Abortion- Right or Wrong

Zulu

Yup, what he said!
Don't expect me to vote against my conscence to applease your convience.

Taking responsibility for the choices you make, is what defines you as an adult. The decisions you choose define you as a person.

(That isn't meant to be a slight against anybody; it applies to all on both sides of the debate)

Zombrex

CDfm wrote: »

They still want it all and have been too lazy or irresponsible to use any of the opportunities of contraception available including the morning after pill - which Im not against well BOO HOO.

I really don't like this argument that we should force women to have kids as some way of making them grow up or take responsibility. The people you are describing seem like the worst people to be giving the care of another human being to. Using children as a way of teaching people a lesson seems pretty bad.

Won't someone think of the children! :pac:

Dragan

CDfm wrote: »

I have to agree with you on everything here eevie - i cant conceptualise this cut off point either and cant see how anyone can draw a line.

Pretty easily to be honest.

I guess i would be labeled as "pro-choice" though.

CDfm

Wicknight -nobodies forcing or coercing anybody here to have children.This is a free and open discussion.

Im just saying that there are loads of options other than abortion in normal circumstances where the health of a woman is not at risk.

Thats unless you believe that women are too immature too handle such responsibility. Thats not the real world women are and to say otherwise is patronising. What are you suggesting that abortion is available if a woman gets intentionally pregnant and changes her mind ?

Not being sarcastic BTW just trying to inject some realism here and would like to know your views.

CDfm

Dragan wrote: »

Pretty easily to be honest.

I guess i would be labeled as "pro-choice" though.

I wouldnt let you off that easily - pro-abortion maybe

LovelyHurling

I am pro-abortion in situations where it is the woman's choice. I agree that pro-choice is a silly term designed to cover up the simple fact that sometimes, women get pregnant and they want to get rid of the foetus/ child.

As long as the abortion is carried out in a humane way, without adverse health effects to the mother, and as long as the father has given his full consent, I have no problems with somebody choosing abortion. There are enough unwanted kids in this world without bringing any more into it over a quetionable "morality". Morality like that doesn't help anyone or anything.

Dragan

CDfm wrote: »

I wouldnt let you off that easily - pro-abortion maybe

Nope, if i wanted everyone to have abortions then i would be pro-abortion.

If i wanted everyone to have the choice then i would be...........

JC 2K3

nacho libre wrote: »

A zygote has the potential to develop one. A sperm does not.

Yes it does, all it needs is an ovum. What's the big deal about singularity?

nacho libre wrote: »

Based on your views in this thread, granting human rights at birth is not a clearly discernible point, it's just a arbitrary position you take in order to support your position that aborting up until the child pops out is acceptable. I think it is a contradiction to propose suddenly conferring rights at birth because the baby is not a 'person', therefore like the unborn child, you justify aborting, it has no human "value", so it should be ok to cease the existence of the new born baby if it's a burden for the mother.

It is discernible:
-Physically, the baby comes out of the womb, starts breathing for the first time etc.
-Before this point, the baby cannot be adopted.
-Before this point, the mother is burdened with carrying the baby.

nacho libre wrote: »

I believe we give protection to the unborn, by giving it the benefit of the doubt, because as your argument demonstrates no one can clearly provide a line in the sand as to when the developing child should be afforded human rights.

The benefit of the doubt regarding what? Going back to the sperm argument, why is conception and singularity so important in the affording of human rights?

CDfm

Dragan wrote: »

Nope, if i wanted everyone to have abortions then i would be pro-abortion.

If i wanted everyone to have the choice then i would be...........

You have the whiff of a jesuit education about you or at least are good friends with one.

CDfm

JC 2K3 wrote: »

Yes it does, all it needs is an ovum. What's the big deal about singularity?


It is discernible:
-Physically, the baby comes out of the womb, starts breathing for the first time etc.
-Before this point, the baby cannot be adopted.
-Before this point, the mother is burdened with carrying the baby.


The benefit of the doubt regarding what? Going back to the sperm argument, why is conception and singularity so important in the affording of human rights?

