Abortion - Will It Ever Happen?

speedboatchase

Since we all like to pretend we're this modern Celtc Tiger Ireland, free from the shackles of the Catholic Church, I'd like to hear everyone's opinions on why abortion is such a squeamish issue for Irish people, no matter their age. Why is no political parties really talking about this issue and how long do we have to wait to see a bill?

Interestingly enough, have a look at this map. Personally I think its a disgrace

dresden8

This question is often posed as left vs right, church vs secular, old vs modern, young vs old and several different ways.

I'm pretty much a lefty and totally non-religious, but I believe an embryo is a baby and alive and therefore entitled to life.

I also have my own qualifications on this. In fertility treatment there may be a lot of frozen embryos that may never be implanted. I don't consider them alive and therefore think they can be disposed of.

However, in disposing of those embryos they shouldn't be used to create human-animal hybrids or be "harvested" for whatever reason. They should be properly disposed of. As in gone.

I realise my opinion may be individual and several people can pick holes and anomolies in all the above statements, but hey, screw you.

Tha Gopher

speedboatchase wrote: »

Since we all like to pretend we're this modern Celtc Tiger Ireland, free from the shackles of the Catholic Church....[/IMG]

Oh jaysus, here we go.

The church has not had a say in the running of the state since, at the very, very latest, the mid 80s, and even that is stretching it.

johnnyq

OP wrote:

how long do we have to wait to see a bill?

Until there is another referendum afaik?

daithicarr

i think the approach that some other countrys like Poland take is the best, illegal except in the case of Rape, maternal life/health and or fetal defects. Dont see why anyone should be forced to bring a child in to the world under those circumstances.
But in the case of where people just dont want it for personel or economic reasons, there shouldnt be abortion, in my opinion. should live with the consequences of your actions and not kill a child because it doenst suit you. should have kept your pants on.

Studoc

The immortal line,

"If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament"

sums up best for me the claptrap that passes for informed debate on this subject.

oscarBravo

Recognising that this is a topic that enflames people's passions, I'm going to lay down a marker at an early stage: if you want to participate in this discussion, you will do so calmly, rationally and dispassionately.

Anyone who ignores this warning and goes off on one will be banned. Anyone who gets personally abusive towards another poster will be banned for quite a while. And if a lot of moderation is required on an ongoing basis, the thread will be closed.

Gurgle

dresden8 wrote: »

I'm pretty much a lefty and totally non-religious, but I believe an embryo is a baby and alive and therefore entitled to life.

^^ Sums it up for me.

gordon_gekko

why do so many people assume that being pro choice is progressive

as far as im concerned , being pro choice for many is just another liberal sacred cow

Dave!

daithicarr wrote: »

i think the approach that some other countrys like Poland take is the best, illegal except in the case of Rape, maternal life/health and or fetal defects. Dont see why anyone should be forced to bring a child in to the world under those circumstances.
But in the case of where people just dont want it for personel or economic reasons, there shouldnt be abortion, in my opinion. should live with the consequences of your actions and not kill a child because it doenst suit you. should have kept your pants on.

1. Does the "child" not deserve a life regardless of who spawned it, or what defects it has? You consider it a life, yet would kill it because it is defective and so an inconvenience for its parents.

2. Is bearing a child whilst immersed in poverty such a good idea? Should they have to raise it too, or is the birth enough?

3. Your post implies that women should be expected to give birth as a means of punishment ("live with the consequences of your actions") -- seems a bit harsh to me. And not exactly conducive to a positive parent-child relationship. Accidents happen, btw.

Fratton Fred

I think that abortion should be legal, but the reasons should be right, not just abortion for the sake of it. I don't just mean disability, rape etc either.

I think the real issue should be the number of young girls who travel to the UK for an abortion and get little or no post abortion counselling. There appears almost a head in the sand approach to the subject at the moment. Ireland can hold itself up as a beacon of light in the war against abortion, but ignore the fact thousand of girls a year are flying to England for terminations.

The Geraldine

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I think that abortion should be legal, but the reasons should be right, not just abortion for the sake of it. I don't just mean disability, rape etc either.

I think the real issue should be the number of young girls who travel to the UK for an abortion and get little or no post abortion counselling. There appears almost a head in the sand approach to the subject at the moment. Ireland can hold itself up as a beacon of light in the war against abortion, but ignore the fact thousand of girls a year are flying to England for terminations.

