Abortion - Right or Wrong???

Darragh29

Carried over from Personal Matters as it would appear that the depth of the discussion is beyond what can be tolerated over there...

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

you know, I don't want to get ahead of myself here but I think this thread has the very real potential to generate some answers to this question.

Tha Gopher

I remember one PI thread where someone after an abortion posted asking for links to helpful groups, and certain posters (inlcuding one or two mods iirc) gave her links/addresses to folks who would sort one out in England. To which one poster rightly replied "I thought this wasnt a medical form"

Tbh I dont know how they can sleep at night. Its no better than telling some nutbar that you can get him guns if he needs them, and he ends up killing innocent people with them.

from PI abortion thread wrote:

Actually,neither results in killing a baby. Killing a foetus,yeah.

tbh thats like arguing the difference between an Opel and a Vauxhall. As for the poster who said she had an abortion and doesnt regret or think about it for one second, sorry but that is fcuking cold. How someone could murder their own child like that, it beggars belief.

Nevyn

You are entitle to you opinoin on this and how you would deal with the matter is up to you if you were in that situation, how others view it and chose to is up to them.

I sleep pretty well at night knowing that the process to procure a termination or an abortion is not easy and there are many checks and blanaces.
I would rather someone once they have made up thier mind on the matter have a safe medical proceedure then a backstreet abortion or dose themselves with herbs or meds to induce one.

There have always been ways to stop a pregancy, there have always been unwanted pregancies, at least women aren't dying from unsafe proceedure or killing them sleves rather then carrying the child to term.

Yes there should be better support and understanding for those that wish to have the child and give it up for adoption but there aren't

Ideally everyone should practice safer sex and only have sex if they can deal with the consequences but people don't.

We have a huge lack of sex and contraception education in this country.
Every year we still have newborns left to die and those are only the ones we hear about

Life isn't perfect life is messy and utnil we put contraceptives in the water, educate people properly and have good suport systems for those who keep thier child and those who give it up for adoption there will be women who will be in a crisis pregancy situation and will want an abortion.

And as I have said better a safe medical proceedure then a back street abortion.

Zillah

Tha Gopher wrote:

Tbh I dont know how they can sleep at night. Its no better than telling some nutbar that you can get him guns if he needs them, and he ends up killing innocent people with them.

Foetus != person.

Foetus does equal lump of not-sentient cells. I'd be no more worried about getting rid an early term pregnancy than I'd be upset about washing my hands after sex.

As for the poster who said she had an abortion and doesnt regret or think about it for one second, sorry but that is fcuking cold.

"Cold" is clearly a subjective term. Perhaps she is just better informed than you. Early term foetuses are not sentient, they don't count as people.

Out of curiosity, do you support the morning after pill?

How someone could murder their own child like that, it beggars belief.

Foetus != child.

Murdering a child is one thing. Getting rid of an unwanted pregnancy is quite different. One is a person, the other is a small clump of cells.

Thaed wrote:

And as I have said better a safe medical proceedure then a back street abortion.

On that we are very much in agreement. Its also the logic I apply to recreational drug use and prostitution.

Yes there should be better support and understanding for those that wish to have the child and give it up for adoption but there aren't

For those that want it, sure. But it shouldn't be the only option. I strongly feel tha if someone doesn't want progeny, whether they have to raise them or not, then its their choice.

Mordeth wrote:

you know, I don't want to get ahead of myself here but I think this thread has the very real potential to generate some answers to this question.

Sarcasm...overload...

Nevyn

Zillah wrote:

I'd be no more worried about getting rid an early term pregnancy than I'd be upset about washing my hands after sex.

While I am prochoice in general for the sake of others and personally believe adoption is better and 3rd trimester terminations are morally wrong,

I find that comment offensive.

Easy for you to say as you are male.
From the 2nd week of a pregancy once implantation has occured the chemical process and changes that happen to a woman are no small matter and even at 6 weeks a termination has a physical recovery time never mind the mental and emotional recovery.

Zillah

Thaedydal wrote:

From the 2nd week of a pregancy once implantation has occured the chemical process and changes that happen to a woman are no small matter and even at 6 weeks a termination has a physical recovery time never mind the mental and emotional recovery.

Give me a bit more credit than that! I was only speaking in terms of the "Abortion is baby murder!" argument. My feelings for the woman and my empathy with her situation is another matter entirely.

Rev Hellfire

Thaedydal wrote:

Easy for you to say as you are male.

Way to go on the generalisations, personally I'd have thought you'd have known better.

Nevyn

/sigh.

That was not a generalisation it was directed specifically at Zillah,
but if I offended anyone in my reaction to being offended, I apologise.

Yes, men do not under go all physical changes during a pregancy but many Daddy's to be are hugely attached to the idea of thier child to be and emotionally bond over a short space of time.

This is for the most part evolutional as wanting what is best for the baby to be which is the continuation of thier dna means that Daddy to be will care and cater for Mammy to be during the pregancy.

