Abortion

30-04-2012 11:39am

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Please stop badgering.

Noz was agreeing with you all along, and you spam up the thread with "I can't be bothered to read that leave me alone" and he's the badgering one?

OldNotWIse · 30-04-2012 12:17pm

Bambi wrote: »

Are there many (any)pickets on abortion clinics in the UK or europe? I would think not.

The argument that we shouldnt have abortion because there's a lot of rabid scumbags out there in the wacky world of catholic fundamentalism doesn't really stand up. That's why we give the gardai batons.

I agree that saying, "abortion clinics are a bad idea in case they are thronged with protesters" is not really a valid reason for not having them (like saying "we should have abortion because if we dont then people will access "backstreet abortions"). Not all people who are pro life are catholic fundamentalists though. Like it was said before, its not black and white. I am pro-life but not because the church claims to be and I certainly wouldn't consider myself to be a "good" catholic given that I too fly in the face of their "teachings".

Channel Zero · 30-04-2012 12:19pm

I fully agree with you OldnotWise. Poster was very insensitive in those posts.

nozzferrahhtoo · 30-04-2012 12:26pm

Channel Zero wrote: »

I fully agree with you OldnotWise. Poster was very insensitive in those posts.

It is an emotive topic. While being sensitive is important one must not do so to the point of not discussing relevant facts, examples and evidences... or even as is too often the case... not discuss the topic at all.

We must be sensitive to peoples emotions in and around the topic but always with an awareness that those emotions can cloud judgement and objectivity on what is an essential and important realm of discourse.

All that said however one feels compelled to question why anyone with a sensitive disposition would choose to come to "After Hours" at all in the first place. Let alone to specifically read and post in a thread on a subject that is for them a sensitive one. It seems like the equivalent of a person with an animal hair allergy not only visiting a farm, but specifically visiting the hairy animals and walking by the feathered ones.

Channel Zero · 30-04-2012 12:36pm

Firstly, posting about this on AH does not somehow excuse insensitivity as you seem to be implying.

Secondly, you don't need to have a "sensitive disposition" to spot when someone has been insensitive as you seem to be implying.

eviltwin · 30-04-2012 12:41pm

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

It is an emotive topic. While being sensitive is important one must not do so to the point of not discussing relevant facts, examples and evidences... or even as is too often the case... not discuss the topic at all.

We must be sensitive to peoples emotions in and around the topic but always with an awareness that those emotions can cloud judgement and objectivity on what is an essential and important realm of discourse.

All that said however one feels compelled to question why anyone with a sensitive disposition would choose to come to "After Hours" at all in the first place. Let alone to specifically read and post in a thread on a subject that is for them a sensitive one. It seems like the equivalent of a person with an animal hair allergy not only visiting a farm, but specifically visiting the hairy animals and walking by the feathered ones.

I think its about remembering that its not just a debate, its an issue that affects people, many of who are regulars here. Some of the debate has been pretty horrible to read, the stereotypes and abusive condemnation of women is hurtful to read, its easy to say "don't read it" and sometimes you have to stay away but equally sometimes you have to tell your story, your experience in the hope that people will see the reality from the point of view of a person who has been there.

I agree it works both ways though, as much as some people here make me want to scream its unfair to attack their religion.

nozzferrahhtoo · 30-04-2012 12:42pm

Channel Zero wrote: »

Firstly, posting about this on AH does not somehow excuse insensitivity as you seem to be implying.

Not what I said, nor what I implied. In fact I said the opposite if you read the first two paragraphs and not just the last.

Channel Zero wrote: »

Secondly, you don't need to have a "sensitive disposition" to spot when someone has been insensitive as you seem to be implying.

Also not what I said, nor what I implied.

nozzferrahhtoo · 30-04-2012 12:50pm

eviltwin wrote: »

I think its about remembering that its not just a debate, its an issue that affects people... in the hope that people will see the reality from the point of view of a person who has been there.

I absolutely understand that and I have said as much many times in this thread. The point that appears not to be coming across however is that one can do that WHILE acknowledging that this is an important topic to continue discussing.

