an abortion referendum

invincibleirish

(i know this might be suitable in other forums but seeing as the electorate will ultimately decide this issue i put it in the politics forum.)


would you vote for abortion to be legalised or keep the laws as they are.

i personally am pro-choice and would support a womans right to choose.

Sparks

Yes, legalise it.

Moriarty

Legalise it.

Paddy20

As a humanatarian. I could not possibly condone the murder by abortion of the innocent unborn.

Life is sacrosanct, and a foetus is a living human with a soul.

As far as I recall. The people of Ireland have already made their feelings on this issue very clear when they rejected abortion. In a real life Referendum?..

Paddy20

invincibleirish

indeed,but what of the argument that 1000s of women have to flee their country every year to have an abortion in the uk?surely they should have the right to have it here seeing as they are going to get it done anyway.

Paddy20

It is extremely sad that many women choose that route of going to England to participate in the killing of innocent human life.

When, countless married couples in this Country are waiting to abopt, the newly born - because they have not been blessed with a child of their own, for many reasons.

At present, abortion is still illegal here, and no one forces these women to go abroad for an abortion. If they were stopped in law from being allowed to choose that route, it could then be argued that the law here is unfair, but the people have spoken.

PeterODonnell

I recall that in the last referendum in 2001 or 2002, I voted "Yes". I am very liberal on most social issues. However, I had personal issues, i.e. I am adopted and I was conscious that had abortion been allowed in this state, then I might not be here today. However, I sympathise greatly with women who are the victims of sexual violence and in hindsight, I recognise that there is not always a "black and white" to every situation. I feel that obviously, as is allowed at present, it should be possible to terminate the pregnancy where that pregnancy is ectopic, i.e. where the embryo forms in the fallopian tubes instead of the womb, thus putting the mother's life at risk. If the pregnant woman is a rape victim, then abortion should also be allowed. But I am against abortion on demand. I think adoption is a preferable option, such as what happened to me.

Boston

Originally posted by PeterODonnell
I recall that in the last referendum in 2001 or 2002, I voted "Yes". I am very liberal on most social issues. However, I had personal issues, i.e. I am adopted and I was conscious that had abortion been allowed in this state, then I might not be here today. However, I sympathise greatly with women who are the victims of sexual violence and in hindsight, I recognise that there is not always a "black and white" to every situation. I feel that obviously, as is allowed at present, it should be possible to terminate the pregnancy where that pregnancy is ectopic, i.e. where the embryo forms in the fallopian tubes instead of the womb, thus putting the mother's life at risk. If the pregnant woman is a rape victim, then abortion should also be allowed. But I am against abortion on demand. I think adoption is a preferable option, such as what happened to me.

afaik, If the child is believed to be still born, or have sever deformities or the like, or that the mother may be in any way in danger, abortion will be provided.

Anyway i'd vote to keep it as the status quo. Abortion shouldn't ever be convinent, and a trip to england to have it done is no harm. Surely nobody would support this "have an abortion in yours lunch hour" approach in england (btw i'm well aware its not a cut and dry as all that)

Sparks

Originally posted by Paddy20
a foetus is a living human with a soul.

Since (as I've said on the Humanities thread) this is a difficult subject for me to approach rationally, I'll just keep this short and sweet :

Prove it.

Boston

Originally posted by Sparks
Prove it.

Prove it doesn't. Anywho rather then challenging otehrs view points, as this is a very emotive, personal and pointless topic, why don't you just state your own

Abortion, now this is an issue that has no question in my mind at all.
I totally oppose the distruction of unborn human life.
I know it's legal, in a lot of countries, and people here are free to travel to have the deed done there.
I would not try to stop them or curtail information on how to procure an abortion.
As it's everybodies personal right to choose.
But if I am asked in a referendum to allow abortion here, I will always vote no.
It is a conscience thing with me.
If a world wide referendum were held I would also vote no.
To me, I was once a fist in my mothers womb and see what I've become today.
The whole subject saddens me to be honest.
And before anyone brings up the subject of Rape, I'll be forthright and honest in my views there too.Going to have an abortion after six weeks,is denying a potential human being the right to choose to live or die.
It's not their fault how they came into existance.
But it is a failing in humanity that the pressure and mental torture can be too much to bear for the Victim of such a crime resulting in a decision to Abort.
This thread belongs next door methinks.
mm

Paddy20

Sparks,

I will keep it short and sweet. You are only a foetus that was allowed to live and be born!. Proof enough for me.

Paddy20;)

Sparks

Prove it doesn't? Sure.
In the entire history of medicine, noone has ever been able to identify a physical part of the body that they could call a soul. Not in a foetus, not in a fully-grown adult.

They have however, been able to show that the neocortex is where we do the bulk of our higher level thinking - the stuff that seperates us from what we consider lower forms of life. And that the electrical activity in the neocortex that is associated with that thinking does not arise until some time after birth.

As to my views on this, try reading the thread on this subject here
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=103433

Originally posted by Sparks
Prove it doesn't? Sure.
In the entire history of medicine, noone has ever been able to identify a physical part of the body that they could call a soul. Not in a foetus, not in a fully-grown adult.

They have however, been able to show that the neocortex is where we do the bulk of our higher level thinking - the stuff that seperates us from what we consider lower forms of life. And that the electrical activity in the neocortex that is associated with that thinking does not arise until some time after birth.

Thats all well and good for you sparks, when you are not ( as you have stated elsewhere on this board ) a Christian.
A Debate with you regarding the existance of a soul would be pointless, as you would be asking the opposite side to deny their faith, and clearly if they did that, they would also be denying the existance of a "spititual" or "Christian" soul.
There can be no debate on Faith, it's something you either have or you haven't, end of story.