There has not been enough research to the change in the pheromones given of by a pregant woman and the effects they can have on men.

A woman seeking an abortion is from a biological imperative working against her body and man for the most part is not.

LadyJ

To TheGopher,the quote you took from PI is mine and I have not had an abortion.

Think you might be confusing me with someone else....

Also,I think there is a flaw with the title of this thread. I mean,pro-lifers think abortion is wrong but people who are pro-choice don't necessarily think abortion is "right" per se,they just think that it is acceptable.

Het-Field

Tha Gopher wrote:

I remember one PI thread where someone after an abortion posted asking for links to helpful groups, and certain posters (inlcuding one or two mods iirc) gave her links/addresses to folks who would sort one out in England. To which one poster rightly replied "I thought this wasnt a medical form"

Tbh I dont know how they can sleep at night. Its no better than telling some nutbar that you can get him guns if he needs them, and he ends up killing innocent people with them.



tbh thats like arguing the difference between an Opel and a Vauxhall. As for the poster who said she had an abortion and doesnt regret or think about it for one second, sorry but that is fcuking cold. How someone could murder their own child like that, it beggars belief.

Youve Hit the nai right on the head. Im not talking about the gray areas. Im talikng about the wanton mutilation of a small child to facilitate a cover up. Nothing is more important than life. Sombody is upset when each person passes on. The same applies to the small child.

The concept of Pro Choice is a terrible fallacy. Those who wish to murder Children use the idea that it is fascistic to tell a woman what to do with her own fertility. In fact in the non grey areas the women should never be allowed control anything except nurture the child that lives inside of her.

Furthermore, many women suffer far more from having an abortion than carrying through with the pregnancy. They suffer both mentally and physically in the wake of an abortion

I read an article in the Sindo where a woman who had two abortions explained how she was still pro choice. Her reason for the second abortion was she felt that she couldnt love the child as much as her first born. Her first ASbortion was due to the fact that she felt she was too young to put her life on hold (age 21). Each child she carried (3 children) was created by a different man. Frankly the best form of contraception for that woman would be to close her legs !


Abortion is the most negative thing a physician can induce. While I would never fraternise with Youth Defence or Army of God or any of those scumbags who engage in violent tactics to make their point, I would encourage people never to have, promote or advocate abortion. It is useless

Het-Field

LadyJ wrote:

To TheGopher,the quote you took from PI is mine and I have not had an abortion.

Think you might be confusing me with someone else....

Also,I think there is a flaw with the title of this thread. I mean,pro-lifers think abortion is wrong but people who are pro-choice don't necessarily think abortion is "right" per se,they just think that it is acceptable.

They think that it is acceptable ? WELL IF YOU ASK ME THEY ARE STILL ADVOCATING IT ?

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

Well Nobody Asked You

Nya Nya Nya

Zillah

Het-Field wrote:

They think that it is acceptable ? WELL IF YOU ASK ME THEY ARE STILL ADVOCATING IT ?

I'm always amazed at how all-caps and bad punctuation are so commonly combined with awful arguments.

Im talikng about the wanton mutilation of a small child to facilitate a cover up. Nothing is more important than life. Sombody is upset when each person passes on. The same applies to the small child.

How do you define "child" exactly? An early term foetus is not aware in any regard. You kill more cells when you blow your nose.

Do you agree with the morning after pill? (This question has not been answered once by any of the anti-abortion people)

The concept of Pro Choice is a terrible fallacy. Those who wish to murder Children use the idea that it is fascistic to tell a woman what to do with her own fertility. In fact in the non grey areas the women should never be allowed control anything except nurture the child that lives inside of her.

When you say something is a fallacy you are then required to explain, logically, why. Not make arbitrary statements such as "in fact in the non grey areas..."

If I apply to your logic I could argue, for instance "Tough love is a fallacy because the only way to help someone is by being nice." It has no argument, it carries no point, its just an opinion.

Furthermore, many women suffer far more from having an abortion than carrying through with the pregnancy. They suffer both mentally and physically in the wake of an abortion

Your argument here would appear to be "It can have bad consequences, therefore they shouldn't be allowed to do it." So no drinking, smoking, driving, fastfood or dancing...

Frankly the best form of contraception for that woman would be to close her legs !

Yes.

But aside from insulting a promiscuous woman you've made no point here.

Abortion is the most negative thing a physician can induce.

Unless of course the women doesn't want a baby, wherein the physician has just saved her from a life of misery.

I would encourage people never to have, promote or advocate abortion. It is useless

Useless? Aside from all those times it made it so women didn't have to have babies they really really didn't want. Seems quite useful when it let Sally go to college, or stopped Sarah from ruining her working class family's finances, or stopped heroin-addict Laura from raising an apocalypse of a child.

Thaed wrote:

That was not a generalisation it was directed specifically at Zillah,
but if I offended anyone in my reaction to being offended, I apologise.