And if those emotions are leading people to make points on this very important topic of discussion that are purely false and hence cloud the issue... that needs to be pointed out both in a meta fashion and in specific cases with specific examples.... regardless of people shouting "insensitive" at the person who chooses to be the one to do it.

It is a subject that has both emotional and intellectual aspects in other words and focusing on posts that are closer to the latter and suggesting the poster is devoid or incapable of the former is not going to help anyone or anything. Quite the opposite in fact as it will likely only serve to close down discourse.

Channel Zero · 30-04-2012 12:56pm

I read the first two paragraphs the first time. They were fair points; they just don't apply to some of your posts.

Channel Zero · 30-04-2012 12:59pm

I wasn't "shouting":)

nozzferrahhtoo · 30-04-2012 1:04pm

Channel Zero wrote: »

I read the first two paragraphs the first time. They were fair points; they just don't apply to some of your posts.

Says you but alas given the lack of examples, arguments, and back up to the claim, it is just a claim. As I said I have been as sensitive as I feel is required and possible while still staying true to the fact that this is a debate where we need to be clear on the differences between the facts of the matter, the myths, and the emotions that sometimes produce or fuel those myths.

If I see false information being perpetuated in the debate then I will point this out and will likely not apologize for doing so. It needs to be done given the willingness some people have for spreading false facts in this debate and the quite devious ways in which they find to do it.

The alternative does not bear thinking about which is to simply let anyone with a sufficiently moving personal anecdote to influence the discussion unhindered with false information solely because we have become a slave to propriety and have been cajoled into silence. Quite often in fact on forums such as this we can not even know if the anecdote is true or if someone with an unmovable opinion on a subject has merely made it up to support an otherwise unsupportable case, solely because they know any disagreement with their anecdote will meet with calls of derision from other posters.

So again: Yes we have to be sensitive on such issues as this, but never at the expense of being clear on what the actual facts and arguments are on the issue and what are the myths, lies and tricks.

Channel Zero wrote: »

I wasn't "shouting":)

Nor did I say you were?

Channel Zero · 30-04-2012 1:21pm

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

So again: Yes we have to be sensitive on such issues as this, but never at the expense of being clear on what the actual facts and arguments are on the issue and what are the myths, lies and tricks.

Sensitivity, and "being clear on what the actual fact and arguments are", (as you have humbly assigned your contributions as being), can easily co-exist.

Example:
Saying something like, "I'm sorry for your loss, but....." or "While i have sympathy for you, this is a non-sequitor..." is not really being sensitive to me.
What would be sensitive is to express your sympathy in a single sentence or paragraph, then go to make your point separately.

A small point, but a big one for someone who is maybe emotionally involved.

nozzferrahhtoo · 30-04-2012 1:37pm

Channel Zero wrote: »

Saying something like, "I'm sorry for your loss, but....." or "While i have sympathy for you, this is a non-sequitor..." is not really being sensitive to me.

Then we have a mere difference of opinion because I think it is. I do not really feel that the mere separation of a sentence in to two or into separate paragraphs adds anything of note.

So while I appreciate the opinion and the one or two others I am not sure I feel compelled to change my ways based upon that and that alone. Though I certainly would be keen to read any studies or articles on the subject should any show that an opinion someone massively disagrees with becomes more palatable to them in proportion to the number of sentence, line and paragraph breaks used in it's formation. Let alone the affect of same on those that have, for whatever reason, chosen to get offended vicariously on behalf of someone else.

Dyr · 30-04-2012 1:56pm

OldNotWIse wrote: »

. Not all people who are pro life are catholic fundamentalists though.

The ones who are anti abortion are though. The ones who would picket clinics are all mentalist catholics or closet nazis

eviltwin · 30-04-2012 2:00pm

Bambi wrote: »

The ones who are anti abortion are though. The ones who would picket clinics are all mentalist catholics or closet nazis

Eh no.....I know plenty of people who are religious but pro choice, I also know some decent people who are very religious, prolife but have nothing but compassion. In fact after my abortion two of the people who were there for me at my lowest point were very devout Catholics who would be part of the pro-life movement.

Ironically the most hurtful people in my life, the ones who threw around words like slut, whore etc were ones who have never gone near a church of any denomination.

