No, I am telling you appealing to emotion is a not rational argument.

Granted.

When I look at a picture of a fetus/unborn child at 12 weeks its obvious to me its a human being and when that is juxtaposed with the awful way their lives are ended it makes for a fairly compelling argument.

Logical fallacies are all compelling in that sense. That's why we have to guard against it.

Who said ethics is rational? Kant I guess. If you are a parent of four kids and you are on a life raft with a small sale at sea, and you are the only one who knows how to navigate, and water is running out, if you were rational it would make sense to eject the thirstiest child from the raft to give the others a better chance. If ethics is about rationality then you would be morally right to do the rational thing. If you know with certainty that you are the only one able to survive the trip but only if you are prepared to eat your children along the way then the rational thing to do is eat your children on the long sale to safety so that way at least one of you survive. If that is hard to stomach then being rational does not equal being moral. Maybe just sailing with all four kids and hoping for the best is the right moral action, even if you know with absolute certainty it is doomed to failure.

I think sometimes folk get muddled over the difference between practical (rational)decision making and morality. Maybe sometimes the right moral response is to breakdown in tears and turn into a quivering mess not knowing what to do.

Contrary to a rational ethics some of us think ethics is an aesthetic, and it is not fully rational. I too see a human at 12-14 weeks....and I think most folk who look do too. Some might rationalise things and say well the nervous system is not sufficiently developed, or it feels no pain, and that is one way of rationalising what they see. Another way of looking at it is to be honest about the feelings the images stir. Ethics is not just about what we are looking at, it is also about us and how we look. Science can help us understand when we are being emotional, but emotion is part of the ethical response. If it wasn't we would not be human.

However if some of us do begin to respond to a 14 week pregnancy as if the foetus is human this does not negate the woman's right to choose. I think we lull ourselves into the idea that every ethical question has both a right answer and a wrong answer. I do not think that is true. Some problems lead to wrong answers which ever way we jump. It is wrong to deny a women's right to choose, it is wrong to kill something we begin to feel is human. To rationalise one answer is more deserving than the other is ....maybe.... the immoral thing to do because it is dishonest. I see pro lifers giving no or little value to the plight ofthe women e.g. "it was their choice to have sex". I find that immoral. On the other hand I see pro choicers guilty of diminishing the value of pregnancy by insisting on words like "foetus" or framing the argument as if ethics is just about the pain or lack of pain. The ethical questions are bigger than that.

[AdHoc]

This my thinking as well but are you implying photographic evidence is not rational?

No, I am telling you appealing to emotion is a not rational argument.

So if a woman's child needs medical care and she makes an emotional plea to a doctor to save her child's life she is irrational?

When I look at a picture of a fetus/unborn child at 12 weeks its obvious to me its a human being and when that is juxtaposed with the awful way their lives are ended it makes for a fairly compelling argument.

Logical fallacies are all compelling in that sense. That's why we have to guard against it.

I'm not understanding how simply showing pictures could be a logical fallacy? Is it a logical fallacy to show pictures of starving children in Africa?

I definitely don't think wikipedia is anti-abortion if I were to guess I would assume they are pro-abortion as it seems the vast majority of people in the western world are, save possibly south america.

The question I was asking was, did you think there is no pictures on wiki because they are pro-abortion?

I wasn't sure at the time but I accept the possibility that they are avoiding publishing offensive material.