I appear to be fair game for unfair accusations however... :rolleyes:

Nevyn

Zillah wrote:

I appear to be fair game for unfair accusations however... :rolleyes:

So are aren't male ?

Again likening an abortion to the blowing of the nose or the washing of hands is callous.

Het-Field

Zillah wrote:

I'm always amazed at how all-caps and bad punctuation are so commonly combined with awful arguments.



How do you define "child" exactly? An early term foetus is not aware in any regard. You kill more cells when you blow your nose.

Do you agree with the morning after pill? (This question has not been answered once by any of the anti-abortion people)



When you say something is a fallacy you are then required to explain, logically, why. Not make arbitrary statements such as "in fact in the non grey areas..."

If I apply to your logic I could argue, for instance "Tough love is a fallacy because the only way to help someone is by being nice." It has no argument, it carries no point, its just an opinion.



Your argument here would appear to be "It can have bad consequences, therefore they shouldn't be allowed to do it." So no drinking, smoking, driving, fastfood or dancing...



Yes.

But aside from insulting a promiscuous woman you've made no point here.



Unless of course the women doesn't want a baby, wherein the physician has just saved her from a life of misery.



Useless? Aside from all those times it made it so women didn't have to have babies they really really didn't want. Seems quite useful when it let Sally go to college, or stopped Sarah from ruining her working class family's finances, or stopped heroin-addict Laura from raising an apocalypse of a child.



I appear to be fair game for unfair accusations however... :rolleyes:

1.The excessive caps lock were for emphisis, clearly you couldnt see that, so I wont waste any more time.

2.I believe the morning after pill to be an abortive procedure. In fact I believe it to be the most callous method of termination. It appears to be guilt free, and it is made out to be an easy form of contraception. Weather you believe the "foetus" to be a baby or simply a "clump of cells", once the pill is taken, it doesnt exist any more. GIven that I see it as a baby I would classify the Mornng after pill to be an abortion

3. The abortion has bad concequences all round. For the mother there is a much higher risk of health problems, both mentallly and physically. Furthermore, the baby does not get a chance to live its life. In fact abortion is an attack on both the mother and child. To compare abortion to driving, drinking, fast food is absolutly glib, and it is irrelevant to this argument.

4.Insulting a promiscuious woman. Frankly I dont think ill shed too man tears, or have too many sleepless nights over that one. If people cant close their legs, they should accept the concequences. The baby should not have to suffer. The woman has the choice to have sex (of course not in a rape, but ill leave that one for another day). The woman also has the choice to protect herself (im not advocating artificial contraception here). If that fails, the baby should not be the one to suffer. And with proper care the mother does not have to suffer either

5. Sally, Sarah, Laura have the choice to have sex. In Ireland the constitution comes down on the side of the child. I think its callous to value a college degree over a life. People need to think about what reprecussions sex migh have on their family situation.

Furthermore, abortion is a very negative procedure. When the woman goes to the hospital she has her own life and the life of another with her. Once the procedure is finished there is only her life. Again weather you see the foetus as a baby or a clump of cells, you must remeber that that baby or clump of cells is their own. Not the mothers

Zillah

Het-Field wrote:

1.The excessive caps lock were for emphisis, clearly you couldnt see that, so I wont waste any more time.

Oh I see that, I've seen it a thousand times and its as crude and inneffective as ever.

2.I believe the morning after pill to be an abortive procedure. In fact I believe it to be the most callous method of termination. It appears to be guilt free, and it is made out to be an easy form of contraception. Weather you believe the "foetus" to be a baby or simply a "clump of cells", once the pill is taken, it doesnt exist any more. GIven that I see it as a baby I would classify the Mornng after pill to be an abortion

Right, its nice to have someone finally address that.

3. The abortion has bad concequences all round. For the mother there is a much higher risk of health problems, both mentallly and physically. Furthermore, the baby does not get a chance to live its life. In fact abortion is an attack on both the mother and child. To compare abortion to driving, drinking, fast food is absolutly glib, and it is irrelevant to this argument.

No, it can have bad consequences. It can also stop women from ruining their lives. Its a case by case basis and its their choice.

4.Insulting a promiscuious woman. Frankly I dont think ill shed too man tears, or have too many sleepless nights over that one. If people cant close their legs, they should accept the concequences.

Uh, I was just pointing out that you made no actual point, you were just insulting someone. Which is all you've still done on this point.

The baby should not have to suffer.

Lump of cells can't suffer. Then theres an abortion. Then theres no clump of cells. There was no baby, and no suffering.

The woman has the choice to have sex (of course not in a rape, but ill leave that one for another day). The woman also has the choice to protect herself (im not advocating artificial contraception here). If that fails, the baby should not be the one to suffer.

Small clusters of cells do not suffer. Its a woman's choice to make life or not. Until those cells are self aware, there is no baby.

5. Sally, Sarah, Laura have the choice to have sex.

But they chose to have it. Now we're here, with pregnant girls whos lives will be ruined by it. Your solution seems to be time travel.