Whow there Dr Dawkins. Sit a spell. Dat post is somethan this simple country boys havin trouble understandin.

Does singularity mean before conception? Sperms and ovums type.

The rest looks like legal definitions. Like Peterson in California going on death row for double murder.

Then its a bit out of my league.

Dragan

CDfm wrote: »

You have the whiff of a jesuit education about you or at least are good friends with one.

I wouldn't overestimate my abilities to learn too much about people over an internet forum via a few lines of text if i were you.

Do you have any actual point to make, or was i a bold boy because i gave you an honest opinion?

Shame on me.

CDfm

Very bold .....but honest and I dont agree with the term pro-choice its like calling the death penalty and execution a victim closure experience.

Itsmakes it seem kind of picnicy huggs and love and a happy meal but its more a drive-by than a drive-in at McDonalds.

Zombrex

CDfm wrote: »

Wicknight -nobodies forcing or coercing anybody here to have children.This is a free and open discussion.

Indeed. I didn't actually mean that you, CDfm, were going to physically force a woman to have an child.

Your position is that abortion is wrong. Your argument seems to be that women who are stupid enough to get pregnant should suffer the consequences of being stupid, as that might make them grow up.

I don't like that idea, it seems to be sacrificial the future child simply to prove something the mother. I would have thought that an irresponsible, immature woman is the last person to be raising a child.

CDfm wrote: »

Im just saying that there are loads of options other than abortion in normal circumstances where the health of a woman is not at risk.

Well there is adoption. But that is an option that still creates a child. And it doesn't really teach the mother any responsibility beyond making them go through with the pregnancy.

CDfm wrote: »

Thats unless you believe that women are too immature too handle such responsibility.

I think some clearly are, certainly. As apparently you do.

I don't think 16, 17, 18 year olds should be having children simply to prove a point about how they should have used a condom. I think having an abortion does anyway. And if having an abortion doesn't make them grow up a little and take future responsibility for contraception I certain don't think having a child would.

CDfm wrote: »

What are you suggesting that abortion is available if a woman gets intentionally pregnant and changes her mind ?

I think that early term abortions (I'm against late term abortions) should be available for anyone who wants one, for what ever reason. Ultimately the reason is up to the person. If abortion is fine (it isn't killing a human being) then the reason doesn't matter. If it isn't fine (it is killing a human being) then there is no good reason (beyond maybe saving the life of the mother)

Saying that a person who is lazy or immature or ignorant shouldn't get an abortion because its not a good enough reason is just silly, because do you really want a lazy immature ignorant person having the baby instead?

Zombrex

LovelyHurling wrote: »

I am pro-abortion in situations where it is the woman's choice. I agree that pro-choice is a silly term designed to cover up the simple fact that sometimes, women get pregnant and they want to get rid of the foetus/ child.

Well "pro-choice" was picked as a term because ultimately it is support for the woman (or couple) to choose what they want to do, they can decide to have an abortion but it is ok to decide not to have an abortion either, or feel that abortion is wrong for them.

where as "pro-abortion" sounds like everyone should get abortions :pac:

Abortions for everyone!
Booo!!
Abortions for none!
Booo!!
Abortions for some, miniature American flags for others!
Wooohooo!

LovelyHurling

I'm not sure what it is supposed to mean that this term was "picked". I just think it's a silly term that doesn't adequately describe what I am in favour of. Pro-choice could mean being in favour of women deciding to stick knitting needles up there, or women alone having a choice. At best this term is vague and impotent.

What I'm in favour of, on the other hand, is abortion under certain circumstances - ie when it is a clear and firm decision that both parties, potential mother and potential father, come to and is carried out safely in a clinical setting.

We can't tiptoe around the fact that as it happens, there's really nothing wrong with this procedure, it doesn't needed to be wrapped up in cotton wool.

Zombrex

LovelyHurling wrote: »

I'm not sure what it is supposed to mean that this term was "picked".

