Abortion - Right or Wrong???

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 ?

macfran

[

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 !

Nevyn

And ?
maybe the other adult she had sex with should have insisted on wearing a condom.

That is one woman out of what the 6,000 a year so roughly 60,000 over the last ten years just because she was that thick/careless/loose it does not follow on that the 59,999 are also.

And really there are plenty of positions that you can have sex in with your legs closed, some of them even more enjoyible because of it, but yes she chould have been more respectful of her fertiltiy and invested time and money in a better contraceptive solution.

But then again you can't even pay privatly to get your tubes tied in this country if you are under 35 and you dont' have at least 4 children.

macfran

[

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 !

So she did it all herself ...what precautions did the men take when they parted her legs and they probably now do not support their offsprings.

Women should have control of their lives and if they decide to have a termination that is their choice .

Zombrex

Thaedydal wrote:

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

No, I'm saying that a person changing their mind on a moral issue doesn't actually change the morality of the issue.

People can be biased. If I think abortion is completely wrong until I get my girlfriend pregnent and then suddenly I think it is actually ok, it is a safe bet that my personal situation is biasing my arguments for why it is ok.

If my argument for why it is suddenly ok does hold water when repeated by an independent 3rd party, someone who isn't pregnent, and isn't having an abortion then the argument isn't sound to start with.

Morality isn't a fixed thing, I'm not religious, I don't believe morality exists independent of society. But really society will not last long is morality becomes totally one persons opinion at one particular time.

There has to be some form of logical debate and back up with this questions of morality.

Simply saying "well you won't know until you are in the situation" isn't good enough. Me being in the situation might give me a better understanding, but it should be that the logic and arguments I use understandable by someone who hasn't been in the situation. If they can't understand them it is a safe bet that my arguments are being influenced not by logic and reason, but by my particular needs and wants at that particular moment. And you can't frame a society based on the ever chaning needs and wants of people. It would be chaos.

Nevyn

But the moral consences can and does change, hence why there are differing laws in differing countries. Who is to say that it will not change here.

Zombrex

macfran wrote:

[

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 !

If you are making the point I think you are making I must say I never quite understood that point.

Abortion is either wrong or it isn't wrong.

If it isn't wrong then a person who shagged a bar tender behind the chipper and got pregnent for the 9th time has as much right to an abortion as someone who was raped by their father. If it is wrong then neither has the right to an abortion

You seem to be implying that this woman should feel ashamed that she has had 2 abortions, as if she should have learnt some massive life lesson after the first one. That she has done something necessary but ultimately regretable and wrong, and she should make sure it doesn't happen again (like having a car crash while speeding) This would suggest the paradoxical idea that abortion is kinda ok, but you really should do it certainly not twice.

That hints are the rather distrubing opinion that yes we are destorying a person but its a once off so its not too bad, but don't make a habit of it. How does that work? If the argument for or against abortion is the feotus is either a person or not a person then abortion is either a hideous moral crime on par with murder, or it is no different than wiping cells away from your skin.

This in between stance that some people have is quite frustrating.

Zombrex

Thaedydal wrote:

But the moral consences can and does change, hence why there are differing laws in differing countries. Who is to say that it will not change here.

But we aren't talking about society's changing opinions, we are talking about the idea that once it happens to you your opinion will change, and validating this change of opinion.

What is the logic behind the change of opinion?

I can see is that the logic would be something like "oh sh1t, I've got my girlfriend pregnent and I really don't want a kid", but is this something to base a moral decision on? Would anyone else understand that logic.

How would I argue a moral case based on that? It is moral because I want it to be is what that essentally boils down to. If I don't have an argument beyond that then I don't really have an argument at all. And if I do have an argument beyond that then this desire is largely irrelevent.

Society doesn't base its moral framework around the specific wants of a particular person above other arguments. It bases them around the logical rational arguments for or against a position.

I want to speed down the motor way, but that has nothing to do with if speeding is allowed or not. I want to shoot the barking dog outside, but again that has nothing to do with if shooting the barking dog outside is acceptable or not.

Zulu

Thaedydal wrote:

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

of course they can - that doesn't make them right.

Het-Field

Thaedydal wrote:

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



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

You sir are an unfeeling, unethical clod. You have been so insensitive on the thread. You are clearly pro abortion (not just pro choice) because you have continued to play down the importance of the foetus. While i feel for anybody who hass to have an abortion, I dont feel for you because you have a heart which is as cold as stone. Fair enough, you want to murder babys because you have your opinions on when life starts. But frankly life starts at conception

Zulu

Het-Field wrote:

You sir are an unfeeling, unethical clod...

That kind of emotive personal attack serves no porpose except to weaken the pro-life side of the discussion. You have managed to make 0 facts; 0 arguments. Well done - clown.

But frankly life starts at conception

0 facts; 0 arguments; 1 opinion.