I think its callous to value a college degree over a life.

Perhaps. But "life" is an ambiguous definition. If a woman choses no to have a child (by not having sex) she is choosing her degree over "life". In both cases there was no "baby" destroyed. A cluster of unaware cells is not a baby.

People need to think about what reprecussions sex migh have on their family situation.

Yes, but once again we can't go back in time so we have to make the best of a bad situation.

Furthermore, abortion is a very negative procedure.

Specious and irrelevant.

When the woman goes to the hospital she has her own life and the life of another with her.[

Until the foetus is self aware then there is only one life.

Once the procedure is finished there is only her life. Again weather you see the foetus as a baby or a clump of cells, you must remeber that that baby or clump of cells is their own. Not the mothers

A bunch of unaware cells do not have a life of their own.

Thaed wrote:

Again likening an abortion to the blowing of the nose or the washing of hands is callous.

Dammit Thaed! I'm explaining this one more time. In fact, I'm going to quote my previous explanation:

I wrote:

Give me a bit more credit than that! I was only speaking in terms of the "Abortion is baby murder!" argument. My feelings for the woman and my empathy with her situation is another matter entirely.

I don't think its callous because there is no baby. The women's feelings don't factor into this, I'm only speaking in terms of the pregnancy/baby.

The_Minister

Zillah wrote:

Small clusters of cells do not suffer. Its a woman's choice to make life or not. Until those cells are self aware, there is no baby.

And when do babies becme self-aware? Babies born within the acceptable time for abortion in England have lived and become normal people. Babies capacity for sentience seems to come on quite early, with babies responding to music from only a few weeks.


It should be noted that most of the time the morning after pill is taken in time to stop fertilisation (don't forget it has to go all the way up the fallopean tubes), and nearly always before implantation, a process that high failure rate. Thus, I wouldn't consider this to be abortion.

Zombrex

I think its funny that people go on and on about abortion being wrong, that it is killing a child, but seem to not really consider this properly.

Do any of the anti-abortion people here weep for a dead child when a woman has her period? I doubt it.

So what makes a "person". If one believes that life starts at conception consider this -

You have a zygote. Since this is a "person" according to the anti-abortion crowd, lets call her Mary. Mary should have all the rights that a fully developed person has.

Now, a day later the embroy splits into identical embryos (which will develop to for twins). Ok, so these are "people" as well, we will call one Sue and the other Jackie? You have two individual "persons", since life began at conception right?

Well, the obvious question to most who are aware of this paradox (I didn't come up with it) is what happened to Mary?

Is Mary dead? Did she, the human person granted rights and respect under societ, die? She no longer exists in any meaningful use of the term "person". Where she once was are two developing embroys. Has nature killed Mary?

If she died what was Mary that died? What part died. All her cells are still there, what has been lost? The argument that she was a person makes little sense given that now she doesn't exist, yet nothing has been lost. So did she actually exist in the first place as a person. Or was she just a bunch of replicating cells?

Did Mary turn into Sue and Jackie? That makes little sense also. How can a person, with all the rights that come along with that, turn into two people?

For all the "life begins at conception" people out there you need to get a handle on what you mean by "life".

Because to nature it is just a bunch of multiplying cells. It can split into 2 or more (much more) groups of replicating cells. If nature can do this what meaningful definition can you place on a post-conception zygote or embryo?

Zulu

This thread has been done to death again, and again, and again....

Abortion is murder!
A feotus isn't a real person!
The child has a right to life!
The woman has the right to do to her body what she chooses!

It's always the same. OP, what do you hope to achieve with this thread?

Zillah

The_Minister wrote:

And when do babies becme self-aware? Babies born within the acceptable time for abortion in England have lived and become normal people. Babies capacity for sentience seems to come on quite early, with babies responding to music from only a few weeks.

Those babies weren't neccessarily aware or capable of suffering though. They continued to develop and grow in an incubator after the pre-mature birth.

Well, here's a very well written article: http://www.parliament.uk/post/pn094.pdf

Here's an exerpt:

Prof. Fitzgerald's analysis argues that the
lack of established connections from thalamus to cortex
until after 22-26 weeks is a strong argument against any
ability to feel pain (Box 2) - before that point, signals
coming from peripheral nerves cannot reach the cortex
and any response (e.g. to touch) will be a result of
automatic reactions mediated by the spinal cord and
brain stem1.

So babies can't experience suffering before 22 weeks.

It should be noted that most of the time the morning after pill is taken in time to stop fertilisation (don't forget it has to go all the way up the fallopean tubes), and nearly always before implantation, a process that high failure rate. Thus, I wouldn't consider this to be abortion.

But it does and has destroyed tens of thousands of fertilised eggs over the years.

Murderer. :rolleyes:

Wicknight wrote:

For all the "life begins at conception" people out there you need to get a handle on what you mean by "life".

Precisely. Like I said, the definition of a life is very ambiguous. Excellent hypothetical scenario.