OldNotWIse · 30-04-2012 2:03pm

Bambi wrote: »

The ones who are anti abortion are though. The ones who would picket clinics are all mentalist catholics or closet nazis

No, this is incorrect. I am anti-abortion. I am not a practicing catholic and I do not believe in a lot of the teachings of the catholic church. Assigning "demented catholic fundamentalist" label to all those who support the rights of the unborn may be tempting, but it is inaccurate. It may make it easier to completely disregard someone's argument and denounce their opinions if they fit snugly into a little "closet nazi" or "bible basher" box that you can just put up on the shelf and say, "oh don't mind them, they are just brainwashed, evil biggots" but the reality is that a lot of people that do not agree with abortion are not necessarily practicing catholics (Indeed I would go so far as to say this would be a little odd given the catholic church's treatment of children and handling of abuse cases)

philologos · 30-04-2012 10:45pm

Bambi wrote: »

The ones who are anti abortion are though. The ones who would picket clinics are all mentalist catholics or closet nazis

Hm. I'm pro-life which by logical implication means anti-abortion, and opposed to euthanasia as an alternative to pallative care, the defence of the human right to life amongst other things. It's a much broader position than on the abortion issue.

I feel it just makes a whole lot more sense than the pro-choice position makes both in respect to what the unborn child is, and also in respect to being consistent between how we treat humans in-utero and ex-utero.

There's no need to get overly emotive about the issue, all we need to do is try and post with respect, and as usual it depends on how willing people are to do this. If not, then it becomes a grandiose waste of time for all parties involved.

Paddy Cow · 30-04-2012 10:58pm

Bambi wrote: »

Are there many (any)pickets on abortion clinics in the UK or europe? I would think not.

The argument that we shouldnt have abortion because there's a lot of rabid scumbags out there in the wacky world of catholic fundamentalism doesn't really stand up. That's why we give the gardai batons.

I never made that argument. I clearly said that I am pro-choice, think that abortion should be available and would never judge a woman for having one. I was saying that politicians don't have the balls to legalise abortion because they don't want to have to be the ones to deal with the initial aftermath.

Battered Mars Bar · 05-05-2012 2:24am

Just listening to Newstalk there, a guy talking about genetics and the engineering of genetics so flippantly said in America rates of Down Syndrome are down significantly as a result of women who are pregnant getting screenings and terminating the pregnancy when discovering the baby has Down Syndrome. Disgusted I was by this. People with Down Syndrome are people too and their lives are no less meaningful than yours or mine, why on earth do people think it's ok to kill a living person just because they have Down Syndrome? Something about this leads me to think that people who are normally anti-abortion would be pro-abortion in such cases.

partyatmygaff · 05-05-2012 2:53am

Battered Mars Bar wrote: »

Something about this leads me to think that people who are normally anti-abortion would be pro-abortion in such cases.

Why on earth would you think that?

TehDagsBass · 05-05-2012 3:10am

Battered Mars Bar wrote: »

Disgusted I was by this. People with Down Syndrome are people too and their lives are no less meaningful than yours or mine, why on earth do people think it's ok to kill a living person just because they have Down Syndrome?

What sensationalist tripe. They're not executing people when they see they're born with a birth defect, they're testing a clump of cells for genetic issues and acting on a result. If positive for these defects, they destroy the cells which will prevent the pregnancy from going any further. Nobody is getting hurt in the process, however it is preventing what could form to be (there is no guarantee a pregnancy will last) a terribly afflicted child which cannot enjoy a normal life and deprives its parents of one too. There is nothing wrong with scanning for these issues early and acting on the results. Again, they are not living people. Go read a book, learn something about it before making such shallow, sensationalist Joe Duffy reader-esque comments.

I'm completely pro-choice myself and would hope to see the introduction of unconditional abortion within my lifetime, as it is in other developed countries. It has had a remarkably positive effect in these countries also.

It is not for a group of politicians in the Dail, or priests in the Church, to tell a woman what she can and can't do with her own body. It is abhorrent that we would risk the lives of women by forcing them to follow through with pregnancies that have a significant likelihood of killing them as it is, let alone forcing women to deal with an accidental pregnancy that they neither want nor can afford.