Back on the central point of Abortion, I'd obviously largely agree with Paddy20 here in that, what he said is exactly true, we were all once but a fist in our mothers womb's with the potential to become what we are today.
As a matter of conscience, and essentially thats what this debate usually boils down to, I could never support abortion, for that reason.
mm

sci0x

I would not vote for abortion to be legalized. However I think there should be the choice of adoption in certain cases such as where the pregnancy endangers a woman's life or if the woman is suicidal over their pregnancy maybe if she was raped.

Dun

I would vote no, as I too believe that everyone has the right to life. Just because you're on the inside rather than the outside what makes you less human?

Abortion is just selfishness in most cases. You're killing off 'the problem'. What if you're mother had had a problem.

And sorry for carrying this on off-topic, but..

Originally posted by Sparks
Prove it doesn't? Sure.
In the entire history of medicine, noone has ever been able to identify a physical part of the body that they could call a soul.

DNA wasn't discovered until 50 years ago. It existed before that, we're quite sure of that, just as America was there before . Just because you can't find something doesn't mean it's not there.

Sparks

Originally posted by Man
Thats all well and good for you sparks, when you are not ( as you have stated elsewhere on this board ) a Christian.
A Debate with you regarding the existance of a soul would be pointless, as you would be asking the opposite side to deny their faith, and clearly if they did that, they would also be denying the existance of a "spititual" or "Christian" soul.
There can be no debate on Faith, it's something you either have or you haven't, end of story.

And that is precisely why you cannot decide on this issue on religious grounds.
To decide that abortion is wrong because of a tenet of catholocism or christianity requires that you first establish that Bhuddism, Hinduism, Secular Humanism, and every other religion the world over is wrong and that christianity is right when it comes to religious matters.

Back on the central point of Abortion, I'd obviously largely agree with Paddy20 here in that, what he said is exactly true, we were all once but a fist in our mothers womb's with the potential to become what we are today.

I am what I am, not because of my origins as a cluster of cells in my mothers womb, but because of the upbringing that my parents gave me.
In other words, taking every foetus to term is not going to ensure that every foetus becomes a "good" person.
It will however, ensure that a large portion of the next generation will not have had the upbringing that they might have had, had the condom not broken and their parents had had a few more years to get established themselves.

As a matter of conscience, and essentially thats what this debate usually boils down to, I could never support abortion, for that reason.

I do have to wonder Man, would you have the same opinion if you had either gone through the process with the pro-life crowd making judgements like I've seen on this thread already against you; or if you'd seen someone you love forced to go through it?

dun_do_bheal,

Just because you're on the inside rather than the outside what makes you less human?

Because you can't exist outside the womb?
Once the foetus is capable of survival on it's own, then yes, it has a right to life.
Not before - before that, the only rights are those of the mother.

Abortion is just selfishness in most cases. You're killing off 'the problem'. What if you're mother had had a problem.

That's got to be one of the most insulting statements on this that I've heard for a few years from someone who wasn't cheering the people that kill doctors for performing abortions in the States...

DNA wasn't discovered until 50 years ago. It existed before that, we're quite sure of that, just as America was there before . Just because you can't find something doesn't mean it's not there.

But we knew a mechanism like DNA existed and we could predict how it worked. It was like gravity is now - we may not have identified the specific particle involved, or whether it's even a particle, but we know it exists and how it's effects work.
The "soul" has no such status. There simply is no proof whatsoever that it exists.

invincibleirish

i can understand people who are coming from a christian moral perspective,but that only applies to you and to those that believe,surely every women deserves the right to make that choice for herself?

simu

In a perfect world it would never be necessary to get rid of foetuses because contraception would work 100% of the time, there would be no rapes, no incest, no silly teenagers getting in over their necks and having sex before they're able to take responsibility for their actions etc etc.

As for those who say that adoption is always an option:

Do you not realise that women are not always able or willing to give up the next 9 months of their lives to see an unwnted pregnancy through to its end? Pregnancy is extremely demanding both mentally and physically. What about women who have careers/are donig the leaving cert/college exams/are getting ready to climb Mount Everest/ whatever?

Is a woman's only choice to be celibate(given that no form of contraceptive is 100% sure) or be prepared to give up the next 9 months of her life every time she has sex?

And how would men feel if all the women in Ireland decided to become celibate to avoid unwanted pregnancies and eventual abortions?:D

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Sparks
And that is precisely why you cannot decide on this issue on religious grounds.

I would tend to agree, but would also point out that political ideology is often as potent and irrational a substitute for religion, Sparks...

Once the foetus is capable of survival on it's own, then yes, it has a right to life.
Not before - before that, the only rights are those of the mother.

Should a person who requires a medicine or a respirator to survive have a right to live? Perhaps an infant should be exposed to the elements, as the Spartans did, and if it survives the night be given the right of citizenship?

However, this is a point that I’ve challenged you on before and you went so far as to refine your argument to say that it was more to do with self awareness. Yet you never did get back to answer whether anyone in a coma or with brain damage should not be defined as a person? Or at what point in Parkinson’s disease should we revoke someone’s humanity then? Did you?

If you’ll allow me the observation Sparks, your definitions of humanity appear driven by ideology rather than reason.

That's got to be one of the most insulting statements on this that I've heard for a few years from someone who wasn't cheering the people that kill doctors for performing abortions in the States...

And that has to be as equally sweeping and inane a generalization as you’re accusing others of making.

