Abortion- Right or Wrong

HalloweenJack

I'm pro-choice.

Pregnancy is a life-changing thing and some people aren't ready for it. Imo, it's better than having someone raise a child who they (might) despise.

CDfm

I really dont get most of it

most womens groups who talk about abortion use a Marxist model. Marxist in the economic social and political sence.

Now i can understand a bus strike etc for higher wages as part of an industrial relations thingy.

what i dont get is this proprietory rights to babies and reproductive rights thing as If a baby was a unit of production that could be halted.

I dont get that bit.

Malari

Earthhorse wrote: »

1%? Where are you getting that figure from? Do you mean there is a 1% chance every time they have sex?

Many people get laser eye surgery these days even though simple measures, such as wearing glasses or contact lenses, can't correct the problem. You would never do that though, right?

1% is arbitrary. Whatever the risk rate is of the contraception you use.

No I would never get laser eye correction. That's my choice, but I know a good few people who have.

Earthhorse

Malari wrote: »

1% is arbitrary. Whatever the risk rate is of the contraception you use.

No I would never get laser eye correction. That's my choice, but I know a good few people who have.

Do you disagree with getting the MMR injection too?

seamus

Earthhorse wrote: »

1%? Where are you getting that figure from? Do you mean there is a 1% chance every time they have sex?

Actually, that's quite a good point.

If you imagine that the couple are responsible, then that means that every time they have sex, there is a 99% chance that it will not result in a pregnancy. (To pick what is considered an almost-perfect form of contraception).

Now, if you take that over 30 years (say), with them having sex say twice a month (they're boring, OK? ). The odds of them having gotten to the end of that 30 years without ever having become pregnant, is a shockingly low 7 in 10,000.

Or to put it another way, if 10,000 couples took this approach, after 30 years only seven of those couples will have not had a pregnancy.

[Edit:

This compares with a lifetime failure rate for vasectomies of less than 1%.

To be fair to the figures, 7 in 10,000 is a worst-case scenario. In reality, since fertility reduces with time, the odds are probably little better. But this may be balanced out by increased fertility and reduced responsibility in younger years.

Malari

seamus wrote: »

Actually, that's quite a good point.

If you imagine that the couple are responsible, then that means that every time they have sex, there is a 99% chance that it will not result in a pregnancy. (To pick what is considered an almost-perfect form of contraception).

Now, if you take that over 30 years (say), with them having sex say twice a month (they're boring, OK? ). The odds of them having gotten to the end of that 30 years without ever having become pregnant, is a shockingly low 7 in 10,000.

Or to put it another way, if 10,000 couples took this approach, after 30 years only seven of those couples will have not had a pregnancy.

Only if they are having sex while she is ovulating. Anyway, odds are the same for the each time. If it was a 1 in 2 chance it wouldn't mean that the second time you get pregnant.

Malari

Earthhorse wrote: »

Do you disagree with getting the MMR injection too?

Em, no. I think it's a good choice!

seamus

Malari wrote: »

Only if they are having sex while she is ovulating. Anyway, odds are the same for the each time. If it was a 1 in 2 chance it wouldn't mean that the second time you get pregnant.

Nope, but that's the wonder of probabilities. You could have sex 10 times with a 1 in 2 chance of pregnancy and not end up pregnant, but the odds of that are 1 in 1024. In other words, fairly unlikely.

I stuck in an edit there to say 7 in 10,000 is a worst-case scenario. I might do a compound calculation on it just to give a better indicator, but I fear we're straying a little off the topic.

{edit:
Actually, it's not that complex if we try keep the figures simple enough. Let's say the woman is "fertile" 7 days in 28. So if you have sex at a random point in the cycle, there's a 1 in 4 chance that you will have sex on a "fertile" day.
If we up the figures for sex to 4 times per month, at random intervals, then we can say that every cycle on average you will have sex on a day where the women is at a 1% risk of pregnancy.

Their are 13 cycles in a year, which means that over the course of 30 years, you will on average have sex on 390 "fertile" days.

So the odds of never becoming pregnant over the course of those 30 years is (99^390)/(100^390) = 0.0199.
Or 2%. Which is yes, much more reasonable, but it still means that you've a 98% of falling pregnant over 30 years.

Again, figures are simple cos there are too many factors to take into account, but the numbers are against you.

Earthhorse

Malari wrote: »

Em, no. I think it's a good choice!

Why?

seamus wrote: »

I stuck in an edit there to say 7 in 10,000 is a worst-case scenario. I might do a compound calculation on it just to give a better indicator, but I fear we're straying a little off the topic.

Agreed. The points been made though, which is that the probability of getting pregnant when regularly having sex in a long term relationship is higher than the probability of getting pregnant when having sex just once.