When done early it is a completely harmless medical procedure and should be made available to women and couples here to avail of should they choose to do so.

If you believe that "life" is being destroyed in an abortion, then you had better stop masturbating or having sex with contraception as you are equally guilty of ending the chances of reproductive cells creating an actual life when doing so. If you believe that abortion is murder, then miscarriage is manslaughter and it's as simple as that. Both are completely backward, ridiculous points of view and to those that hold them, go read a f**king book. Typical theistic bull****, embracing the discoveries of science when it suits them and flipping it off in equal measure.

Although, the only people I ever see at pro-life marches are old people who really don't know any better, and begrudging parents who are determined to drag other women down with them.

Odysseus · 05-05-2012 3:17am

I have worked with people who have had issues many years after the event,
however, the choice should still be there for everyone.

Irishchick · 05-05-2012 9:58am

TehDagsBass wrote: »

What sensationalist tripe. They're not executing people when they see they're born with a birth defect, they're testing a clump of cells for genetic issues and acting on a result. If positive for these defects, they destroy the cells which will prevent the pregnancy from going any further.

Why do people believe this? It is not a "clump of cells". A baby is fully formed at 7 weeks. All the organs are functioning which makes it human, so yes a life is being harmed.

Please educate yourself.

partyatmygaff · 05-05-2012 1:01pm

TehDagsBass wrote: »

What sensationalist tripe. They're not executing people when they see they're born with a birth defect, they're testing a clump of cells for genetic issues and acting on a result.

...

If positive for these defects, they destroy the cells which will prevent the pregnancy from going any further.

"They destroy the cells" = "They kill the child". Please stop dancing around with your words to try and make it sound nice. This isn't a play.

Nobody is getting hurt in the process, however it is preventing what could form to be (there is no guarantee a pregnancy will last) a terribly afflicted child which cannot enjoy a normal life and deprives its parents of one too.

Who are you to say what is a "normal life"? That's just downright offensive to all people with Down's syndrome and their parents.

Again, they are not living people. Go read a book, learn something about it before making such shallow, sensationalist Joe Duffy reader-esque comments.

I recommend you "read a book" as well and educate yourself as you're seemingly missing a few key concepts. Any introductory book to developmental biology or even general biology ought to be sufficient.

I'm completely pro-choice myself and would hope to see the introduction of unconditional abortion within my lifetime, as it is in other developed countries. It has had a remarkably positive effect in these countries also.

I would hope that I never see the introduction of "unconditional abortion" in Ireland. What other supposedly "developed countries" (Love the not-so-subtle and not-so-effective link between 'developed countries' and abortion law) do is none of my concern.

It is not for a group of politicians in the Dail, or priests in the Church, to tell a woman what she can and can't do with her own body.

Crossed out a red herring. As for the group of politicians in the Dail, they're the ones responsible for representing the people in debating the laws of the land. As for a woman's own body, it's not just her body but the body of her child as well.

It is abhorrent that we would risk the lives of women by forcing them to follow through with pregnancies that have a significant likelihood of killing them as it is

How many times do people have to throw this is in? Few, if any are disagreeing with therapeutic abortion.

let alone forcing women to deal with an accidental pregnancy that they neither want nor can afford.

It doesn't really matter a damn what you "want". If you don't "want" your own child, the solution is not to just kill them and be done with it.

When done early it is a completely harmless medical procedure and should be made available to women and couples here to avail of should they choose to do so.

You're absolutely clueless if you think that's the case.

If you believe that "life" is being destroyed in an abortion, then you had better stop masturbating or having sex with contraception as you are equally guilty of ending the chances of reproductive cells creating an actual life when doing so. If you believe that abortion is murder, then miscarriage is manslaughter and it's as simple as that.

Again, you're showing up how completely clueless you are on the issue. Germ cells are your own cells. They're not a different individual to yourselves.

As for abortion, it's a premeditated choice to kill an individual in the womb. Comparing it to miscarriage in any way is nothing short of ignorant and terrible for the parents who've suffered miscarriages.

Both are completely backward, ridiculous points of view and to those that hold them, go read a f**king book.