Pot. Kettle. You can guess the rest...

Sparks

I would tend to agree, but would also point out that political ideology is often as potent and irrational a substitute for religion, Sparks...

Indeed, and that's why my ideology doesn't dictate my beliefs in this, but my experiences.

Should a person who requires a medicine or a respirator to survive have a right to live?

Yes, because they're suffering from an illness, not an inherent and intrinsic condition.

However, this is a point that I’ve challenged you on before and you went so far as to refine your argument to say that it was more to do with self awareness. Yet you never did get back to answer whether anyone in a coma or with brain damage should not be defined as a person? Or at what point in Parkinson’s disease should we revoke someone’s humanity then? Did you?

Actually, not only did I, I did so before you asked the question in an attempt to forestall what I saw as an obvious question, and we discussed it :

Originally posted by Sparks
If you're not self-aware and self-sufficent and have never been so then yes, you don't have the legal status of a person.

The “and have never been so” is a new addition to your list of conditions.

The “and have never been so” is a new addition to your list of conditions.

I wanted to forestall the "what about a person in a coma on life-support" argument. The point was that once legal standing as a person is granted, it can't be revoked under any legal system I've ever heard of.

So, people in comas should be terminated and recycled?

*sigh*
See what I meant?

If you’ll allow me the observation Sparks, your definitions of humanity appear driven by ideology rather than reason.

Not the first time you've accused me of that one TC, and it's still not true, and my answer is still the same. My views are based on my experience, not someone else's ideology.

And that has to be as equally sweeping and inane a generalization as you’re accusing others of making.

Except that it isn't, because I'm not accusing other people of murder when I say that.
They are.

Paddy20

Sparks,

You appear to believe in "good"?, as in good rather than "evil".
Therefore, imho that alone confirms you have a soul or if you wish a spirit. This is a gift which is bestowed upon you as a human being whether you recognise it or not. The ability too differentiate between what you perceive to be good or evil, indicates to me that you care!, and in order to care about the never ending earthly battle between good and evil. You must have a soul or a spirit.

However, all human beings are from the moment of inception when life itself is created, then that life force is given the right too choose whichever road to take. To believe or not to believe, and I am a believer. If you are not, it simply means that as yet in your life you have not needed or wanted Gods grace to believe in the almighty creator of mankind. This fact will not make you a bad or evil person, nor condemn you in any way.

You are unique, and human. Therefore, you are imperfect as I am.

In life you will have to forgive others, as your creator I believe will forgive you.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Sparks
Yes, because they're suffering from an illness, not an inherent and intrinsic condition.

Funny, they used to think many inherited illnesses were ‘conditions’ once...

Actually, not only did I, I did so before you asked the question in an attempt to forestall what I saw as an obvious question, and we discussed it

At least I had the decency to pick out a post at the end of the discussion rather than one in the middle of it that was later rebutted.

Not the first time you've accused me of that one TC, and it's still not true, and my answer is still the same. My views are based on my experience, not someone else's ideology.

The pro-Choice equivalent of a liberal who’s been mugged? LOL

Except that it isn't, because I'm not accusing other people of murder when I say that.
They are.

And you’re accusing them of being inhuman monsters. Hardly the stuff of rational debate is it? Use whatever semantics you wish to use, but you are still using emotion over reason and hence committing the same crime of fanaticism you accuse others of.

sceptre

Originally posted by invincibleirish
surely every women deserves the right to make that choice for herself?

I'll happily go along with that POV.

Oh, and I'd legalise it. And for a start at least pass the necessary legislation based on the current constitutional position.

TomF

I got passionately opposed to abortion about 20 years ago when I read in a chemical engineering magazine that Eli Lilly & Company, a large U.S. pharmaceutical corporation, had been doing research on finding a cure for the common cold and were using nasal tissue from "freshly-aborted human fetuses" as their medium for conducting tests.

Culturally speaking, where California is now, the U.S. will be in 20 years; where the U.S. is now, Ireland will be in 20 years.

My advice is to turn back before it's too late!

Beruthiel

legalise it
a woman has the right to do as she wishes with her own body

gandalf

I normally avoid making my own personal views on this issue public because as a mod it normally causes me more hassle than its worth.

But here goes. I am strongly pro-choice. I believe it should be the decision of the person(s) directly effected. I do not see the logic of bringing a child into the world that is basically not wanted. If abortion is against your beliefs well don't have one but do not shove your values down the rest of the countries throat. This country is still messed up from the undue influence the Catholic Church has exerted on its development in the early & mid 20th Century.

The situation where we are letting Irish women go abroad to have abortions is pathetic. Typical Irish "See no evil, Hear no evil, Speak no evil".

Gandalf.

(On saying this I believe all the political parties use this issue cynically as a deflection tactic when some other part of government policy has gone badly wrong.)

Originally posted by Sparks
And that is precisely why you cannot decide on this issue on religious grounds.
To decide that abortion is wrong because of a tenet of catholocism or christianity requires that you first establish that Bhuddism, Hinduism, Secular Humanism, and every other religion the world over is wrong and that christianity is right when it comes to religious matters.

so you would deny me the right to vote on a topic, based on my beliefs Sparks?
Or require me to confirm my beliefs when compared to anybody elses set of beliefs?
Interesting, but Wrong, very Wrong.
Please note, that my statement to you regarding the existance of a soul has nothing whatsoever to do with my views on abortion.
I believe it is murder pure and simple, I wouldn't stop or disagree with anyones right to choose that option as that is a matter for their conscience.
But when asked a question as part of my democratic right in a referendum I will always vote no based on my beliefs and conscience.
Thats nothing more or nothing less than I would ask anyone else to do.
And incidently I most certainly do not push that opinion on anyone ,everyone has a right to their beliefs.
And regarding:

Indeed, and that's why my ideology doesn't dictate my beliefs in this, but my experiences.

