abortion talk in dcu

AndyWarhol

fly_agaric wrote:

Where did I say that was what I wanted? It's the logical outcome of Seraphina's post: i.e.

"pregnancy affects womens lives in ways men cant even begin to imagine, tbh i dont believe men should even be able to dictate womens options in their situations, they just cannot understand or empathise with the position women are put in."

You did say as much: "Okay. Fair enough. Perhaps we can have some special women-only referendum on the issue or something?"

fly_agaric wrote:

There, there. I wasn't laughing at dead babies (eh, why did the dead baby:D ...nah furgettabourit!).

The "problem" I was speaking of was the contradiction between women wanting men to take a more active role in a crisis pregnancy/wanting men to butt out and let them make their decision. Depends on the woman and the situation I suppose.

We can talk about the responsibilities of both the mother and father towards the raising of their child all day (perhaps in another thread). That's not really the issue here: what we are talking about is the morality of killing babies inside the mother.

There is no situation as far as I'm concerned where abortion is justified.

ArthurDent

AndyWarhol wrote:

There is no situation as far as I'm concerned where abortion is justified.

Oh to live in a black and white world!
What about a women pregnant and diagnosed with cancer requiring chemo/radiotherapy.

How about a young woman pregnant by incest?

what about a woman carrying a baby that will not survive birth due to congenital defect etc? I watched a good friend and a relation both carry babies that they knew would not survive outside the womb, they endured months of pregnancy knowing that their children would not survive.

I don't see abortion as a choice I'd like to take, but maybe, just maybe there are times when its the lesser of two evils.

Gazza22

ArthurDent wrote:

Oh to live in a black and white world!
What about a women pregnant and diagnosed with cancer requiring chemo/radiotherapy.

How about a young woman pregnant by incest?

what about a woman carrying a baby that will not survive birth due to congenital defect etc? I watched a good friend and a relation both carry babies that they knew would not survive outside the womb, they endured months of pregnancy knowing that their children would not survive.

I don't see abortion as a choice I'd like to take, but maybe, just maybe there are times when its the lesser of two evils.

Good post tbh
It can be justified Andy, it's never as simple as the wrong or right...but many things can play a part in a woman deciding to have an abortion.

fly_agaric

AndyWarhol wrote:

You did say as much: "Okay. Fair enough. Perhaps we can have some special women-only referendum on the issue or something?" There is no situation as far as I'm concerned where abortion is justified.

hello, I WAS NOT BEING SERIOUS ABOUT THAT SUGGESTION!
You've gone and rooned it now.:(

Maybe it'll set your mind at ease a bit if I tell you I don't particularly like abortion. I think it is definitely necessary in some cases. However. I would hate to see us having the abortion-on-demand almost as late as you like situation that pertains in the UK for example.

The Corinthian

Seraphina wrote:

for example if i found out i was pregnant this week (god forbid!) i would at the height of pregnancy around my final exams in may. FINAL EXAMS.

Then defer your exams. Lots of people do it without even being pregnant.

As a reason for terminating a pregnancy, it’s probably the worst I’ve heard in a while.

pregnancy affects womens lives in ways men cant even begin to imagine, tbh i dont believe men should even be able to dictate womens options in their situations, they just cannot understand or empathise with the position women are put in.

That’s quite flawed on a few levels. For one it ignores the father’s wishes or rights and apparently relegates him to the role of sperm donor. You’re not even conceding a lesser say in how his offspring, or even his genetic material, is used, which is offensive to say the least.

Secondly, if the foetus is indeed a human being, then its termination is affecting it in a way that women (or men) can’t even begin to imagine - thus leading to the same logical conclusion that you have applied to men.

ArthurDent wrote:

Oh to live in a black and white world!

Morality tends to be pretty black and white, but only once properly examined. For the purposes of argument I will presuppose that the foetus is a human being - after all, if it were not, this entire discussion would be moot.

What about a women pregnant and diagnosed with cancer requiring chemo/radiotherapy.

I don’t think anyone has argued in the West that a mother should be denied treatment in such a case. Even the Roman Catholic Church would not condemn this, AFAIK.

How about a young woman pregnant by incest?

Well, if the foetus is indeed a human being, then you would in effect be punishing it for the crimes of the father, which last time I checked, was not a moral action.

what about a woman carrying a baby that will not survive birth due to congenital defect etc? I watched a good friend and a relation both carry babies that they knew would not survive outside the womb, they endured months of pregnancy knowing that their children would not survive.

That’s actually an interesting point and, again assuming the foetus is indeed a human being, essentially falls into the moral dilemma surrounding euthanasia. If euthanasia is moral, then so would this be. If not, neither is this.

I don't see abortion as a choice I'd like to take, but maybe, just maybe there are times when its the lesser of two evils.

Quite possibly, but it begs the question of how you define good and evil. If the foetus is indeed a human being, then you are killing it, not necessarily to save another’s life, but to improve their quality of life. The only way that this can be morally justified is if you consider the right to quality of life for one person to supersede the right to life of another.

In that case you would be correct - it is the lesser of two evils (and if the foetus is not a human being, then it’s not evil in the slightest). But I would consider the moral precedent you’re setting, if were I you.

Seraphina

The Corinthian wrote:

Then defer your exams. Lots of people do it without even being pregnant.

As a reason for terminating a pregnancy, it’s probably the worst I’ve heard in a while.