Malari

Earthhorse wrote: »

Why?

Do you want me to go into the advantages of the MMR or that people should be allowed choose this option and not have it forced upon them?

carlybabe1

Hey seamus, do you give maths grinds by any chance

CDfm the statistics show that most women who have abortions aren't financially secure. like it or not being able to afford to have a baby plays a big part in a womens choice to have an abortion, that and whether or not they are ready for the commitment it takes, and whether the father is going to play a role or not, i.e. whether they are going to be bringing up baby alone. And I dont like chocolate strawberrries

Zulu

carlybabe1 wrote: »

EH hello? murder and rape aren't likely to be legalised

So? Have a think about what I've posted - you've clearly missed my point. Entirely.

thats a bit of an ott comparison :eek:

Not really. Some would view abortion... ...look, you've missed my point. Have another look.

Malari wrote: »

Yes true, but most people will only have an operation when they know it's needed (and I mean when they need an abortion) rather than preventative operations.

The point I'm making is: if you don't want to have children and you want to have unprotected sex, the operation is needed.

carlybabe1

I do understand your point, i also know that what you were going to say was that some people would consider abortion as murder. I still think it was an ott comparison for this reason, there is no way there will be a referendum to legalise rape or murder and to suggest such is nonsensical at best....there is a significant chance that if there was another referendum for abortion in not so catholic ireland that it just might be passed. I also understand that a lot of people are against it and I can see why, but I really dont think that anyone would undertake a decision like this lightly

Earthhorse

Malari wrote: »

Do you want me to go into the advantages of the MMR or that people should be allowed choose this option and not have it forced upon them?

Answer the question however you see fit.

What I'm really interested in is the consistency of your reasoning.

You tell us earlier in the thread that you would not have, or have your partner have (I'm not sure if you're a man or a woman), a vasectomy because the procedure is unnecessary. However, pretty much every preventive procedure is unnecessary - it's just a question of the consequences that follow from it.

Would also like to know how consistent you are in favour of legalising things so people can exercise choice. For instance, do you support my choice to:

• Drive on whatever side of the road I like.
• Own and operate semi-automatic weapons.
• Consume any and all types of recreational drugs.

nacho libre

"a human life is not particularly special if it is not valued. "

Even, if i did agree with this it doesn't in my view justify the taking of the suppossed valueless life. As such a view reminds me of those who argue in favour of eugenics

Zulu

carlybabe1 wrote: »

I do understand your point

I don't think you do.

i also know that what you were going to say was that some people would consider abortion as murder. I still think it was an ott comparison for this reason, there is no way there will be a referendum to legalise rape or murder and to suggest such is nonsensical at best....

Whats nonsensical is pursuing this point!
Jim O Doom suggested that as people will continue to have abortions regardless of the law, we should legalise it. I commented that people will continue to rape and murder, yet we wouldn't consider legalising them.
I never suggested that either would be made legal. :rolleyes:
The point I was making was: because something illegal is going to happen (theft, rape, murder, joy riding, tax evasion, shop lifting, drug dealing) isn't a good enough reason to legalise it.
Who said anything about referendums?

Oh wait, that was you:

there is a significant chance that if there was another referendum for abortion in not so catholic ireland that it just might be passed.

There is also a significant chance it wouldn't be passed. Again.
By the by, while Catholicism is against abortion, I for one amn't catholic. Abortion in Ireland is bigger than the church vote, and to assume (I'm not saying you are) that anti abortion = religious is naive and ignorant.

nacho libre

JC 2K3 wrote: »

You draw a line at conception. Why doesn't a sperm have rights? It's simply one step behind in the development process.

A sperm does not at any stage have a cns or any of the vital appendanges that are needed for human life. neither, if i'm not mistaken, can we philosophically or scientifically speak of a sperm at any stage as a human entity.
so, why should it have rights? it's irrevelant. the better question is, why, going on your previous argument, should we confer rights on a new born baby if it's just the conclusion of the process? I ask because if you argue in favour of the unborn being aborted - at any stage- on the grounds it's just a "being" then the newborn baby is just a being too - as it's no more a "person", philosophically speaking, than the unborn.

CDfm

carlybabe1 wrote: »

Hey seamus, do you give maths grinds by any chance

CDfm the statistics show that most women who have abortions aren't financially secure. like it or not being able to afford to have a baby plays a big part in a womens choice to have an abortion, that and whether or not they are ready for the commitment it takes, and whether the father is going to play a role or not, i.e. whether they are going to be bringing up baby alone. And I dont like chocolate strawberrries

carlybabe1 i have a deep distrust of statistics and people who dont like chocolate strawberries:P

most surveys are biased towards the aghenda of the client and methodoligy used - sample used - field sampled - most research is subjective not objective.I worked in the market research and I would put more faith in greyhound form at the track as its based on verifiable unbiased data.ie McDonalds Happy Meals Happy Mums and any number of cereal ads

the other thing - and i know you wont believe this but people lie in surveys and if you dont believe me ask any group of leaving cert guys how many drink,smoke weed and have regular sex. :pac:

Malari

Earthhorse wrote: »

Answer the question however you see fit.