It might surprise you, that the Catholic church or any church does not dictate my views on this subject, they are my own.

Originally posted by Gandalf:
I do not see the logic of bringing a child into the world that is basically not wanted.

A child is always wanted by someone.
There will be an impasse here without a doubt , between those who believe that, a potential human being does not have the right to live, based on it's mother deciding it must die because it's not wanted by her, and between those that believe that is murder.
mm

Jimi-Spandex

This is a very complex issue and it certainly can't be dealt with in a yes/no, legal/illegal pole.

The position at the moment being that abortion is legal in a situation where there is a real and substantial risk to the life of the mother. Thanks to the X case, suicide can be considered a real and substantial risk. Constitutionally the life of mother and unborn child are equal (thanks to that bloody referendum in the 80s). In its present form, abortion is not allowed for foetuses which are guaranteed to die and they aren't allowed in situations where a woman has become pregnant due to rape either.

As for what I believe the law should be, its the womans body and thus the woman's choice. Abortions should be legal and available to any pregnant woman who chooses to avail of them.

Finally, Man, I agree entirely that you are entitled to make a choice based on your beliefs but that doesn't mean that your beliefs should dictate what the rest of us can and can't do. To put it childishly, no one is forcing you to have an abortion, if your wife is raped and becomes pregnant, you are perfectly entitled to raise the child as your own in spite of the severely detrimental effects on your wife's mental health. (I know this is a rather sensationalist approach to take to the subject)

Originally posted by Jimi-Spandex
Finally, Man, I agree entirely that you are entitled to make a choice based on your beliefs but that doesn't mean that your beliefs should dictate what the rest of us can and can't do.

I presume you mean of course in relation to abortion.
As I've said already,I would not even attempt to impose, my beliefs on anyone else in relation to this subject, it is a matter for ones individual conscience.
However that does not proclude me from voting against the availability here of something I fervently disbelieve in, when asked to do so in a democratic referendum.
mm

The Corinthian

From a humanist approach, abortion actually comes down to our definition or what we accept to be human and if that human has the same rights as the rest of us.

While most pro-Life proponents would accept that an hour pre-conception the egg and ovum are not human and pro-Choice that an hour pre-birth the foetus is human, agreement on when one should humanize the foetus, or zygote, as it were, is the hotly debated core of the problem.

On one side, humanity seems liberally given to anything that is fertilized, even though it may not be viable beyond a few hours for perfectly natural reasons. On the other side, numerous arbitrary metre sticks have been applied so as to define an expedient cut-off point to facilitate the process.

So not unlike Schroedinger's cat, we are faced with two possible realities of which only one may be true, but that we are unable to agree upon. However, if we consider both of them we begin to realize that it does ironically become a question of black and white, however unpopular boolean judgements are nowadays.

If the foetus is not human (at whatever stage of development) that the issue is clear-cut - the woman’s choice would appear to supersede all others; although one would also have to consider the father’s right to reproduction in the question as a secondary but mitigating right. Nonetheless, in such a scenario the debate is moot, as we cannot ascribe rights to an almost human, but only to a human.

On the other hand if the foetus is human (at whatever stage of development), then as such it has the fundamental right to life and should we give all humans the same rights and attribute to them the same value, a mother could not impose her morality on that other individual and thus the only scenario where abortion would be permissible would be where both mother and child would (most likely) die without the intervention due to medical reasons.

As an aside, one may pipe up now and argue that even so a woman’s rights supersede those of an unborn child or foetus, even if we accept its humanity - but if one does that, they must at least admit to proposing a utilitarian rather than humanist approach.

Unfortunately, this debate is one that has become a question of ideology rather than reason, where both sides seem intent to use emotive language and action born of their faith or politics and the inevitable pub conversation.

One side or the other tells us that abortion is the murder of the unborn or a fundamental woman’s right; and so we are either spiritually or socially damned either way. An image of a perfectly formed aborted foetus or the use of an exceptional scenario, such as the a pregnancy caused by rape, are common devices used as a matter of course, to sway us to fall into the camp of one side or the other. Even the language is designed to emote - no one is ever pro or anti abortion, everyone is pro life or choice - all very warm and fuzzy and frankly manipulative terms.

Personally, I would contend that morally abortion is that black and white scenario based upon whether the foetus is a human or not. Shades of grey would only come in when one accepts (the likelihood) of foetus being human but applies a utilitarian response. While if the foetus is not human then the only grey is a collection of expendable cells.

And so, if we stick to such fundamentals and ignore the propagandistic white noise of hysteria and ideology, we might actually come to our own conclusions.

MDR

Very articulate argument, however, I must ask, although I do acknowledge that you weren't spinning around the subject, however do you have any firm beliefs (I do not admittedly) of your own.

Using the terms which you have defined for us, is it human or not ?

I personally have no idea, but would probably err on the side of caution, admittedly I haven't been in the position where I have had to make that choice, I hope that I never will be (touch wood), and amn't entirely sure whether I am comfortable having the state make the choice for me.

It is a very divisive issue after all.

Kev

Whether it is human or not doesn't really matter, the only human right we have are those that society allows us.

Sparks

Paddy20,

You appear to believe in "good"?, as in good rather than "evil".