Zulu wrote:

This thread has been done to death again, and again, and again....

Abortion is murder!
A feotus isn't a real person!
The child has a right to life!
The woman has the right to do to her body what she chooses!

It's always the same. OP, what do you hope to achieve with this thread?

If you don't want to take part, then go away. Its very simple.

The_Minister

Zillah wrote:

Those babies weren't neccessarily aware or capable of suffering though. They continued to develop and grow in an incubator after the pre-mature birth.
.

If a baby was born premaure at 20 weeks and was placed in an incubator, and was given a good survival chance, would you allow the mother to kill it, if she did not want it?
They always look so damned cute and vunerable in those little cylanders witfh all those small ickle tubes that I wouldn't.

Zulu

Zillah wrote:

If you don't want to take part, then go away. Its very simple.

...or perhaps I can hope to find out what the OP hopes to achieve befreo this decends into the same innane arguments.

Are you the OP? No? Then perhaps you might consider going away ...it's very simple.

Zillah

The_Minister wrote:

If a baby was born premaure at 20 weeks and was placed in an incubator, and was given a good survival chance, would you allow the mother to kill it, if she did not want it?
They always look so damned cute and vunerable in those little cylanders witfh all those small ickle tubes that I wouldn't.

If studies showed that the child lacked self awareness at that point, then yes, yes I would. But not in this society, far too many pitch forks. Personally I'm comfortable with very early term abortions, after that we start getting close to the blurry line of sentience. Women should be forced to decide before a certain time, knowing full-well the consequences if she declines abortion past that time.

Zulu wrote:

...or perhaps I can hope to find out what the OP hopes to achieve befreo this decends into the same innane arguments.

You're dismissing the entire subject. If you're genuinely curious as to why he was interested in this discussion then PM him or something, bursting in and giving out to us for discussing something you're bored of is poor show indeed.

Zulu

Zillah wrote:

You're dismissing the entire subject.

No, I mearly trying to avoid the usual impass that occurs everytime these discussion are raised.

If you're genuinely curious as to why he was interested in this discussion then PM him or something,

I'm asking a valid question. If you don't like it thats your issue. Leave moderating to the mods.

bursting in and giving out to us for discussing something you're bored of is poor show indeed.

"bursting in", "giving out to us", over-react much Zillah? Let me tell you what a "poor show" is: ranting at a poster who asks a valid question. How and ever, I'm done explaining myself, OP I await your responce.

Zombrex

The_Minister wrote:

If a baby was born premaure at 20 weeks and was placed in an incubator, and was given a good survival chance, would you allow the mother to kill it, if she did not want it?

As the news has shown last month, we allow fertilsation clinics to destroy fertiles eggs what are not used in IVF treatments.

What is the difference?

Darragh29

Thaedydal wrote:

.

There have always been ways to stop a pregancy, there have always been unwanted pregancies, at least women aren't dying from unsafe procedure or killing them sleves rather then carrying the child to term.

IMO this is where it gets interesting... 6,000 plus Irish women are not travelling to the UK every year for an abortion for the reasons you have outlined above, for example because they believe that having a baby will kill them or because the birth process/procedure is unsafe as you suggest above. So why argue for abortion on these grounds, it just lowers the level of the debate??? I've never heard of a woman committing suicide after discovering she was pregnant, where are you getting this from???

Nevyn

I didn't say the birthing process was unsafe I was refering to the fact that unlisenced back street proceedures are unsafe and have often resulted in infection or infertility in women and those that don't opt for that method of illegal abortion would use drugs or herbs to induce an abortion which would lead to the possibitly of posioning the woman.

It is only in the last 200 years that abortion was made illegal in most western countries and then legalised.

http://www.feminist.com/resources/ourbodies/abortion.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_abortion

It is somewhere between 6,000 and a possible 9,000 given that women are traveling to spain, holland and sweden who don't keep or diclose figure of forgien women.

Again education is better and why can't we have as they do in the UK free contraception and free gp related visits for contraception for anyone under 25 ?

Schuhart

Thaedydal wrote:

Again education is better and why can't we have as they do in the UK free contraception and free gp related visits for contraception for anyone under 25 ?

No problem in principle with such an approach, so long as it actually reaches the target audience. From such information as we have, it would look like the target audience is 20 - 35 year olds.

http://www.ifpa.ie/abortion/iabst.html

Before prescribing a solution, I think its necessary to put a shape on those raw numbers and actually work out what the problem is. If women in their late twenties are still presenting for abortion in large numbers, it suggests that sex education per se is not the problem. I'd also doubt that its access to services, but clearly that's only a feeling on my part without any evidence whatsoever.

For all the banging on about this issue over the years, I've never seen anyone really offer a coherent picture of what its really about. I think most people agree that abortion should be avoided, if possible. Despite that partial consensus, insight into the issue is largely lacking.

Nevyn

Those in that age group are presenting because they can afford to the cost of traveling and the proceedure which can run from 700 to 2,000 euros depending and most teens simply can't afford to have a termination.

