Keep abortion out of Ireland

Zombrex wrote: »

I didn't ask you to a counter argument to the right to life, I asked you for a counter argument to bodily privacy.

You're the big fan of bodily privacy so why should i?

Zombrex wrote: »

And? So because of that it is not murder if I die? Why exactly?

Because I did not kill you. The disease did.

Zombrex wrote: »

Because a woman can do what she likes with her own body and the only one that can consent to invasion action on her body, even if that action results in the death of another individual. It is the same right you have, one you seem more than happy to have I might add. (ie Person A - give me your kidney Person B - no you don't have any right to my body).

Maybe if you agree with bodily privacy but the child inside her is not her body.

Zombrex wrote: »

To put if as bluntly as possible, if the foetus is simply another individual then what right does that individual have to the woman's body. No other human individual has right the woman's body other than the woman herself, so why would the foetus if it is just another individual?

You still haven't grasped the concepts and mechanics of pregnancy yet, have you. Yes the child is growing in a cavity within her body but it is not part of her body. When it is developed enough it will be expelled naturally, unless medical conditions dictate that a c-section is required.

Zombrex wrote: »

So Jehovah Witnesses should be forced by the State to give blood, or submit to a medical procedures involving blood, in order to save their children, even if they refuse on religious grounds? The child has a right to the parents body? Is that what you genuinely believe?

I do not believe any parent for any reason should be allowed to put the lives of their children in danger.
The child has a right to life. That is what I genuinely believe.

Anyway the point is moot http://www.independent.ie/health/jehovahs-witness-forced-to-have-lifesaving-transfusion-79512.html

Zombrex wrote: »

They currently don't as far as I'm aware. They can refuse to give blood if they wish, even if that results in the death of their children.

Do you disagree with that?

No.

Zombrex wrote: »

And? You want the foetus to be treated the same as a child that has already been born, don't you?

It is a human being is it not?

Zombrex wrote: »

A protection that does not allow the rest of us to break another person's right to bodily privacy, even if such action would allow us to live. So why would the foetus have that right when the rest of us don't? Why would the foetus, alone above all other individuals (even the woman's other children) have a right to the woman's body and a right to overrule any action the woman wishes to take to her body.

Well you're presenting a fallacious argument. Bodily privacy doesn't mean anything unless you take in to account the bodily privacy of the child.

Zombrex wrote: »

That seems to be the bit you are struggling with. The best you seem to be able to come up with is that abortion is different to all other possible cases, but you seem unable to explain why that changes the principle of bodily privacy. Again I suspect you are arguing from an emotional rather than rational position.

Only because I've been doing this late in the day and only just realised you were trying to paint me into a corner with a logical fallacy.

The problem is you refuse to grant the principle of bodily privacy to an unborn child and refuse to state why.

So, explain, why do you believe the unborn child should have no right to bodily privacy?

I just came across this. Absolutely disgusting and heartbreaking. Its old, but true. This apparantely happened in england somewhere:




A woman who agreed to an abortion after being told the foetus was severely handicapped had a normal, healthy baby who lived for 45 minutes after the termination.
Jacqueline James consented to the abortion at 27 weeks of pregnancy after doctors told her that routine ultrasound scans had revealed her baby had severe physical abnormalities.
Although born alive the baby died because of the stress brought about by drugs previously used in an attempt to induce termination, an inquest was told. Ms James, 26, said at the time: "I thought everything was going really well. I would never have had the abortion if I had known the baby was going to be all right."
The baby, named Natasha by her parents, was certified dead in the operating theatre at Wordsley hospital, Stourbridge, West Midlands 45 minutes after the Caesarean section in May 1994. A routine ultrasound scan earlier that month at the hospital had alerted doctors to a potential problem. Ms James was referred to the Birmingham Maternity hospital for a second scan by an expert who confirmed the original diagnosis.
Victor Round, the Dudley coroner, was told that Ms James had been given "very clear advice" by doctors that the foetus she was carrying was abnormal, and she and her partner decided on a late termination.
Under the 1990 Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act, which replaced the 1967 Abortion Act, the time limit on a termination was reduced from 28 weeks to 24. However, there is a provision within the act which allows termination up until birth if there is thought to be risk of a severe physical or mental handicap. When the inquest into Natasha's death was opened in June 1994, Ms James, who has daughter aged 9 and a five-year- old son, said she would never have agreed to an abortion if she had known her unborn child was normal.
Mr Round read from a report by Dr Ian Rushton, a senior lecturer in pathology at Birmingham University which said the foetus was normal and corresponded in weight to the time of pregnancy. He said death was due to stress brought about by drugs previously used in an attempt to induce termination.
A second report by Dr Imogen Morgan, a consultant at Birmingham Maternity Hospital, said that the initial attempts to induce the abortion had failed but had caused stress to the foetus. "The infant was born live and was cared for but not actively resuscitated and died [shortly after]," she said.
Richard Blunt, medical director of the Dudley Group of Hospitals NHS Trust, said that no attempt to resuscitate the baby was made, despite it appearing healthy, because Ms James was undergoing a termination. "If you do a termination late in pregnancy then [the foetus] comes out in one piece ... and that therefore it may be alive and kicking. This is the dreadful thing. [The foetus] did not have any major physical abnormalities, but it would require a post-mortem to establish any internal problems. Everyone was so upset it turned out to be healthy."
Mr Blunt said the hospital relied on the opinion of an expert that the baby was abnormal. "The tragic thing for this girl was that the ultrasound was misleading," he said.
The coroner at the resumed inquest concluded that none of the usual verdicts was appropriate in the circumstances and recorded a verdict of death due to legal termination.

Helix wrote: »

they're foetuses

They're humans.

You know, human beings. Same as toddlers, teenagers, adults and geriatrics are human beings.

Foetus is a term for a life stage of a human being.

Helix wrote: »

in a democracy, majority rules, so if the majority in ireland decide that abortion in certain cases in lawful, then so be it.

What if the majotity said that all sick, old, infirm, travellers, homeless and gays were to be terminated aswell? Reminds me of something.........

Helix wrote: »

in a democracy, majority rules, so if the majority in ireland decide that abortion in certain cases in lawful, then so be it. i don't get why christians are getting so up in arms about this. your religion forbids it, so anyone who is a practicing christian would surely not get an abortion anyway? how does it affect you and your fellow christians?

it doesnt, at least it shouldnt

it's not for you to tell non christians what they can do, unless you hold a countrywide majority and your viewpoint gains the most votes in a referendum. abortion is not a christian issue. in fact its completely inapplicable to christians by default, as its against your religion.

So if the majority in Ireland decided that anyone over the age of say, 25, should be euthanased you would have no problem with that, after all this is a democracy , right?

Or perhaps the majority could decide that the unemployed are no longer entitled to food, water and shelter, is that acceptable in a democracy?

Abortion is not a religious issue any more than human rights is a religious issue. The reality is that Christians are probably the majority voice in fighting this war on life.

This is about the most basic right of all humans regardless of race, colour or creed. The right to life.