It might appear like that to you - in fact I don't, not in the sense you mean. I'm not amoral, but my sense of morality and ethics is not one any christian church would agree with, and it was formed independent of the church my parents tried raising me in.

Therefore, imho that alone confirms you have a soul or if you wish a spirit.

No, it does not. Ethics have been argued over by humans for thousands of years, and while the word "soul" has been bandied about for an equal length of time (or an analogue of that word, given that the earliest reference to a soul that I know of is in Aristotle), it has never been identified in the human body and has never been shown to exist through indirect means either.
A good analogue to the concept of the soul, IMO, would be the concept of the aether. That was discussed for a hundred years or so by physicists before being dismissed by the mainstream because noone could prove it existed, but people could prove that it couldn't be detected directly or indirectly.

The ability too differentiate between what you perceive to be good or evil

That "ability" either exists in all humans or it is a learned behaviour. And sociopathy proves that it doesn't exist in all humans, and the ethical differences between our way of life and that of other cultures proves it's a learned behaviour. Not an intrinsic part of a human.

in order to care about the never ending earthly battle between good and evil. You must have a soul or a spirit.

Actually, I merely require a television and an interest in retro TV shows.

I am a believer

Than believe - but come near anyone I care about with your beliefs and condemn them because their actions do not cooincide with your beliefs, and you can expect a hostile reception.

TC,

Funny, they used to think many inherited illnesses were ‘conditions’ once...

An inherited illness (by which I mean a geneticly passed-on disease, not one passed on through infection from the mother) is a condition. For example, the congenital heart defect commonly referred to as a "hole in the heart". That's a genetic defect, it is a condition but (and this is the important bit), it does not affect your legal right to life by my definition, because if it's serious enough to prevent you from being able to live outside the womb, odds are that you're not going to be curable, and if it's not serious enough, then by my definition, you do have a right to life.
So I don't see what a half-baked attempt to refer to pseudo-scientificly based bigotry has to do with the arguement.

At least I had the decency to pick out a post at the end of the discussion rather than one in the middle of it that was later rebutted.

Actually, my quote was from the first page of the argument, and yours came from much later on, ignoring the arguments that came before it (which was rather disingenous to my eyes). And "rebutted"? Where?

The pro-Choice equivalent of a liberal who’s been mugged? LOL

Not quite, and it's not funny.

And you’re accusing them of being inhuman monsters.

No, I'm accusing people who are pro-life of inflicting psychological harm on the women they condemn. Which is an accusation based in recorded fact and personal experience. So you might say I'm accusing them of being very human monsters.

Hardly the stuff of rational debate is it?

Nope. As I explained to you (or tried to) in the other thread, I have no problem with discussing the matter rationally - but the moment someone comes in and says "abortion is murder" without proof, we've abandoned any pretence at rationality and at that point, my impulse is to shut them up because I've seen what those accusations can do to the women involved.

TomF,
And what would have happened if Eli Lilly & Company had not obtained that foetal material? Wouldn't it have gone into the medical waste incinerator?

Man,

so you would deny me the right to vote on a topic, based on my beliefs Sparks?

Nope, I'd deny you the right on the basis that you don't have a right to force someone to undergo something related to their bodies without a reason that's not religiously motivated. Especially not given the assumed gender your handle implies.
Unfortunatly, I'm not world dictator just yet, so I'll argue with you first.

Or require me to confirm my beliefs when compared to anybody elses set of beliefs?

Damn straight, if your beliefs are going to result in a serious change in someone else's health, and life.

I believe it is murder pure and simple, I wouldn't stop or disagree with anyones right to choose that option as that is a matter for their conscience.
But when asked a question as part of my democratic right in a referendum I will always vote no based on my beliefs and conscience.
Thats nothing more or nothing less than I would ask anyone else to do.
And incidently I most certainly do not push that opinion on anyone ,everyone has a right to their beliefs.

See, that's different. That I can understand and live with and respect. And by the way TC, the difference between what Man just said and what Paddy keeps saying is why I find this a difficult subject to discuss rationally. One will come after other people based on their beliefs, the other won't.

TC,

From a humanist approach, abortion actually comes down to our definition or what we accept to be human and if that human has the same rights as the rest of us.

Not quite, it doesn't come down to one thing, but to two. There is the issue you point out : there is also the issue of concern for the mother and her life.

On one side, humanity seems liberally given to anything that is fertilized

On what basis do you make that assertion?

On the other side, numerous arbitrary metre sticks have been applied so as to define an expedient cut-off point to facilitate the process.

Indeed. But what makes you think that the intial fertilisation itself is not an arbitary cut-off point?

If the foetus is not human (at whatever stage of development) that the issue is clear-cut - the woman’s choice would appear to supersede all others; although one would also have to consider the father’s right to reproduction in the question as a secondary but mitigating right. Nonetheless, in such a scenario the debate is moot, as we cannot ascribe rights to an almost human, but only to a human.
On the other hand if the foetus is human (at whatever stage of development), then as such it has the fundamental right to life and should we give all humans the same rights and attribute to them the same value, a mother could not impose her morality on that other individual and thus the only scenario where abortion would be permissible would be where both mother and child would (most likely) die without the intervention due to medical reasons.

On that, we are in full agreement.

But since you can't define the point at which the foetus becomes human, you have one of two options - either you put emphasis on defending the alleged rights of the unborn foetus, or you put emphasis on defending the established rights of the mother.
Ideally, this wouldn't even be a choice, but until we find the "right metrestick" to use your analogy, we have to make one. Me, I've seen first-hand how damaging the attitudes of pro-lifers can be, and I've got neither time nor patience for them when they forget that the mother is not an abstract concept or an "evildoer", but a human being, often in an emotionally fraught state. So I choose the mother.