What I'm really interested in is the consistency of your reasoning.

You tell us earlier in the thread that you would not have, or have your partner have (I'm not sure if you're a man or a woman), a vasectomy because the procedure is unnecessary. However, pretty much every preventive procedure is unnecessary - it's just a question of the consequences that follow from it.

Would also like to know how consistent you are in favour of legalising things so people can exercise choice. For instance, do you support my choice to:

• Drive on whatever side of the road I like.
• Own and operate semi-automatic weapons.
• Consume any and all types of recreational drugs.

I don't think these things equate but I think I know where you're coming from. So

• Drive on whatever side of the road I like. No, because this affects other people
• Own and operate semi-automatic weapons. Same as above
• Consume any and all types of recreational drugs. To the extent that only your life is affected.

I would say where we differ is that I think aborting a foetus (I'm a woman, by the way) is not ending a valuable human life and only affects the two parents and you obviously think it has a wider impact.

Malari

Zulu wrote: »

So? Have a think about what I've posted - you've clearly missed my point. Entirely.
Not really. Some would view abortion... ...look, you've missed my point. Have another look.

The point I'm making is: if you don't want to have children and you want to have unprotected sex, the operation is needed.

We are talking about contraception versus the snip. But agreed, yes it would be damn silly to have unprotected sex if you don't want rugrats.

Zulu

• Drive on whatever side of the road I like. No, because this affects other people

So does abortion. It affects the father - in that his child is being killed. And it affects the child that is being killed.

[*]Own and operate semi-automatic weapons. Same as above

Indeed - same as above.

I would say where we differ is that I think aborting a foetus (I'm a woman, by the way) is not ending a valuable human life and only affects the two parents and you obviously think it has a wider impact.

So you believe that it's ok to kill humans who aren't as valuable as other humans? Who determines this value? Where is the cut off point? (Between life and death) How do I qualify for life? How do I increase my value?
And while we're on that point; if I'm more valuable than you, can I exterminate you?

Publin

seamus wrote: »

Tenuous comparison tbh. If I break down a door because I fell over when I was drunk, I can fix the mistake without any further repurcussions. Likewise if I get something pierced while drunk, I can remove the piercing and there's no further repurcussions.

I think it was a reasonable enough comparison to be honest. He asked why someone should have to suffer for a "drunken mistake". I was merely pointing out if you killed someone or assaulted a Garda etc., you certainly wouldn't get away without suffering the consequences. If you choose to drink, and choose to have sex - as is your right - then you should accept the responsibility for your actions.

Anyway, even if you don't accept this argument, then I will say in relation to the original point about suffering for a "drunken mistake" - 1. Morning after pill and 2. adoption.

seamus wrote: »

Just as a curiosity, imagine that a woman has been pregnant now for 22 weeks. She goes in to do a scan and it turns out that her child is Anencephaly. There is a good chance that if she carries the child to term, it will be stillborn, and if not the child will undoubtedly die soon after birth. The child born will lack the major parts of the brain which make us human, and for all intents and purposes will have no more brain power than a chicken when it arrives.

Is this child a human being, deserving of the "special" label, and therefore deserving of life? If so, would you insist that the mother carry it to term?
If you don't believe the child is "special" or a "human being", then what is the difference between this child and a ball of cells. Both are effectively braindead balls of cells, one is just slightly bigger than the other. What's the difference? "Potential" doesn't cut it, because "potential" is a complete acknowledgement that a zygote is not a human being.

I was waiting for this kind of point to be made, and to be honest, it's an interesting area of the debate IMO. I would say yes, she should carry it to term and I would still be against abortion in this instance. From a law-making point of view, I think it would be too difficult to draw a line in the sand here. What is the child will live 3 months, should they terminate then? ok so... what about 3 years?... and so on.

If we go down the route of legalising abortion in cases where the child will likely only live a few hours,I'd also have a concern that if a couple found their baby would be born with a severe defect/disability, that they'd decide to terminate because it isn't a "perfect" baby.

seamus wrote: »

So how do you resolve the issue when the mother wishes to relinquish her "part" of the child? If the father wished to relinquish his "part" of the child, that's easy - he can just walk away. But the mother can't implant the baby into the father and walk away.

Well I'm against abortion even if both the mother and the father want it, so I'd only really be concerned about the father's rights if abortion was legalised here. However, to resond to your question, the father can walk away, but he has to pay child support/maintenance costs, so it's not like he can dispose of his "asset" by leaving. Just as I don't believe the mother should be able to without the father's consent.