Sam Vimes

some people are saying its ok to abort foetuses because they don't suffer (as if that has somehow been proven. maybe someone asked them before throwing them in the bin)

but if i give a man an anaesthetic that knocks him out cold, can i then slit his throat because he won't suffer while he's dying?

the issue isn't whether the foetus suffers. the issue is that the foetus is a human being in the making and no one has the right to end its life



as i said in the thread in PI, if i went into the ford factory and smashed up one of the cars while it was still on the assembly line, do you think i could use the defense in court that "it wasn't actually a car yet"?


at what point does an abortion stop being ok?

is it while its one single embryo?

100 cells?

when it starts to look like a baby?

when it kicks?

right up until it leaves the womb?

when it can talk?

when it graduates from college?

and about the whole "her body, her choice" thing: its not her body anymore. once she is pregnant its a similar situation to siamese twins, except one of them can't talk. no one would ever suggest that one siamese twin should be killed so the other one doesn't have to put up with it*. why is it different because one of them is not fully formed yet?


*the important thing there is that the woman's life is not in danger. she simply doesn't want to look after the child. and as i said in the other thread, with adoption she doesn't have to

nesf

Schuhart wrote:

Before prescribing a solution, I think its necessary to put a shape on those raw numbers and actually work out what the problem is.

I agree but I think you have to take many things into consideration. Most importantly any presentation of data can very easily be labelled by the side it doesn't suit as putting spin on the issue and then they get some other data analysist to come up with reasoning to the opposite. This is an issue where objective analysis may be performed upon but it will tend to be viewed as subjective analysis by the majority of people who have already made their minds up and will see what they want to see in the figures.

Schuhart wrote:

If women in their late twenties are still presenting for abortion in large numbers, it suggests that sex education per se is not the problem. I'd also doubt that its access to services, but clearly that's only a feeling on my part without any evidence whatsoever.

I wouldn't jump to that conclusion. The lack of sex education could not "come back to haunt someone" until quite late in life (are people on average not more sexually active in their 20s than their teens for instance?). Access has to be considered as a strong factor on results; it will have a noticable effect on numbers though I don't think it's the primary factor. The highly emphasised clumping between 20 and 29 could be caused by many factors outside of this.

Schuhart wrote:

For all the banging on about this issue over the years, I've never seen anyone really offer a coherent picture of what its really about. I think most people agree that abortion should be avoided, if possible. Despite that partial consensus, insight into the issue is largely lacking.

It's an extremely divisive issue and everytime it's thrashed out on here we get a bunch of hardline pro-life and hardline pro-choice posters pulling out the same tired old arguments over and over again. Similar to whenever we have a referendum. The baby killing and cluster of cells arguments are trotted out and a complete lack of any rational debate ensues, moral indignity spirals and sensationalist (read: utterly simplistic and trite) soundbites dominate the discussion. Personally I think these arguments only serve to show how the noble forces of rationality and independant thought pale in comparisson to the popular forces of self-righteousness and moral sheep syndrome.

Sam Vimes

nesf wrote:

I agree but I think you have to take many things into consideration. Most importantly any presentation of data can very easily be labelled by the side it doesn't suit as putting spin on the issue and then they get some other data analysist to come up with reasoning to the opposite. This is an issue where objective analysis may be performed upon but it will tend to be viewed as subjective analysis by the majority of people who have already made their minds up and will see what they want to see in the figures.

that reminds me of a quote from the great philosopher homer:

facts are meaningless. you can use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true. facts schmacts

The_Minister

Wicknight wrote:

As the news has shown last month, we allow fertilsation clinics to destroy fertiles eggs what are not used in IVF treatments.

What is the difference?

Eggs don't have rudimentary arms or legs, nor do they respond to certain stimuli.

neuro-praxis

I'm going to lazily throw in the familiar scenario.

A woman is sentenced to death for a crime. She is recently pregnant, let's say she's gone four weeks. Should she be given extra time to have the baby before facing her own death, or should she be executed at the planned date while pregnant?

If it is merely a clump of cells then executing her while pregnant should not be a problem.

Schuhart

Thaedydal wrote:

Those in that age group are presenting because they can afford to

I have no problem if this is a fact, but I’d just wonder if it is.

Table 2.5 on page 31 of this report gives maternal age at time of birth. At a quick glance, the peak years for abortion seem to simply correspond to the peak years that women have children, either inside or outside of marriage. There’s no particular picture of vast numbers of teenagers having babies who would abort if given the chance.

This suggests that unplanned pregnancy is not particularly about clueless teenagers. That’s not to say that some teenagers don’t get pregnant. But the core problem is whatever causes large numbers of women in their twenties presenting. As Nesf suggests, this may be a lack of education coming back to haunt people later in life when they will be more active. But I think it is important to define the problem so that we know what objective we expect more education to achieve.