How odd. The man who seemingly does not understand basic biology telling others that their views are "backward" and "ridiculous" and advising others to "read a f**cking book".

Typical theistic bull****, embracing the discoveries of science when it suits them and flipping it off in equal measure.

No one in this thread has mentioned religion in any great capacity. In the future, spare us the red herrings and take your own advice and "go read a f**king book".

TehDagsBass · 05-05-2012 6:38pm

You speak as though you're well read on biology, yet you fill your post with emotionally driven bull**** such as calling what amounts to a clump of cells a "child" and referring to terminating a pregnancy as "killing a child". I'm sorry but it's blatantly obvious that you haven't the slightest clue what you're talking about so I'm not going to engage you on the matter. I have no time nor energy for ignorant people who'll jump at the opportunity to spout emotionally fueled, sensationalistic tripe.

You've several complete and utter failures of logic in your post, presumably your mind is clouded by a: your lack of education on the matter and b: your emotional response to my post, so as opposed to entertaining more of your emotionally driven ignorance, I'll say good day to you, although I'm sure such a person simply will not let this go without trying to get another post full of illogical bs in to "have the last say" on the matter.

partyatmygaff · 05-05-2012 6:44pm

TehDagsBass wrote: »

You speak as though you're well read on biology, yet you fill your post with emotionally driven bull**** such as calling what amounts to a clump of cells a "child" and referring to terminating a pregnancy as "killing a child".

It's not "emotionally driven bullshit", it's just accurate and straight to the point.

"Clump of cells" is not a biological term. Child on the other hand is a perfectly accurate biological term.

I'm sorry but it's blatantly obvious that you haven't the slightest clue what you're talking about so I'm not going to engage you on the matter. I have no time nor energy for ignorant people who'll jump at the opportunity to spout emotionally fueled, sensationalistic tripe.

You've several complete and utter failures of logic in your post, presumably your mind is clouded by a: your lack of education on the matter and b: your emotional response to my post, so as opposed to entertaining more of your emotionally driven ignorance, I'll say good day to you, although I'm sure such a person simply will not let this go without trying to get another post full of illogical bs in to "have the last say" on the matter.

Right...

Well, you'll be happy to know i've no interest in debating anything with you. I'd tell you why but there doesn't seem to be much point as the above absolute and utter rubbish has eroded any hope of anything resembling reasonable or intelligent conversation. I have exams after all and don't particularly want to read nonsensical, angry and aggressive posts.

Hint: Other people in this thread didn't precisely share my views. Look at their posts, then look at your post. I don't think there's much for me to say here.

TehDagsBass · 05-05-2012 7:02pm

Oh look, my estimations of you were absolutely spot on. What a surprise :rolleyes:

partyatmygaff · 05-05-2012 7:20pm

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Which is just a lot of human DNA really. I still think any grounding for rights needs a little more than being a lump of cells containing DNA, and equivocation over how differentiated those cells are at each stage is likely not going to get us there. While it clearly should not be left out of the discussion entirely, I think it just a first of many steps.

On a materialistic sense, yes perhaps you could say it's comprised of a lot of DNA and a few other biomolecules. But in reality you could say that about almost any cell.

It's the entity as a whole that i'm assigning rights to. Not on the basis of its material composition but on the basis of its intrinsic nature. The gastrula stage is for all intents and purposes the first stage where you can definitively say "This is a new human individual". At the blastula and zygote stage that preceded it there still was the possibility of two individuals.

As i've said before, seeing as there is a definite physical "start point" for each human individual and a definite "end point" for each human individual I don't think it makes sense to choose another completely arbitrary start point just because it suits us.

05-05-2012 7:50pm

partyatmygaff wrote: »

The gastrula stage is for all intents and purposes the first stage where you can definitively say "This is a new human individual". At the blastula and zygote stage that preceded it there still was the possibility of two individuals.

As i've said before, seeing as there is a definite physical "start point" for each human individual and a definite "end point" for each human individual I don't think it makes sense to choose another completely arbitrary start point just because it suits us.

How is it any less arbitrary to pick the stage at which it can't be a multiple birth?

partyatmygaff · 05-05-2012 7:57pm

true-or-false wrote: »

How is it any less arbitrary to pick the stage at which it can't be a multiple birth?