Those who argue against abortion are total hyprocrites - where are they whe nthe baby is born - their argument is based on control not wanting to protect the life of the unborn. They are still of the mindset that a woman's body is to be controlled by a man ie The Church.

Even though I'm adopted I am fully in favour of legal abortion in Ireland.

There are far too many people with children they are utterly unable to be proper parents too either financially or emotionally and if you think hard on it this world is not such a great place to live. Sure in the west we are fine but even in the west there are poor people, abused people, broken people not to mention the horrors that go on in all sorts of other places.

Why on earth bring a child into such a world?

Akrasia

dresden8 wrote: »

This question is often posed as left vs right, church vs secular, old vs modern, young vs old and several different ways.

I'm pretty much a lefty and totally non-religious, but I believe an embryo is a baby and alive and therefore entitled to life.

I also have my own qualifications on this. In fertility treatment there may be a lot of frozen embryos that may never be implanted. I don't consider them alive and therefore think they can be disposed of.

However, in disposing of those embryos they shouldn't be used to create human-animal hybrids or be "harvested" for whatever reason. They should be properly disposed of. As in gone.

I realise my opinion may be individual and several people can pick holes and anomolies in all the above statements, but hey, screw you.

You recognise that your position is a 'belief'. Thats a first step.

As a 'lefty' do you think other people who don't share your opinions should be forced by law to comply with your personal beliefs?

Up to 80% of all implanted embryos fail to develop into a child for purely natural reasons. The vast majority of pregnancies end in natural termination.

http://www.reason.com/news/show/34948.html

We would be an awful lot better off caring properly for actual human children instead of forcing women to carry unwanted embryos to full term.

Mr. Presentable

There are many reasons people have abortions, but the most common one is women/girls who cannot/will not use birth control. Why should they have a get out that consists the termination of another persons life?

And don't give me this whole "it's my body" crap. It's not - you chose to host a developing human by consenting to procreation and opting not to take a precaution which costs 20c.

This is my opinion. I trust it will be respected for what it is without being abused.

Akrasia

gordon_gekko wrote: »

why do so many people assume that being pro choice is progressive

Because giving women control over their own reproduction is an essential aspect of womens liberation, and the hallmark of a civilised society.

as far as im concerned , being pro choice for many is just another liberal sacred cow

You don't have to agree with abortion to be pro choice. All you have to do is agree that you don't know what's best for other people, and that you have no right to impose your personal beliefs on others.

Fratton Fred

nipplenuts wrote: »

There are many reasons people have abortions, but the most common one is women/girls who cannot/will not use birth control. Why should they have a get out that consists the termination of another persons life?

aahh yes, it's the girls fault isn't it. bloody harlets getting themselves knocked up:rolleyes:

contraception is not 100% safe, there are accidents, drunken one night stands and dozens of other reasons.

Akrasia

nipplenuts wrote: »

There are many reasons people have abortions, but the most common one is women/girls who cannot/will not use birth control. Why should they have a get out that consists the termination of another persons life?

An embryo isn't a person, nor is a foetus, any more than an acorn is an oak tree.

And don't give me this whole "it's my body" crap. It's not - you chose to host a developing human by consenting to procreation and opting not to take a precaution which costs 20c.

Contraception is not 100% effective. do you consider all human sexual activity to be a tacit consent to parenthood? If so, you are debasing what you are trying to protect. Our humanity. We are not animals who have sex just for procreation. We are people, and sex is a very important part of our lives and our relationships. Every sperm is not sacred, we do not consent to parenthood every time a couple makes love.

This is my opinion. I trust it will be respected for what it is without being abused.

It is your opinion, you're entitled to it, but do you feel you have a right to force it onto everyone else?

oscarBravo

The Geraldine wrote: »

Those who argue against abortion are total hyprocrites

Did I stutter?

Final warning.

atlasman

What makes the Irish people think they have a choice on this matter.

You all seem to forget that the boys in Brussels call the tune nowadays. And they are singing from the United Nations hymn sheet.

It will take a stand of monumental proportions to stop the introduction of abortion and euthanasia legislation.

seamus

gordon_gekko wrote: »

why do so many people assume that being pro choice is progressive

Not necessarily progressive, but it's recognised as being the logical stance.

Anti-abortionists' stance is largely based on the belief that the embryo is a living human being. The key word here being "belief". Pro-choice people recognise that regardless of what they believe, you cannot enforce your beliefs on someone else. It's illogical.