Originally posted by Sparks

Man,

Nope, I'd deny you the right on the basis that you don't have a right to force someone to undergo something related to their bodies without a reason that's not religiously motivated. Especially not given the assumed gender your handle implies.
Unfortunatly, I'm not world dictator just yet, so I'll argue with you first.

Well, as , you have noticed, and accepted further down your post my views on the subject are based on my beliefs and not on any Religous perogative.
If anyone who has had an abortion, does so, with a clear conscience, that is a matter for them and good luck to them.
It is not for me to judge them, it is for their God, if there is one, when they leave this life themselves.
No amount of argument could change my mind as regards, the potential of an unborn child and that it should not be terminated except in extreme circumstances( the usual medical ones ).
That view is engrained within me, given that I was once such an entity myself.
mm

Nevyn

For as long as there have been men and women there have be unwanted pregnancies and ways to stop them granted 90% of them left the woman dead if is only of late that is no longer the case.

It is all fine and well saying that every child is wanted that some will fall over them to adopt a child that is not wanted by the mother. But in fact society of late condemns those who carry the child to term and gives it way (in most cases to a loving home and better conditions then she could provide) even more so then those who choose to have a termination.

How many teen mothers who have kept the child they are not able to rear or control and as a result of lack of knowledge, support and parenting skills are rearing what will be a bane on them, their families and the community at large?

Until sex education is taught properly and contraception is widely available and people take responsibility for their action and their body’s abortion will be
An option. In an ideal world no child would be conceived with out the planning and
Preparations needed to nurture it for the rest of it life. But we don’t live in one do we?

No we don’t, and the sooner this is accepted and people in this country stop being so damned hypocritical about the whole thing the better, for seeking a termination is a hard choice and upsetting enough for those involved (couples do seek it not just women) with out having to travel to another country. And there is no proper aftercare and counselling here as a result.


And before people start jumping to all sorts of conclusions I was a womans right officer in college , and no one is ever Pro abortion but life and people are not perfect.

BKtje

For the record i'd be Pro Choice.

I would have to say that i dont consider a foetus to be Human till it can exist without the mother (wether in an incubator or without). I also believe that parent(s) should have the choice till the stage above is reached. On the whole i agree with Sparks.

I don't totally believe in this 'Good' and 'Evil' business either.
What we may believe to be evil may not be evil from his/her perspective (or is that what makes him/her evil?). Guilt is the main issue here and wether someone feels guilty about something. If you feel guilty about doing something than usually you realise that it is wrong. However this too is not clear cut.
ie a Bankrobber may not feel guilty about taking other peoples money but it *is* wrong.

If a parent feels guilty about having an abortion then they believe it to be wrong and personally i dont believe they should be allowed to have it done in this case as it would go against their 'belief system'. However prooving that someone feels guilty is not possible so i guess that this argument is kinda pointless.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Sparks
So I don't see what a half-baked attempt to refer to pseudo-scientificly based bigotry has to do with the arguement.

Wasn’t a lot of pseudo-scientificly based bigotry considered scientific fact once?

Maybe we’ve got it right this time...

Actually, my quote was from the first page of the argument, and yours came from much later on, ignoring the arguments that came before it (which was rather disingenous to my eyes). And "rebutted"? Where?

I didn’t ignore your points. Read the thread.

Not quite, and it's not funny.

Awe diddums. Stop taking yourself so seriously.

So you might say I'm accusing them of being very human monsters.

You’re kind of missing my point...

As I explained to you (or tried to) in the other thread, I have no problem with discussing the matter rationally - but the moment someone comes in and says "abortion is murder" without proof, we've abandoned any pretence at rationality and at that point, my impulse is to shut them up because I've seen what those accusations can do to the women involved.

I’m not certain I’ve ever stated that “abortion is murder” at any point, and even if I did, I certainly would not do so without a painfully long and logical argument, yet you’ve abandoned any pretence at rationality, protesting indignation towards me on more than one occasion.

Not quite, it doesn't come down to one thing, but to two. There is the issue you point out : there is also the issue of concern for the mother and her life.

No, really it comes down to just the foetus being human. No one, including pro-life proponents (excluding mad people, and you get them everywhere) would deny that abortion is inevitable in certain medical cases, so as to save a mother’s life (I pointed that out already). However, whether the foetus is human or not, completely changes how abortion is viewed or how we would consider it acceptable to practice in any other scenario.

I’ve found in the past that to contend that abortion is simply a woman’s issue is already an admission of partisanship; for if the foetus is human then it adopts the wider significance of a human issue.

On what basis do you make that assertion?

I wasn’t, I was just postulating one of the two extremes of the debate.

Indeed. But what makes you think that the intial fertilisation itself is not an arbitary cut-off point?

I’d imagine that to those who would argue that the potentiality of sperm/egg, pre-fertilization, to become human makes it human it probably would be seen as that.

Otherwise, fertilisation and birth would appear to be the logical points in-between which this debate resides.

On that, we are in full agreement.

We’re not, I was just postulating the other of the two extremes of the debate.

But since you can't define the point at which the foetus becomes human, you have one of two options - either you put emphasis on defending the alleged rights of the unborn foetus, or you put emphasis on defending the established rights of the mother.

Which is a perfectly reasonable utilitarian argument (to favour the known utility of a resource over the potential utility of another), however it is not a humanist one. A humanist approach would probably seek to understand whether the foetus is human or not and failing that give it the benefit of the doubt - given the consequences to it, the principle of innocent until proven guilty, would seem to apply.