That’s quite flawed on a few levels. For one it ignores the father’s wishes or rights and apparently relegates him to the role of sperm donor. You’re not even conceding a lesser say in how his offspring, or even his genetic material, is used, which is offensive to say the least.

defer my exams? so i can have a baby i dont want? sounds like a great waste of time to me. its not a 'reason' for terminating a pregnancy, if i didn't have my final exams coming up, i would probably do it anyway.
i dont care if i sound selfish, or if my reasons are 'flawed'. its not whether or not my reasoning and moral stance or whatever is flawed. its about what i want as a person and from my life. at the end of the day it is MY body. the ball of cells growing inside me is part of me and cannot survive outside of me (not until a certain stage anyway, and i would not dream of letting a pregnancy get that far) a feotus does not see, hear, or think. it is living, but it is not 'alive'. it is not conscious or aware. its not missing out, it doesn't even know what life is. i dont see how an something which doesn't exist yet should have 'rights' which extend as far as messing up my life.

and the role of the father? well im pretty sure the current potential one doesn't want a kid either, but even if he did, well he's not the one who's going to be carrying it for 9 months is he? if he was he'd be welcome to have it himself. perhaps if he was willing to take sole responsibility i *might* consider it, but tbh it is unlikely.
it does really depend on the circumstances. i'm not advocating abortion for all, but i feel i should have the right to choose about what goes on in my life, and not have to have a kid i dont want because of other people's jumped up ideas of life (no offence, i just dont agree at all) and it being 'precious'.
how is a feotus any different to the spider you squished the other day? they both have about the same level of consciousness (maybe the spider has more, who knows?)
neither do i agree with the argument that the feotus has the potential to become human and develop consciousness etc. each of those millions of sperm a guy loses every time he jerks off also has the potential to fuse with an egg and become human. where do you draw the line?

The Corinthian

Seraphina wrote:

defer my exams? so i can have a baby i dont want? sounds like a great waste of time to me. its not a 'reason' for terminating a pregnancy, if i didn't have my final exams coming up, i would probably do it anyway.

i dont care if i sound selfish, or if my reasons are 'flawed'. its not whether or not my reasoning and moral stance or whatever is flawed.

Then why are you posting in a humanities forum? Seriously, the reason this topic is debated is that it raises interesting questions about how we view right and wrong, and the consequences when we redefine those definitions.

So if you really don’t feel it’s necessary to debate it, then don’t.

its about what i want as a person and from my life. at the end of the day it is MY body.

Absolutely, so if a man decides to rape and / or kill you, then that’s all right too. After all, it’s about what he wants as a person and from his life. For him, your opinion, given you’re not him, is irrelevant.

the ball of cells growing inside me is part of me and cannot survive outside of me (not until a certain stage anyway, and i would not dream of letting a pregnancy get that far)
a feotus does not see, hear, or think. it is living, but it is not 'alive'. it is not conscious or aware. its not missing out, it doesn't even know what life is. i dont see how an something which doesn't exist yet should have 'rights' which extend as far as messing up my life.

Then the euthanasia of severely mentally and physically handicapped people is OK?

and the role of the father? well im pretty sure the current potential one doesn't want a kid either

That’s pretty irrelevant to what I said, however. I practically never vote, for example, but I still have the right to vote should I choose to exercise that right. If your boyfriend is not interested in exhibiting parental responsibilities does not mean that he should not have any parental rights.

where do you draw the line?

Hence such discussions. People express opinions, they are examined, the logic is tested and we arrive at a conclusion. Or not - you can’t have everything, after all.

Seraphina

The Corinthian wrote:

That’s pretty irrelevant to what I said, however. I practically never vote, for example, but I still have the right to vote should I choose to exercise that right. If your boyfriend is not interested in exhibiting parental responsibilities does not mean that he should not have any parental rights.

i dont really want to get into a huge discussion on this but i just wanna point out that unless you're willing to take on the responsibilities, you cant really demand rights. they go together.

The Corinthian

Seraphina wrote:

i dont really want to get into a huge discussion on this but i just wanna point out that unless you're willing to take on the responsibilities, you cant really demand rights. they go together.

That’s fair enough, but one is hardly going to suggest that men should not be afforded paternal rights, just because your boyfriend is a flake.

Seraphina

The Corinthian wrote:

That’s fair enough, but one is hardly going to suggest that men should not be afforded paternal rights, just because your boyfriend is a flake.

slander!
never said he was a flake, he just doesn't want kids (who in their right mind does at 21?)

The Corinthian

Seraphina wrote:

slander!

Very difficult to slander anyone without identifying them.

never said he was a flake, he just doesn't want kids (who in their right mind does at 21?)

Well, actually you have in fairness.

Seraphina

ok enough thanks. this is getting a bit personal for my liking.

Chinafoot

Pro-choice does not necessarily mean pro-abortion. I, personally, dont think I coould go through with it but I would like the option to be there once it was regulated properly.

There should most definitely be circumstances where abortion is allowed, most of which have been mentioned in this thread already. Pregnancy through incest, pregnancy through rape, risk of the loss of the mother's life etc.

Also, as for the rights of men, I agree that men should have a say...however, at the end of the day, its my body and therefore my choice.

Red Alert

yes but there should be absolutely no late term abortion available at all. if you'd had a case of incest/rape whatever, i would imagine they should do a pregnancy test and administer contraception and abort if necessary. i think it's morally wrong to abort at all, but on the other hand scientifically the foetus has no cognitive ability in the first six to eight weeks. set an upper limit on eight weeks and ban all other abortion would be my view.