Sure, people back up their beliefs with all sorts of scientific claims, but ultimately nothing has yet been proven, therefore the belief is still just a belief, it's not a truth.

The contraception thing is quite similar - contraception in this country was illegal for a long time, based on the belief that it was wrong. Now if someone believes it to be wrong, they have the choice to not use it. Whereas the rest of us have the choice to use it.

For me personally, when an embryo has greater than 50% viability outside of the womb (either in general or because of scientific intervention), then it shouldn't be aborted. Before that, there is insufficient evidence to consider the embryo to be a separate human organism.

The cut-off point should be constantly re-examined as science progresses. A 20-week embryo may not have 50% viability now, but may have in 10 years time. At that time, you bring the cut-off back to twenty weeks.

atlasman

seamus wrote: »

Not necessarily progressive, but it's recognised as being the logical stance.

.

Here we have another of these moderately educated individuals pushing his logical/scientific view of the world.

We are all so progressive. Have you ever considered why the scientific method was promoted in the first place, and why the religious method existed before?

Both are methods of control. Respect for you fellow man should be the basis of all opinions, not new age liberalism.

seamus

atlasman wrote: »

Respect for you fellow man

Respecting someone else implies respecting their right to choose. Shocker!

The scientific method says nothing of control whatsoever. It's a method for asserting the correctness of theories, nothing more. It doesn't try to tell you what's completely wrong or incorrect, only tries to discover what is correct. By its very nature, the scientific method accepts that correctness is transitional and completely dependent on scientific factors in existence at the time the method was applied. Hence why it never says anything is incorrect, is just says that something cannot be verified.

"Respect for your fellow man" is a lovely little rhetorical hippyish statement, but in reality it doesn't provide any answers, or methods for procuring answers.

atlasman

atlasman wrote: »

Both are methods of control. Respect for you fellow man should be the basis of all opinions, not new age liberalism.

In fairness now,one doesn't have to carry the weight of your Churches teachings or if you have none your own moral guidelines around on display to chastise other peoples choices.

I don't like abortion at all,never did,never will.
I certainly think that some use it as an ejector seat type of birth control.
That in my view is horrendous and I'd have a dim view of anyone I knew who does that-I don't thankfully.

There was an anology earlier in the thread comparing an embyro to an acorn.
The day I give an embyro the same little respect that I'd give to an acorn (I have no problem standing on an acorn,I'd have big problems standing on an embyro) is the day I lose all respect for myself.
In other words,that analogy is to me the most ridiculous I've ever hear.

I have a simple philosophy with regard to abortion and it's availability.I'll never vote for it's availability because I don't agree with it.But if it's legally available,I'm not stopping anyone availing of it (except I'd make my view known to them if I knew them or if they were close to me or something or maybe I wouldn't it depends).
As far as I'm concerned,if theres bad kharma associated with abortion either here or in some afterlife,the person having the abortion takes that risk.
If there isn't well they are away in a hack.
Thats up to them,they are either cool with it or not.
I certainly ain't.

Akrasia

atlasman wrote: »

Here we have another of these moderately educated individuals pushing his logical/scientific view of the world.

We are all so progressive. Have you ever considered why the scientific method was promoted in the first place, and why the religious method existed before?

Both are methods of control. Respect for you fellow man should be the basis of all opinions, not new age liberalism.

throw away your computer so.

The scientific method is responsible for all the technology in the world.

Akrasia

Deleted User wrote: »

There was an anology earlier in the thread comparing an embyro to an acorn.
The day I give an embyro the same little respect that I'd give to an acorn (I have no problem standing on an acorn,I'd have big problems standing on an embyro) is the day I lose all respect for myself.

Its not about respect. That's a personal belief. An embryo is a seed, All life starts from a seed. The vast vast vast majority of seeds in this world never develop into maturity. That's the way nature works. The vast majority of human seeds never develop into people. It is no less damaging to the embryo itself if it dies of natural causes, or if it is aborted.
People value life because we have empathy. We don't kill or harm other people because we can imagine what it would feel like to be killed, bereaved or harmed ourselves and we don't want to inflict that pain on others. We invest in medicine and health care because we empathise with the sick and we want to help ourselves.
An embryo has none of these feelings or relationships. We are projecting our own hopes and emotions onto something that is yet to exist.
There is a strong emotional argument about the 'potential life' of an embryo.
Potential life is not the same as actual life. Every time I decide not to have unprotected sex, I am destroying potential for life. The overwhelming majority of potential outcomes are never realised. It is totally illogical to lock a woman down to a life time committment just to protect one potential outcome over the billions of other outcomes she would be sacrificing.