If the primary object of educating teenagers in school is to promote responsibility when they are in their twenties, then it would seem to take an amount of the drama out of the whole thing.

nesf wrote:

This is an issue where objective analysis may be performed upon but it will tend to be viewed as subjective analysis by the majority of people who have already made their minds up and will see what they want to see in the figures.

I agree this is a problem, and I think the consequent lack of clear vision obstructs progress.

Zombrex

The_Minister wrote:

Eggs don't have rudimentary arms or legs, nor do they respond to certain stimuli.

Ok, so to be a person under the law you have to have arms and legs? Why exactly?

And to be a person under the law you have to response to "certain" stimuli? Which stimuli is that? Because human cells respond to a wide range of different stimuli.

Zombrex

Commander Vimes wrote:

the issue isn't whether the foetus suffers. the issue is that the foetus is a human being in the making and no one has the right to end its life

Agreed

Commander Vimes wrote:

as i said in the thread in PI, if i went into the ford factory and smashed up one of the cars while it was still on the assembly line, do you think i could use the defense in court that "it wasn't actually a car yet"?

You could if it was only a crime to smash up a car. It is also a crime to smash up anything belonging to say the Ford company, so you wouldn't have a defense.

It isn't a crime to destroy human cells. You are actually doing that right now, you did it when you brushed your hair, you did it when you scratched your arm. Thousands of your cells die off every minute.

So the question is when is a collection of human cells just a collection of human cells (which it is perfectly legal to destroy) and when it a collection of human cells a "person" with all the rights that come with that.

Commander Vimes wrote:

at what point does an abortion stop being ok?

That is the same question as above. Once you know that point you will know when it is ok and when it is not ok.

How do you define a person over a bunch of replicating human cells?

Commander Vimes wrote:

and about the whole "her body, her choice" thing: its not her body anymore.

Well that is a slightly different argument as to whether the embryo is a live or not.

Even if it is alive, does the woman not have a right to remove it from her body if she so wishes? I mean if you were holding my hand, and you would die if you let go, do I not have the right to take my hand away from yours?

You then get into the realm of what we hold parents responsble for their children. Should a mother have to give up a kidney to save their child who is dying of reinal failure?

b3t4

Right or wrong abortion will still continue to happen.

I've posted in a similar thread in the past and rather than repeat myself I will link to that post http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=51285363&postcount=87

A.

Zombrex

b3t4 wrote:

Right or wrong abortion will still continue to happen.

And .... ?

That isn't really an argument. Right or wrong everything will continue to happen. What is your point?

b3t4

Fair enough point Wicknight I'll try and clear up what I'm trying so say

If this thread decides that abortion is right, what are the potential repercussions?
Abortion is legal. Women and men get the support they need to either decide to have an abortion or not. Women have the best medical options available to them

If this thread decides that abortion is wrong, what are the potential repercussions?
Abortion is illegal. Women who have abortions are criminals and put in prison. Women continue to seek out abortions be they in other countries or in their own but under dubious circumstances. It's all swept under the carpet and no one gets support.

It's a very black and white question with little of the gray area that life requires.

I doubt I'm very clear in what I'm trying to say but for me it makes sense.

A.

fallout_girl

well then...
as i possibly am the only person in this whole discussion who actually did have an abortion here my 2 cent...
i did take precaution to avoid getting pregnant (gel and condoms) and still i got pregnant. one of those 5% unlucky i guess as i still have no idea how this could have happened.
from the moment i discovered being pregnant i was very very clear about not wanting to have a child, especially given the circumstances i was in at the time. it was a clear decision, but certainly not an easy one. irish doctors and/or women centres were less than helpful and did nothing to either decrease my fear nor did they offer any valuable advice on what to do would i have made the decision to keep the child.
throughout the pregnancy i felt sick, i was in pain and to say that i was mentally stable would be a lie. no maternal instincts kicking in either...
the only thing i felt after the abortion is and was relief.
for me it was certainly the right thing to do. and i also believe that it is a case to case decision every woman has to make on her own.
to also make one thing very clear: abortion is often perceived as some form of contraception. whoever went through the process will be able to confirm: this it certainly is not. it is painful, it is head wrecking, and it is far away from being easy. it also is made an embarrasing process, with people judging, being rude and making you feel like a piece of sh** for deciding to go down this road.
not even to mention the fact that as a method of contraception it surely is way way too expensive.
so people commenting here, judging again, saying that every foetus has a right to live and that every foetus is a person, you have not been in this situation, you are judging from a very very high horse and you possibly have no idea what it feels like to be in a state where you simply want to grab inside you to pull out whatever it is that ruins your life.
to add one thing though, i do believe that the timeframe in the uk is too long and i do believe that 12 weeks should be the absolute maximum.

Zulu

I'm sorry, but because you have had an abortion, doesn't make you any more of an authority to decided if a foetus has the right to life or not. It's highly unlikely science will prove when life becomes sentient in our life time, and as such it'll all come down to opinion.