Ideally, this wouldn't even be a choice, but until we find the "right metrestick" to use your analogy, we have to make one. Me, I've seen first-hand how damaging the attitudes of pro-lifers can be, and I've got neither time nor patience for them when they forget that the mother is not an abstract concept or an "evildoer", but a human being, often in an emotionally fraught state. So I choose the mother.

An emotional position taken from bad experiences, fuelled by an already existing, and well documented, ideological preference. I’m sure many pro-lifers would say the same thing about you.

With respects, from such a basis, I doubt either of you have come to a rational conclusion.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by MDR
Very articulate argument, however, I must ask, although I do acknowledge that you weren't spinning around the subject, however do you have any firm beliefs (I do not admittedly) of your own.

I would say there are a number of schools of thought that would (in my mind) include:

A moral or more humanist approach would that, as I stated in my previous post, probably seek to understand whether the foetus is human or not and failing that give it the benefit of the doubt - given the consequences to it, the principle of innocent until proven guilty, would seem to apply.

On the other hand, there is the more amoral (please note - this should not be equated with evil) or utilitarian approach, which would, again; as I stated in my previous post, favour a known utility of a resource (the mother) over the potential utility of another (the foetus). Any other choice would be irrational given this approach.

Either is perfectly valid to me, TBH.

What I do not believe in is in holding a position simply based upon faith or political ideology. Too many are pro-Life or Pro-Choice as it conveniently fit’s in with set of beliefs they have adopted (or been indoctrinated with). Neither do I take seriously those arguments that propose to call a moral standpoint practical or a utilitarian one moral - they’re just fooling themselves.

Sparks

TC, that's the second time in this thread alone that you've sat there, accused me of having an irrational belief based on a political ideology despite my attempts to explain my reasoning to you.

Meanwhile you sit there claiming that you have no viewpoint on matters yourself and refusing to say unequivocally what your position is. You abuse the term "humanitarian" by stating that it be applied to the foetus alone until the status of the foetus can be agreed upon.
In the meantime, we see pro-life protestors using highly graphic images on O'Connell St. in flagrant disregard for the mental health of women who have had (or will have in the future) abortions.

Frankly, I have a wall right here I can wallop my head off if I feel the urge to - so I see no further point in responding to you on this topic until you pick a position and state it clearly.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Sparks
TC, that's the second time in this thread alone that you've sat there, accused me of having an irrational belief based on a political ideology despite my attempts to explain my reasoning to you.

Not really, as when you dislike an argument you seem to either ignore it or get all upset that I would even countenance such a position. The moment you do that you abandon the pretence of objectivity and seem to retreat to sound bites.

Meanwhile you sit there claiming that you have no viewpoint on matters yourself and refusing to say unequivocally what your position is.

Of course I have. I’m ambivalent. [EDIT](Wasn't always, but would be now)[/EDIT]

You abuse the term "humanitarian" by stating that it be applied to the foetus alone until the status of the foetus can be agreed upon.

Not at all, both the mother and child have equal rights in scenario that a foetus is human (I know, it’s not a suspension of belief you can allow yourself with ease), however, that is not to say all rights are equal.

I’ve already said that few if any on either side of this debate would deny an abortion where the mother’s right to life was at stake, but is that the case with all abortions? And if the above were the case, does not does the right to life of one individual not supersede the right to, for example, economic expediency of another?

In the meantime, we see pro-life protestors using highly graphic images on O'Connell St. in flagrant disregard for the mental health of women who have had (or will have in the future) abortions.

And if you actually read my earlier post I criticised such a practice as propaganda, unworthy of rational debate. Apparently propaganda used by both sides of the argument.

Frankly, I have a wall right here I can wallop my head off if I feel the urge to - so I see no further point in responding to you on this topic until you pick a position and state it clearly.

I’m sorry if I fail to fall continently into one of the bipolar camps that make up your reality, but I do not. If that is something you are uncomfortable with, then so be it, but I prefer by logic to be deductive rather than inductive.

JustHalf

TC, that's the second time in this thread alone that you've sat there, accused me of having an irrational belief based on a political ideology despite my attempts to explain my reasoning to you.

I have to concur with TC I'm afraid. The reason (I hope) is below.

You abuse the term "humanitarian" by stating that it be applied to the foetus alone until the status of the foetus can be agreed upon.

I don't think that's the point. The point is, it's unknown at this time. If you make a claim, either way, then it is a pretty much arbitrary claim; and it's irresponsible to decide "abortion is A-OKAY!" based on the arbitrary decision that the foetus is not human.

It is reasonable only to say "I don't know"; and, because [1:] we don't know that the foetus is "human" (in the greater sense of the word), [2:] we can't say that abortion is okay or not.

Now, because we can't say that elective abortion is okay or not, just permitting it is irresponsible; because the answer to [1:] may make elective abortion literally murder.

In the meantime, we see pro-life protestors using highly graphic images on O'Connell St. in flagrant disregard for the mental health of women who have had (or will have in the future) abortions.

Completely irrelevant to any part of The Corintian's arguments.

The Republicans in the US seem to be making headway with this (attacking the argument by ignoring it) so maybe you should keep it up.

Boston

What does a soul have to do with bveing alive? I'm not a christian pal.

TomF

It has always interested me that abortion is considered justified in a mantra: "Life of the mother, rape or incest."