People often think 'I wouldn't have liked to have been aborted, cause then I wouldn't be here. Well, there are countless reasons why you wouldn't be here. An awful lot of us wouldn't be here if contraception hadn't been banned in Ireland (perhaps your parents would not have been born) does that mean we should ban contaception?

If it was an equal tragedy every time a human embryo failed to develop as it is every time a human child or adult dies, then we would be totally demeaning the true value of human life.

In other words,that analogy is to me the most ridiculous I've ever hear.

An acorn is a potential oak tree. It is not an oak tree. An embryo is a potential person, it is not a person.

I have a simple philosophy with regard to abortion and it's availability.I'll never vote for it's availability because I don't agree with it.But if it's legally available,I'm not stopping anyone availing of it (except I'd make my view known to them if I knew them or if they were close to me or something or maybe I wouldn't it depends).

Would you vote against it? because that is stopping people availing of it.

As far as I'm concerned,if theres bad kharma associated with abortion either here or in some afterlife,the person having the abortion takes that risk.
If there isn't well they are away in a hack.
Thats up to them,they are either cool with it or not.
I certainly ain't.

But you do agree that it is a choice based on personal beliefs right?

Dave!

Well in fairness to 'pro-lifers', of course they would not want other people to have abortions, if they believe it involves killing a human. I'm against murder, but that doesn't mean I believe others should be allowed to murder. I think murder is wrong, and nobody should do it, and it should be illegal.

Akrasia

Akrasia wrote: »

Its not about respect.

Of course it's about respect.

An acorn is a potential oak tree. It is not an oak tree. An embryo is a potential person, it is not a person.

Therein lies the nub.In common with most people I'd say,I've more respect for a potential person than a potential tree.
You don't fine for you.

Would you vote against it? because that is stopping people availing of it.

I'd vote against it because I'd be asked by virtue of my vote to facilitate it.I wouldn't build an abortion clinic either if directly asked to do that for example.

But you do agree that it is a choice based on personal beliefs right?

Why are you asking me that when I'd already answered that?

If it was an equal tragedy every time a human embryo failed to develop as it is every time a human child or adult dies, then we would be totally demeaning the true value of human life.

That boils down to a difference between what nature allows to happen without human intervention and what happens with deliberate human intervention.The difference is marked.
It's also a question of line drawing.
Different people of course have different lines depending on what they are comfortable with.
I'm sure there are people who would like to abort at almost birth,just as there are people who would subscribe to the every sperm is sacred rule.

daithicarr

i read that after 5 weeks there are signs that a fetus begins to show self awareness. after this period i think it is morally questionable to abort the baby.
if it is aware, it has a right to life, should i be allowed terminate the life of a infant becuase i dont want it?
I understand that in the case of sever physical or mental handicap, where the child will be totaly dependant on others its entire life, there might be some case for an abortion .

But i really dont see why if they dont want the child they dont put it up for adoption ? you still get tid of it, you dont end a life.

oscarBravo

At this point I'm beginning to wonder about the relevance of this thread to Politics.

If it's going to become the usual rights-and-wrongs debate, it will be heading to Humanities very shortly.

seamus

daithicarr wrote: »

i read that after 5 weeks there are signs that a fetus begins to show self awareness. after this period i think it is morally questionable to abort the baby.

Links? How do you define self-awareness, how did this thing you read define self-awareness, and how were these tests carried out?

But i really dont see why if they dont want the child they dont put it up for adoption ? you still get tid of it, you dont end a life.

A number of reasons really. The strongest argument being that pregnancy releases a whole batch of hormones, designed to interfere with your ability to make rational decisions and to create a strong emotional bond between mother and child. Before the pregnancy properly sets in, a woman should be more rational and more able to look impartially at the decision, than after the birth.

Or to take the extreme view (not mine) - a foetus is a parasite growing inside the body which causes physical, mental and emotional changes to the body which are often irreversible. If this parasite wasn't the result of copulation, would you prevent someone from having it removed to prevent this damage to their body and their mind?