It was picked by "pro-abortion" (as you would call them) campaigners. Such a term is known as political framing. It is a term designed to sound good and to cast opposition in a negative light. To be against "pro-choice" is to be anti-choice (boo! bad!). The "pro-life" campaign do the same thing, to be against them is to be anti-life (boo! bad!)

To be "pro-abortion" or "anti-abortion" just doesn't have the same kick to it :pac:

LovelyHurling wrote: »

What I'm in favour of, on the other hand, is abortion under certain circumstances - ie when it is a clear and firm decision that both parties, potential mother and potential father, come to and is carried out safely in a clinical setting.

Well the pro-choice campaign would argue that that is pro-choice?

You support the right for parents to choose to abort their unborn foetus if they decide to, though you also support their right not to?

The term anti-abortion makes more sense that pro-abortion. To be anti-abortion means that no one should have an abortion. But "pro-abortion" kinda implies that everyone should have an abortion, which isn't what the pro-choice campaign want to project.

Dragan

CDfm wrote: »

Very bold .....but honest and I dont agree with the term pro-choice its like calling the death penalty and execution a victim closure experience.

Itsmakes it seem kind of picnicy huggs and love and a happy meal but its more a drive-by than a drive-in at McDonalds.

Cool, call me whatever you want, either way i feel that early stage abortions should be an option in this country.

Malari

Dragan wrote: »

Cool, call me whatever you want, either way i feel that early stage abortions should be an option in this country.

Yeah, to be honest I use the term "pro-choice" because that it what is in common usage and it is recognisable when you are talking to someone - they know what side you are on.

If you want to call me pro-abortion that's fine, but for me, pro-choice describes more than just abortion; it also means a choice to get infomration about ALL the options available to a woman before and after she becomes pregnant.

Malari

Wicknight wrote: »

Indeed. I didn't actually mean that you, CDfm, were going to physically force a woman to have an child.

Your position is that abortion is wrong. Your argument seems to be that women who are stupid enough to get pregnant should suffer the consequences of being stupid, as that might make them grow up.

I don't like that idea, it seems to be sacrificial the future child simply to prove something the mother. I would have thought that an irresponsible, immature woman is the last person to be raising a child.


Well there is adoption. But that is an option that still creates a child. And it doesn't really teach the mother any responsibility beyond making them go through with the pregnancy.

Not only might a woman who became unintentionally pregnant make a poor mother, but it's also inane to expect her to carry a pregnancy to term whilst abstaining from drinking, smoking, and carry out all the normal checks if she doesn't want the baby.

CDfm

Wicknight wrote: »

Indeed. I didn't actually mean that you, CDfm, were going to physically force a woman to have an child.

Your position is that abortion is wrong. Your argument seems to be that women who are stupid enough to get pregnant should suffer the consequences of being stupid, as that might make them grow up.

I don't like that idea, it seems to be sacrificial the future child simply to prove something the mother. I would have thought that an irresponsible, immature woman is the last person to be raising a child.


Well there is adoption. But that is an option that still creates a child. And it doesn't really teach the mother any responsibility beyond making them go through with the pregnancy.


I think some clearly are, certainly. As apparently you do.

I don't think 16, 17, 18 year olds should be having children simply to prove a point about how they should have used a condom. I think having an abortion does anyway. And if having an abortion doesn't make them grow up a little and take future responsibility for contraception I certain don't think having a child would.


I think that early term abortions (I'm against late term abortions) should be available for anyone who wants one, for what ever reason. Ultimately the reason is up to the person. If abortion is fine (it isn't killing a human being) then the reason doesn't matter. If it isn't fine (it is killing a human being) then there is no good reason (beyond maybe saving the life of the mother)

Saying that a person who is lazy or immature or ignorant shouldn't get an abortion because its not a good enough reason is just silly, because do you really want a lazy immature ignorant person having the baby instead?

Wicknight - yer being flippant.

Course I dont think women are stupid - thats patronising and wrong and I have never said that- if thats your opinion it doesnt bother me.

I have no religous or educational message here sorry to disapoint.

Early or late abortions all boil down to one thing. When you see foetus I see baby - thats where we differ and abortion is baby killing.