Suppose abortion, in an ideal world, were permitted only for these three cases. Naturally in the real world, the "Life of the mother" case would immediately be inflated by lawyers to include "risk of psychological damage" and "risk of suicide" to add to the actual threat that the development and birth of a baby might represent to a mother's life. But let's suspend belief for the sake of my argument and suppose that only the very rare threats to the mother's life are allowed as being valid reasons for abortion under the "Life of the mother" part of the mantra.

How many abortions would there be world-wide? Any reasonable person has to agree that it would be a very small number compared to the number of abortions now being done.

I am reasonably certain that a large percentage of abortions are done for the convenience of the father. I am convinced based on the experience of my niece, who became pregnant and who was told by the father (boyfriend, not husband) that he wanted nothing to do with the baby, and that she should get an abortion. She did not, and the father has fallen in love with the little boy who was born.

Being certain that so many abortions are for the convenience of the father, I think it is invalid in those cases to claim that abortion means that a woman has the right to choose, and has the right to control her own body. Her right has been pre-empted by a domineering, lazy or cowardly father who denies her instinctive wish to nuture, not destroy, the new life created within her.

gandalf

Originally posted by TomF
...Being certain that so many abortions are for the convenience of the father, I think it is invalid in those cases to claim that abortion means that a woman has the right to choose, and has the right to control her own body. Her right has been pre-empted by a domineering, lazy or cowardly father who denies her instinctive wish to nuture, not destroy, the new life created within her.

So what your saying is women are weak and easily led by men then.

Gandalf.

Ivan

Originally posted by Man
Thats all well and good for you sparks, when you are not ( as you have stated elsewhere on this board ) a Christian.
A Debate with you regarding the existance of a soul would be pointless, as you would be asking the opposite side to deny their faith, and clearly if they did that, they would also be denying the existance of a "spititual" or "Christian" soul.
There can be no debate on Faith, it's something you either have or you haven't, end of story.

Thats the whole point isnt it?

We're challenging christians beliefs by wanting abortion, but we're not really are we? I mean its not like we're saying abortion must be mandatory, we just want a choice.

By not allowing us a choice your forcing your opinion on the rest of us, by allowing everybody a choice people are still allowed to decide if abortion is the way to go.

Its fine to say that the system is fine where people have to go to the uk in order to get an abortion, that Irish people should not grow accustomed to the "instantaneous abortion" but as it is, some families are being financially crippled just having the abortion let alone getting over to the U.K.

Its about the choice or not having a choice, its not about whether you agree with having an abortion. I'm not saying I'd ever like my girlfriend to have an abortion, but I'd like to think that if something unspeakably horrible happened to her, that she would not be forced to live with the reminder every day of her life.

Adoption is an option but for that you have to go through pregnancy & birth, and for some people that can be enough to push them over the edge of suicide.

Chaos-Engine

Originally posted by Sparks

In the entire history of medicine, noone has ever been able to identify a physical part of the body that they could call a soul. Not in a foetus, not in a fully-grown adult.

Who is to say that our soul resides within our physical bodies anyway. Our Bodies could simply be terminals or nodes similar to a surfer on the net. You are a part of it. But you can never remove your soul from the net...

Getting very influenced by the ghost in the shell which i had to watch again me thinks

TomF

"So what your saying is women are weak and easily led by men then."

There must be a reason why people, in general, are shocked when a man punches a woman in the face. Is it because people shouldn't be punching other people? Of course this is not the reason, it is that women, in general, are not as large or as strong as men.

I know that was an unsatisfactory answer because the original question implies not physical weakness, but moral weakness as in not having "moral courage" which is basically the courage to speak up against a person or persons who are pressing you to do something that you do not want to do. (Have a drink, smoke a cigarette, vandalize something, abort a life developing within you.)

A girl or woman who is pregnant is inherently vulnerable (weak in comparison to persons who are not pregnant or who cannot become pregnant). This is so blindingly obvious to anyone that I hesitate to include it in this note. If a pregnant girl or woman is being pressed to abort by family or by the father of the life in her, she has to be exceedingly strong to resist that pressure. The pressure on her can take the form of saying that if the baby is allowed to live, she will be on her own, and the family or the father of the baby want nothing to do with caring for the baby and will not support the mother through her carrying the baby to birth, and will not support the baby and the mother after birth.

In summary, yes, it is easy for a pregnant mother in her delicate condition to be led (pushed) by a cowardly or brutal or lazy or shiftless man. Her moral courage is easily overcome by her fear of consequences.

gandalf

But Tom by your logic it would also be possible to have pressure inversely applied to force a mother to have a child that they do not want because they are in a "weakened state" now couldn't it.

Not a very convincing arguement.

Gandalf.

Lemming

TomF, that really isn't a very good arguement at all and is only making you look like some sort of male-supremacist. You could argue that it is THE FATHER who lacks the moral courage to face his responsibilities, but instead you seem to be laying it all at the feet of the mother. It's all her fault.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by gandalf
But Tom by your logic it would also be possible to have pressure inversely applied to force a mother to have a child that they do not want because they are in a "weakened state" now couldn't it.

Actually, that does happen. Historically many of the private clinics that were originally set up were done so during a period when contraceptives, let alone anything else, was available in Ireland, and so ideologically motivated volunteers often staffed them at the start. As one can guess abortion was often pushed as the favourable or only realistic option to women who would use these clinics.

As a reaction to this pro-Life groups also began to set up similar centres. Here however, abortion was either not on the menu or it was even actively discouraged, using moral or medical arguments.

As a result, this tradition has continued and it is commonplace for a woman to be guided towards either having an abortion or not, depending upon the ethos of a clinic.