Fratton Fred

I think this thread demonstrates nicely what an emotice subject this is. To answer the OPs question, I think it will one day, but not under this government.

Why rock the boat when you can ship people off to a neighbouring country and sweep the issue under the carpet.

daithicarr

yeah always new women were irrational cant be trusted to make a sound judgement .

(thats a joke ebfore anyone jumps down my throat)

sorry dont have the link, read it only a few days ago. cant find where. plus my internet has been blocked hence all my recent activity on the boards.

Politically does it make much difference whether we legalize or not, nearly all our neighbours have it, so banning it or not, wont have much of an effect on the vast majority of people who really want to go ahead with it.

seamus

I don't think this is something which Brussels will manage to control, even if the Nice Treaty goes through. As said, it's such an emotive issue that I wouldn't be surprised if we had idiots with petrol bombs and placards, should Brussels decide that Ireland is going to be abortion-friendly. So it's probably something that the EU will allow member states to decide for themselves.

The EU will always allow tiny vetoes on certain topics in order to maintain the union. Look at the UK - it practically gets to join the EU without conforming to any of its requirements. OK maybe not, but they do get a lot of leeway, mainly because of their very loud minority nationalist fringe.

nearly all our neighbours have it, so banning it or not, wont have much of an effect on the vast majority of people who really want to go ahead with it.

It adds an extra stumbling block. One big thing that has been pointed out by some groups is that the Irish attitude of looking the other way only serves to make matters worse. Yes, if women choose to have an abortion, they can go elsewhere. However, the truly impoverished may be able to make the choice but can't afford to carry it out. Thus, you have children being born into the country's poorest families, where the parents are already incapable of looking after the children that they have, essentially dooming most of these children into short lives of poverty, drugs and crime.

Fratton Fred

seamus wrote: »

The EU will always allow tiny vetoes on certain topics in order to maintain the union. Look at the UK - it practically gets to join the EU without conforming to any of its requirements. OK maybe not, but they do get a lot of leeway, mainly because of their very loud minority nationalist fringe.

different subject, but Britain won't sign agreements it can't keep to, whereas other countries sign and then ignore them (VRT, VHI for example).

I think this is too touchy a subject for Brussels to touch tbh, too emotive they prefer the shape of a banana or cornish pasties only being made in cornwall.

Biro

Akrasia wrote: »

An embryo isn't a person, nor is a foetus

That's your opinion and belief.

Akrasia wrote: »

It is your opinion, you're entitled to it, but do you feel you have a right to force it onto everyone else?

How about you? Do you think that you have a right to force YOUR opinion on everyone else?

Even trying to understand the points of view on both sides of the arguements, and looking at the topic from both sides individually, I still fail to see why it's considered "progression" to be pro-abortion. That is the biggest niaeve opinion here really. There are various arguements for and against, and there are people who believe they are right on both sides, but for one side (or the other) to think that their way is moving forward and better than the old way on a topic like this is incorrect.
Also, on the arguement that Akrasia keeps making on forcing a pro-life law on people, that's the way soceity works. I don't want Bertie to be leader of this country, I didn't vote for his party, but the majority of people did and I have to put up with that. But you seem to take issue that if there was a new referrendum tomorrow, and the pro-life was the majority vote, you'd think that they were forcing their view on society, whereas if it was the other way, you'd be winning, and society would be better off. That's only your opinion.

BostonB

DaveMcG wrote: »

1. Does the "child" not deserve a life regardless of ....what defects it has? You consider it a life, yet would kill it because it is defective and so an inconvenience for its parents.....

I don't think you should draw a black and white line in the sand like that. Its applying very simple logic to a complex situation, and that just not useful except for a theoretical debate unconnected to real world issues.

In this country you have to carry a dying "child" to full term, even if it has zero survivability after delivery. You also have to consider situation where a "child" will have zero quality of life of any kind. Your sweeping generalization includes these situations and saying they are simply an " inconvenience for its parents" is staggering. These are devastating situations.

There also seems to be a dismissive attitude to how carrying a child to term effects the mother and the father. Its not a simple mechanical process. It effects most people mentally as well. I'd also add that life and death decisions are made all the time where people lives can be shortened by withdrawing medical intervention, or choosing a specific medical intervention. I can't imagine that some of the posters of arguments you see posted on this subject have any experience of these situations , as they have such a narrow view point on the subject.