Simply because at that stage, there aren't any sound arguments that can be made against it being a single individual human organism.

At the blastula stage, there is still a bit of ambiguity. There's potential for the blastula to form one, two or even three or more individuals. At the gastrula stage, there's no such ambiguity.

Micky Dolenz · 05-05-2012 8:34pm

TehDagsBass wrote: »

Oh look, my estimations of you were absolutely spot on. What a surprise :rolleyes:

Mod

So you want the last word.

no more flaming/bickering.

cbyrd · 05-05-2012 9:25pm

partyatmygaff wrote: »

On a materialistic sense, yes perhaps you could say it's comprised of a lot of DNA and a few other biomolecules. But in reality you could say that about almost any cell.

It's the entity as a whole that i'm assigning rights to. Not on the basis of its material composition but on the basis of its intrinsic nature. The gastrula stage is for all intents and purposes the first stage where you can definitively say "This is a new human individual". At the blastula and zygote stage that preceded it there still was the possibility of two individuals.

As i've said before, seeing as there is a definite physical "start point" for each human individual and a definite "end point" for each human individual I don't think it makes sense to choose another completely arbitrary start point just because it suits us.

So based on this timeline what is your view on the morning after pill? after all if a zygote is formed surely this is then preventing human life too....?

partyatmygaff · 05-05-2012 9:31pm

cbyrd wrote: »

So based on this timeline what is your view on the morning after pill? after all if a zygote is formed surely this is then preventing human life too....?

It depends. There's no surefire way of knowing when fertilisation takes place so it's impossible to put an exact time limit on it. That said, theoretically speaking only up until around fertilisation.

nozzferrahhtoo · 06-05-2012 7:39am

partyatmygaff wrote: »

But in reality you could say that about almost any cell.

My point exactly. So if we are to have a conversation about giving Human DNA rights then clearly that conversation has to go further than simply human DNA, differentiated cells, or what the cells potentially might be in the future which they are not now.

Simply arbitrarily selecting a stage in the development and saying "This is a human individual" does not get you there either. Some justification for the choice is required and I am not sure saying "This is the point where we first know it is one developing human and not two" is not quite going to get you there either. You are still talking about a block of barely differentiated cells with Human DNA.

OldNotWIse · 08-05-2012 12:44pm

cbyrd wrote: »

So based on this timeline what is your view on the morning after pill? after all if a zygote is formed surely this is then preventing human life too....?

partyatmygaff wrote: »

It depends. There's no surefire way of knowing when fertilisation takes place so it's impossible to put an exact time limit on it. That said, theoretically speaking only up until around fertilisation.

Doesn't the MAP prevent fertilisation? Or is it just implantation it prevents?

Morag · 08-05-2012 1:14pm

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Doesn't the MAP prevent fertilisation? Or is it just implantation it prevents?

It can prevent ovulation and implantation, if ovulation has already occurred and fertilisation happens then it's method is to prevent implantation.

Medically and legally pregnancy starts at Implantation not fertilisation.

Seachmall · 08-05-2012 1:35pm

partyatmygaff wrote: »

"Clump of cells" is not a biological term. Child on the other hand is a perfectly accurate biological term.

It's not,

"Biologically, a child is anyone between birth and puberty or in the developmental stage of childhood, between infancy and adulthood."
- Wiki

"a person 6 to 12 years of age. An individual 2 to 5 years old is child, preschool."
- Biology Online

OldNotWIse · 08-05-2012 1:43pm

Sharrow wrote: »

It can prevent ovulation and implantation, if ovulation has already occurred and fertilisation happens then it's method is to prevent implantation.

Medically and legally pregnancy starts at Implantation not fertilisation.

So it stops a pregnancy, it doesn't undo one that already exists. Why the problem with it then?