Malari wrote: »

But why have an operation when it may not be necessary? You can have one (an abortion) if it is needed afterwards.

Why risk needing 2, 3, 4+ abortions when a simple, safe procedure can eliminate the risk of getting pregnant in the first place? It is also more cost effective. The MMR comparison that Earthhorse makes it a good one. Getting injections against tropical diseases before going on holidays would be a similar comparison.

HalloweenJack wrote: »

I'm pro-choice.

Pregnancy is a life-changing thing and some people aren't ready for it. Imo, it's better than having someone raise a child who they (might) despise.

Again, morning after pill or adoption.

carlybabe1 wrote: »

CDfm the statistics show that most women who have abortions aren't financially secure. like it or not being able to afford to have a baby plays a big part in a womens choice to have an abortion, that and whether or not they are ready for the commitment it takes, and whether the father is going to play a role or not, i.e. whether they are going to be bringing up baby alone. And I dont like chocolate strawberrries

The father will have to pay child support. Children's allowance is also available. There are charities who help and support agencies. But even if you still don't accept this argument, once again - give the baby up for adoption.

carlybabe1 wrote: »

I do understand your point, i also know that what you were going to say was that some people would consider abortion as murder. I still think it was an ott comparison for this reason, there is no way there will be a referendum to legalise rape or murder.

Ok, well what about the comparison I made earlier (drugs). Drug-taking is going to happen anyway, so should we legalise them here just because they're legal and available in some other countries?

Zulu

Malari wrote: »

We are talking about contraception versus the snip. But agreed, yes it would be damn silly to have unprotected sex if you don't want rugrats.

No, we were talking about having an operation as a consequence of your actions.

Publin

Malari wrote: »

I would say where we differ is that I think aborting a foetus (I'm a woman, by the way) is not ending a valuable human life and only affects the two parents and you obviously think it has a wider impact.

So you see it as a human life, but not valuable? Interesting. Is it okay to end a life that's not seen as valuable, and also how do we define valuable?

Edit: Don't mean to go off topic, but that sounds a bit like Hitler's justification for killing the Jews (i.e. their lives were less "valuable").

Malari

Publin wrote: »

So you see it as a human life, but not valuable? Interesting. Is it okay to end a life that's not seen as valuable, and also how do we define valuable?

Edit: Don't mean to go off topic, but that sounds a bit like Hitler's justification for killing the Jews (i.e. their lives were less "valuable").

Zulu wrote: »

So you believe that it's ok to kill humans who aren't as valuable as other humans? Who determines this value? Where is the cut off point? (Between life and death) How do I qualify for life? How do I increase my value?
And while we're on that point; if I'm more valuable than you, can I exterminate you?

I'm talking about unborn humans, not born ones. I've said this before. When it's in my womb, I and the father determine it's value.

Zulu

ehhhh, Godwin's law...

Publin

Malari wrote: »

I'm talking about unborn humans, not born ones. I've said this before. When it's in my womb, I and the father determine it's value.

Ok... so 1 minute before birth you determine it's value, and a minute later you don't? And you believe it's ok to terminate right up until the moment before birth?

Zulu

Malari wrote: »

I'm talking about unborn humans, not born ones. I've said this before. When it's in my womb, I and the father determine it's value.

Ok, so, just as long as it's in your womb, you get to determine whether or not it lives.

I just can't agree with that rationality. According to that, can you kill the child as it's being born?

Malari

Publin wrote: »

Ok... so 1 minute before birth you determine it's value, and a minute later you don't? And you believe it's ok to terminate right up until the moment before birth?

Zulu wrote: »

Ok, so, just as long as it's in your womb, you get to determine whether or not it lives.

I just can't agree with that rationality. According to that, can you kill the child as it's being born?

I knew this would be the response. I'm sorry, I can only speak for myself. I would abort very early in a pregnancy and it's not black and white. As the foetus grows and the more it develops the harder it would be to abort, of course, that's natural. There's no way I would kill a baby on it's way out!

This debate is extremely challenging, as it should be, and I've thought an awful lot more about how I would justify an abortion in the past few days than I ever have before. I would still do it - that's what it comes down to for me. I don't think I can ever explain properly or satisfy anyone's demanding cut-off point retorts because even if I say "4 weeks or under" I will get a facetious response.

Zulu

Which is the whole reason I moveed from being pro-choice to anti-abortion.
In my view, any human deserves the benifit of the doubt, and since noone can clearly provide a line in the sand while the child is being developed in the womb, we can only clearly see conception or birth. Anywhere in between has doubt.

Hence, I feel contraception + morning after pill are enough.