My own opinion is that I think theres a compromise to be made that somewhere in the middle between the both sides. But it has to be moved on from where it is now. Taking a simple view and ignoring the whole thing is not the answer either.

Rossibaby

to answer the question...yes imo

because ireland has been a catholic nation, abortion has always been a touchy subject in peoples minds and the reminents of this still exist...i personally am pro-choice

partholon

getting back to the OP.

murdering babies doenst go down well with the electorate

ok i know thats a little bit mischeivous on my part but pro choice do well in the media because of the PC agenda they push where there are sacred cows, like immegration for instance, that they just dont question. its not a question of whether there right or wrong its just the way the media operates. this is an absolute, no questions asked.

the electorate DONT operate that way, which is why the citizenship referendum was such a suprise to the media. ditto for abortion. candidates that stand on that line dont get elected, case in point allana batchick (spl?), she's pro choice but kept it pretty much low key when she stood for election and still didnt get in despite being perceived in the media as a rising star for labour.

seeing as a politicians first job is to get elected they're going to avoid this like the plague. thats politics for ya.

incidently i dont think most people who're against abortion now are doing so on religious grounds, despite what the media keeps trotting out ("youth defence" etc), but thats just my perception. most of the people i know who're anti abortion havent seen the inside of a church in decades.

so no, bar EU law interfering, i dont see it ever happening here.

daithicarr

i am not a catholic, have had no catholic teachings, except sitting in school not listening to what the preist was saying. Thought it was very unfair that as a non catholic i was subject to catholic teaching, but thats a completely different point.

My views on abortion are not influenced by the catholic church in any way. i dont think most peoples are these days, the Catholic church has lost nealry all its power politiclay

Zombrex

daithicarr wrote: »

i read that after 5 weeks there are signs that a fetus begins to show self awareness. after this period i think it is morally questionable to abort the baby.

I agree with you that after the foetus develops the ability to form higher intelligence features in the brain it is morally questionable to abort the baby, but this stage is much later than 5 weeks. After 5 weeks the foetus is just developing the neural tube that will eventually form the spinal cord. It doesn't have a nervous system let, alone a brain.

daithicarr wrote: »

I understand that in the case of sever physical or mental handicap, where the child will be totaly dependant on others its entire life, there might be some case for an abortion

I don't really follow that logic. Either the foetus is a person or it isn't a person. It is not morally acceptable to kill a mentally disabled person, so why would it be morally acceptable to kill a mentally disabled person simply because they have not yet been born?

gordon_gekko

partholon wrote: »

getting back to the OP.

murdering babies doenst go down well with the electorate

ok i know thats a little bit mischeivous on my part but pro choice do well in the media because of the PC agenda they push where there are sacred cows, like immegration for instance, that they just dont question. its not a question of whether there right or wrong its just the way the media operates. this is an absolute, no questions asked.

the electorate DONT operate that way, which is why the citizenship referendum was such a suprise to the media. ditto for abortion. candidates that stand on that line dont get elected, case in point allana batchick (spl?), she's pro choice but kept it pretty much low key when she stood for election and still didnt get in despite being perceived in the media as a rising star for labour.

seeing as a politicians first job is to get elected they're going to avoid this like the plague. thats politics for ya.

incidently i dont think most people who're against abortion now are doing so on religious grounds, despite what the media keeps trotting out ("youth defence" etc), but thats just my perception. most of the people i know who're anti abortion havent seen the inside of a church in decades.

so no, bar EU law interfering, i dont see it ever happening here.

im against abortion and i havent been in a church in i dont know how long

btw , i would have a much more liberal view on euthenasia , i dont believe that people who are terminally ill and in awfull pain should be prevented from ending there own life

BostonB

Wicknight wrote: »

...
I don't really follow that logic. Either the foetus is a person or it isn't a person. It is not morally acceptable to kill a mentally disabled person, so why would it be morally acceptable to kill a mentally disabled person simply because they have not yet been born?

But its ok to withhold treatment and let someone die.

gordon_gekko wrote: »

im against abortion and i havent been in a church in i dont know how long

btw , i would have a much more liberal view on euthenasia , i dont believe that people who are terminally ill and in awfull pain should be prevented from ending there own life

What about where someone in that situation who can't physically do it themselves.

I don't know where I stand, I'm just throwing the question out there.

oscarBravo

Moved from Politics. amp, deal with as you see fit.

kizzyr

BostonB wrote: »

But its ok to withhold treatment and let someone die.