Nothingbetter2d · 08-05-2012 2:17pm

anhedonia wrote: »

it should be mandatory for those that can't afford to raise them without state aid.

fyp

lounakin · 08-05-2012 2:29pm

I am pro-choice, that said, I wouldn't get an abortion. One thing I'm struggling with is this: as soon as conception begins, the idea of a child is created. Being ok with suppressing this idea (to me) is denying that we have a 'spiritual' self or at least that we are not just a body. If we are just a body and nothing else, a woman who's had a mastectomy for instance, is not a woman. But we are more than just a body or a clump of cells. I would definitely struggle with this but I understand that for some people this isn't a problem.

partyatmygaff · 08-05-2012 2:45pm

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Doesn't the MAP prevent fertilisation? Or is it just implantation it prevents?

It does both. In most cases, i'd say it prevents fertilisation.

Seachmall wrote: »

It's not,

"Biologically, a child is anyone between birth and puberty or in the developmental stage of childhood, between infancy and adulthood."
- Wiki

"a person 6 to 12 years of age. An individual 2 to 5 years old is child, preschool."
- Biology Online

They're two very wooly definitions as far as i'm concerned. A perfect definition to my mind would be similar to the definition of progeny except in the singular. The definitions you have are specific to humans and aren't particularly robust.

A robust definition would be:
"A child is an individual organism who is the progeny of one or two other individuals from the previous generation."

That's a much better definition of the term.

harperlee · 08-05-2012 2:46pm

I'm not pro abortion but I am pro choice, women should be allowed to decided this very though decision with out religion and society making them feel like crap about it. It should be available along with counselling and support and not a guilt trip.

partyatmygaff · 08-05-2012 2:55pm

harperlee wrote: »

I'm not pro abortion but I am pro choice, women should be allowed to decided this very though decision with out religion and society making them feel like crap about it.

It's nothing to do with making people feel crap about anything. Elective abortion is nothing short of immoral (And no, not for religious reasons. I'm not Catholic). If you do something that you know is wrong then guilt is a perfectly natural reaction. If there ever was a vote, as far as i'm concerned, I wouldn't help make it easier for people to do something I consider completely immoral.

It should be available along with counselling and support and not a guilt trip.

Counseling and support for people who went abroad and had an abortion is fine. Counseling and support for people who have to abort for medical reasons is also fine.

Counseling and support before an elective abortion to try and make it seem less immoral isn't on though.

Seachmall · 08-05-2012 3:47pm

partyatmygaff wrote: »

It does both. In most cases, i'd say it prevents fertilisation.

They're two very wooly definitions as far as i'm concerned. A perfect definition to my mind would be similar to the definition of progeny except in the singular. The definitions you have are specific to humans and aren't particularly robust.

A robust definition would be:
"A child is an individual organism who is the progeny of one or two other individuals from the previous generation."

That's a much better definition of the term.

That's your definition, not necessarily a biological one.

partyatmygaff · 08-05-2012 3:58pm

Seachmall wrote: »

That's your definition, not necessarily a biological one.

Which is the more accurate definition? Just because something's in Wikipedia or in a book doesn't necessarily make it perfect.

"A child is anyone between birth and puberty or in the developmental stage of childhood, between infancy and adulthood."

You're still your mother's child, right? No matter what age you are, you're still someone's child.

When you look at the definition I gave however:
"A child is an individual organism who is the progeny of one or two other individuals from the previous generation."

That's perfectly valid in all circumstances for all species at all ages.

Seachmall · 08-05-2012 4:17pm

partyatmygaff wrote: »

That's perfectly valid in all circumstances for all species at all ages.

Yes, but it's your definition, not necessarily an accepted definition within biology.

Your claim that "child" is an accurate biological term is irrelevant if you're defining the term and if it doesn't coincide with a widely accepted biological definition.

harperlee · 08-05-2012 4:19pm

partyatmygaff wrote: »

harperlee wrote: »

I'm not pro abortion but I am pro choice, women should be allowed to decided this very though decision with out religion and society making them feel like crap about it.

It's nothing to do with making people feel crap about anything. Elective abortion is nothing short of immoral (And no, not for religious reasons. I'm not Catholic). If you do something that you know is wrong then guilt is a perfectly natural reaction. If there ever was a vote, as far as i'm concerned, I wouldn't help make it easier for people to do something I consider completely immoral.

It should be available along with counselling and support and not a guilt trip.

Counseling and support for people who went abroad and had an abortion is fine. Counseling and support for people who have to abort for medical reasons is also fine.