Baby killing is not new - the baby farmers of the 19th Century took in babies to rear them or have them adopted for money.Then killed the baby and pocketed the dosh. So baby killing is not new -it has a fine historical tradition. In India baby girls are killed or aborted.

The murderer Christie used to target women to kill by saying he could do abortions.

My point is that abortion is not contraception. If you are sexually active -get real - its like the employee getting caught embezzling killing the accountant who discovers the fraud. WE dont do that beacause its disproportionate and wrong.

If a woman gets pregnant well I would hope she is ready or in a good relationship but its not the babies fault and killing the baby is disproportionate. Convenient to the putative parents maybe - but still killing.

I believe that stoning women in the middle east for adultery is wrong - but at least they wait until the baby is born or weaned.

What Im saying there are loads of contraceptive options available up to and including the morning after pill and loads of ways of having sex that wont result in pregnancy.

The term pro-choice and the way you use it is pro baby killing so you can do what you want just dont kill any babies OK.

Zulu

Malari wrote: »

Not only might a woman who became unintentionally pregnant make a poor mother, but it's also inane to expect her to carry a pregnancy to term whilst abstaining from drinking, smoking, and carry out all the normal checks if she doesn't want the baby.

So, your argument is: because someone will probably be a bad parent: kill the child?

Did I read that correctly??

Malari

Zulu wrote: »

So, your argument is: because someone will probably be a bad parent: kill the child?

Did I read that correctly??

No, you didn't. But I think forced pregnancy could potentially already endanger the foetus which you want to keep alive because the person carrying it never wanted to be pregnant in the first place.

Nevyn

Wicknight wrote: »

Well the pro-choice campaign would argue that that is pro-choice?

You support the right for parents to choose to abort their unborn foetus if they decide to, though you also support their right not to?

Yes.

Dragan

CDfm wrote: »

I have no religous or educational message here sorry to disapoint.

Funny, you were quick enough to pressume things about my own education.

I always wondered why people mention issues they later deem to be moot.

CDfm

I was talking about me not having any aghenda- anyway am new to boards and thought a moderator was like a guru or a spirit guide - you know like the fox in the Simpsons or the grandfather in Soupy Norman:rolleyes:

tallaght01

So, we've talked about when a fetus becomes a human being. Obviously, it's very difficult to get any kind of consensus on that issue.

I've held 23 (rarely) and 24 week (more often) babies. They have most of the bits they need to look liek a human. And they did a week or 2 before they were born, too.

So, I'm curious to know how LATE we should offer abortions at?

Anyone got any strong opinions on this part of the argument?

Zulu

Malari wrote: »

No, you didn't. But I think forced pregnancy could potentially already endanger the foetus which you want to keep alive because the person carrying it never wanted to be pregnant in the first place.

I'm sorry but I'm failing to see the difference. You are saying that it's ok to abort because the parent (mother) "could potentially endanger" the child. Correct?
So if someone is a poor parent (ie: will smoke/drink/take drugs while pregnant), it's ok to kill the child (abort the foetus). No?

Nevyn

tallaght01 wrote: »

So, I'm curious to know how LATE we should offer abortions at?

Anyone got any strong opinions on this part of the argument?

Personally 20 weeks should be the cut off, and only after that if there is sever deformity such as lack of brain development or lack of kidney development.

Zulu

Malari wrote: »

If you want to call me pro-abortion that's fine, but for me, pro-choice describes more than just abortion; it also means a choice to get infomration about ALL the options available to a woman before and after she becomes pregnant.

By the by, you can be anti-abortion, but still be for all the information being given to women. It's not like anti-abortion = no information.
Currently our society provides information, just not abortions.

Nevyn

Zulu wrote: »

By the by, you can be anti-abortion, but still be for all the information being given to women. It's not like anti-abortion = no information.
Currently our society provides information, just not abortions.

Which I think is hypocritical.

From a catholic point of view anyone who had a complete abortion is automatically excommunicated but also are those who assist in that happening.

So all those who voted for the right to information in that refenda if they were catholic they were automatically excommunicated.