What about where someone in that situation who can't physically do it themselves.

I don't know where I stand, I'm just throwing the question out there.

.
It becomes assisted suicide then and so the person delivering the fatal dose of whatever drug is helping to end the life of a fully formed, fully developed human person. If a woman has an abortion at 10 weeks the embryo is a clump of cells that has the potential to become a person independent of its mother's body.

Personally I am pro choice and I don't think it right that any woman either has to go through the pregnancy and keep the baby or give it up for adoption. No one should be able to determine such a big thing. I'm not sure if I would ever have one but I do think it is a choice that each woman should be able to make for herself and her body. I do however support a lowering of the current limit in the UK.

gordon_gekko

BostonB wrote: »

But its ok to withhold treatment and let someone die.



What about where someone in that situation who can't physically do it themselves.

I don't know where I stand, I'm just throwing the question out there.

that to me is euthanasia , einstien

Bottle_of_Smoke

I think it's really stupid to allow it for rape. It's not like the child raped the girl.
It is also murder.

Though, I am pro-choice all the same. So long as it's done before the nervous system develops eliminating any chance of pain. Basically there's no suffering aside from the woman who's willing to have the abortion.

Zombrex

BostonB wrote: »

But its ok to withhold treatment and let someone die.

Depends on if they can properly consent.

Zombrex

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

I think it's really stupid to allow it for rape. It's not like the child raped the girl.

I have to agree, I never understood that argument that it is ok if the woman has been raped. The reason a woman wants to have the abortion has very little to do with whether or not it is moral to abort the foetus.

BostonB

kizzyr wrote: »

.
It becomes assisted suicide then and so the person delivering the fatal dose of whatever drug is helping to end the life of a fully formed...

Wicknight wrote: »

Depends on if they can properly consent.

gordon_gekko wrote: »

that to me is euthanasia , einstien

Attack the post not the poster.

Like I said you are only thinking of a narrow view point point on it. Suicide. I'm thinking of the far more common situation where if can be someone who's had an accident, or had an illness, parent, sibling, partner who no longer can communicate and you have to make the decision to proceed treatment or not. You don't have to assist them, you just have to stop treating them. At the end of the day YOU and the medical staff are making a decision to end their life. This might be something thats come to a point very quickly or very slowly.

Is that murder?

kizzyr

BostonB wrote: »

Attack the post not the poster.

Like I said you are only thinking of a narrow view point point on it. Suicide. I'm thinking of the far more common situation where if can be someone who's had an accident, or had an illness, parent, sibling, partner who no longer can communicate and you have to make the decision to proceed treatment or not. You don't have to assist them, you just have to stop treating them. At the end of the day YOU and the medical staff are making a decision to end their life. This might be something thats come to a point very quickly or very slowly.

Is that murder?

Witholding treatment and so allowing someone to die (as in the case of removing artificial nutrition and hydration in the case of someone who is in a PVS) is in fact a horrible horrible way to die. If you remove the ANH and give a strong dose of an drug to hasten their death you are in fact killing them not allowing them to die. In the case of someone like Diane Pretty where they could last for a long time its not a case of not treating its a case of helping them to die.
The difference with this and abortion is that a fully formed human person who has lived a sentient life is dying. In the case of abortion a foetus that may or may not last the duration of pregnancy and birth is being terminated. It is not a human person at this stage, it has the potential to become one but at that stage of its development it is not.
Abortion is an emotive issue whether someone is religious (particularly Catholic) or not. I do think that there are some cases where it is in fact worse to bring a baby into a particular life situation and abortion is the best option. For the most part it is not something women will enter into lightly no matter what is said.

Wicknight

Wicknight wrote: »

I have to agree, I never understood that argument that it is ok if the woman has been raped. The reason a woman wants to have the abortion has very little to do with whether or not it is moral to abort the foetus.

I'd have to disagree in the sense that morality is a personal thing.
It is different for everyone so it is possible for some people to argue that their concept of morality co incides with allowing abortion in the case of rape in the get that bastard thing out of me sense.Their otherwise distaste of abortion having been over ruled by a bigger distaste of allowing the product of something awfull grow inside them ever reminding them of them being violated.
For most or a lot of unfortunate rape victims that should mean the use of the MAP which the same people might not have a problem with at all.*

* Please note , this is not me expressing a further wish to debate this subject(It's been done to death so many many times here),I'm just coming in on a point of information