Counseling and support before an elective abortion to try and make it seem less immoral isn't on though.

Please see it from the view of women who are in this situation, I doubt it's a decision that is anyway easy to make. I agree it's an awful thing to do but it's not our lives and I don't think we have the right to make that choice for anyone.

nozzferrahhtoo · 08-05-2012 4:28pm

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Elective abortion is nothing short of immoral

Says you. Thankfully however you simply saying it does not make it so and I have yet to see this declaration being backed up by any cogent arguments ever. Let alone on this thread.

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Counseling and support before an elective abortion to try and make it seem less immoral isn't on though.

I am unaware of any counselling programme that is there to dictate the morality or immorality of your situation so we are rather in danger of entering straw man territory here. Counselling is not about deciding something in your past was moral or not. It is about coming to terms within yourself regarding events and choices in ones past. Counselling is not just applicable to things like abortion either. At times even people who have had a heart bypass can need counselling as not everyone confronts their own mortality equally well when they meet it that closely.

If elective abortion ever comes to Ireland I do indeed think access to counselling consultation will be required and it has nothing whatsoever to do with the morality of abortion.

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Which is the more accurate definition?

How one defines things like "Life" and "individual" and "child" is not quite as easy as simply declaring a definition to be the best and running with it throughout life. Context is clearly important.

Alas this means that some level of trickery is afforded the speaker on issues like abortion. The speaker merely has to leave the context of abortion... create a definition that sounds pretty generally good... then wheel it wholesale back into the discussion at which point they can go "Therefore the fetus is a child, and killing children is bad, so abortion is immoral."

At the end of the day the context here is whether the fetus has rights or not and hence whether there is a moral implication in terminating it. As such I do not think one can coherently define the fetus into attaining rights solely by playing a generalized linguistic definition game aimed at attaining a definition that allows one to sneak those rights in the back door.

I simply see no cogent argument for affording a fetus rights at certain stages in the development and a generalized cherry picked definition of "child" is certainly not a jumping point for getting there.

OldNotWIse · 08-05-2012 4:29pm

harperlee wrote: »

Please see it from the view of women who are in this situation, I doubt it's a decision that is anyway easy to make. I agree it's an awful thing to do but it's not our lives and I don't think we have the right to make that choice for anyone.

Interesting choice of words...

Pushtrak · 08-05-2012 4:40pm

http://www.irishcentral.com/news/Irish-government-rejects-UN-findings-in-abortion-rights-131581738.html (Oct '11)

The Irish Government has rejected six recommendations by the UN Human Rights Council to legalize or partially legalize abortion, according to the Irish Times.

Out of a total of 126 recommendations, the Government accepted 62 and claimed that they would “study carefully” 49 more before the next Human Rights council session in March, 2012.

These recommendations to Ireland were "based on the first review of Ireland’s record under the UN’s Universal Periodic Review, a process that culminated in a hearing involving Minister for Justice Alan Shatter in Geneva last week," the article reported.

These 49 recommendations addressed controversial issues such as conditions in prisons, gender equality, mental health, torture prevention, and children's rights.

Just under half of the 15 recommendations the Government rejected were on the topic of abortion. These included a plea from Slovenia to allow for abortion "at least when pregnancy poses a risk to the health of the pregnant woman" and for the country to implement the judgement made by the European Court of Human Rights on the A, B, and C v Ireland case.

The current law in Ireland regarding abortion holds that abortion is illegal, except where there is a substantial risk to the life of the mother, including the risk of suicide. In those cases, abortion may be legal, but this rule is only applied after the 28th week of pregnancy. However, the 2010 landmark decision that held that Ireland had violated article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which confirms the right for respect with regard to one's privacy, without any interference by a public authority figure. The decision held that, although abortion is illegal in Ireland, it was uncertain whether or not the third participant, C, could have had access to an abortion if she feared her life was in danger; that is, there was no information available to her at the time where she could simply learn her rights in such a situation.

Justice Shatter reported that an "expert group" was to be appointed by the Government next month in order to implement the ruling in the historical civil rights case in an "adequate and comprehensive" way.

Abortion

Comments