A woman who is trying to get pregnant will tell you a child lives inside her. The same woman will grieve a miscarriage.
Another woman will consider things differently and make a hard choice.

Nevyn

Well it seems that it is not a baby until after 24 weeks.

http://www.oasis.gov.ie/birth/benefits_and_entitlements_relating_to_birth/maternity_leave.html

Stillbirths and miscarriages

If you have a stillbirth or miscarriage any time after the 24th week of pregnancy, you are entitled to full maternity leave. This means a basic period of 22 weeks and also 12 weeks additional maternity leave. If you have satisfied the PRSI requirements, Maternity Benefit is payable for the 22 weeks of the basic maternity leave.

To apply for Maternity Benefit following a stillbirth, you need to send a letter from your doctor with the Maternity Benefit application form, confirming the expected date of birth, the actual date of birth and the number of weeks of pregnancy.

You don't get time off work for the loss of a child unless the child has been gestated for 24 weeks or more.

Zulu

I don't think we're debating law here. If we are, then the law is quite clear on abortion here.

Zombrex

fallout_girl wrote:

so people commenting here, judging again, saying that every foetus has a right to live and that every foetus is a person, you have not been in this situation, you are judging from a very very high horse and you possibly have no idea what it feels like to be in a state where you simply want to grab inside you to pull out whatever it is that ruins your life.

Have to agree with Zulu here. I am very sorry for what you went through, but morality is not defined by the emotional state of those who want to do something.

If you don't have an argument for being anti-abortion or pro-abortion that can be understood by those who have not had an abortion then you don't really have an argument at all.

Nevyn

What bollixs.
Really so she is too emotivily invovled to have an opinion ?
It is easy for those who have never been in the situation of a crisis pregancy to judge.
Until you are or you are with your partner it can be very hard to know what you will feel and do. You can speculate but you don't know.
I have seen people both male and female and from both sides of this divide change thier mind when it came to thier personal situation.

Zombrex

Thaedydal wrote:

What bollixs.
Really so she is too emotivily invovled to have an opinion ?

If that is directed at me you might want to read my post again.

She is saying that the opinions of those who have not had to have an abortion are largely irrelivent, since they have never experienced the desire to "grab inside you to pull out whatever it is that ruins your life."

And myself, along with Zulu, are pointing out that having the experience of an abortion is largly irrelivent to the argument of if abortion is moral or not.

Certainly I welcome the insight of anyone who has gone through this, especially if it is to clear away the myth that women don't take an abortion seriously.

But her argument is given no more weight because she has had an abortion than the same argument from someone who hasn't. It is the argument for or against that holds water, not the state of the person who tell it.

A argument should convince someone no matter who tells it.

Thaedydal wrote:

It is easy for those who have never been in the situation of a crisis pregancy to judge.

Who is judging?

Thaedydal wrote:

Until you are or you are with your partner it can be very hard to know what you will feel and do.

Thats the point.

What I will feel or do in the situation should not have any relivence to the arguments for or against abortion. Otherwise it turns into a situation where one will be saying "abortion is wrong, unless I actually want to have one".

If a person cannot distance their argument from their own person feelings of what they would do in a situation then it isn't really an argument at all, it is just an opinion at a certain time based on what they want.

This wouldn't apply to any other area of morality, why apply it to abortion. You wouldn't say "I really want to kill my annoying neighbour, I've desided therefore that it is no long immoral to do so"

The feotus is either a "person", with all the rights bestowed upon it, or it isn't. It doesn't become any less of a person depending on the situation of the mother. It isn't more of a person if the mother had sex in a stable relationship with a person she loves and less of a person if the mother was raped. It is either a person or it isn't

I believe that a "person" with respect to rights, is defined by their consciousness stored in their brain. As such an early term feotus, which does not possess the ability yet to form human consciousness as we know it, is not yet a person. Others might disagree with that. But the current state of the mother, how badly she wants the feotus removed, or how the child was concieved has no bearing on that fact.

It might be relievent to the question of if the mother has the right to remove the child from her body even if it is classifed as a "person", but very few people seem interested in that other issue, and the argument for or against abortion nearly always seems to end up discussing of the feotus is a person or not.

Thaedydal wrote:

I have seen people both male and female and from both sides of this divide change thier mind when it came to thier personal situation.

Once they change their minds does that mean the morality of the situation also changes. Is it suddenly moral to have an abortion when before it was immoral?

The fact is the situation stays the same. If it is immoral to have an abortion before you get pregnent it is immoral afterwards. If it is moral to have an abortion it is still moral afterwards.

Society would be on a very slippy slope if we start deciding that the morality of a situation depends on how a person actually feel about it at a certain time.

Nevyn

What is moral and what is permissible changes over time.

Zombrex

Thaedydal wrote:

What is moral and what is permissible changes over time.

True but that is society changing, not an individual.

The morality of something should not change just because you want it do.

Nevyn

Really are you saying that a person can not change thier mind or their moral view point at all ?