Abortion poll

carlybabe1

Its probably been done to death, but as Im a newbie, I've not seen one
so here goes. posting isnt strictly neccessary, so if you've a pain in your face trying to get your point across, then ye dont ahve to but Im interested to see how the land lies, cheers folks

fasterkitten

Abortion should be legalised up to 16 wks, and 20 wks in fatality circumstances

It has been done to death.

But there's a lot of overlap in your poll
eg a,b and c really could be selected by most pro-choice people.

carlybabe1

Abortion should not be legalised

fasterkitten wrote: »

It has been done to death.

But there's a lot of overlap in your poll
eg a,b and c really could be selected by most pro-choice people.

Haven't done a poll before not sure what other options there are, feel free to pm me if you can think of any, cheers:)

Wreck

Abortion should be legalised up to 16 wks, and 20 wks in fatality circumstances

fasterkitten wrote: »

It has been done to death.

But there's a lot of overlap in your poll
eg a,b and d really could be selected by most pro-choice people.

Hence pretty much guaranteeing that option c will win this poll. Its a tactic taken straight from the Poll Rigging for Dummies handbook.

carlybabe1

Abortion should not be legalised

Wreck wrote: »

Hence pretty much guaranteeing that option c will win this poll. Its a tactic taken straight from the Poll Rigging for Dummies handbook.

Sorry not understandin your point here, is that humour? or have you formed an opinion of my views? let me know, Id genuinely be interested to see if I come across differently:)

stovelid

carlybabe1 wrote: »

Sorry not understandin your point here, is that humour? or have you formed an opinion of my views? let me know, Id genuinely be interested to see if I come across differently:)

Might help if you vote yourself?

I assume you are trying to differentiate between who is:

For abortion in any circumstances

For controlled abortion

Anti-abortion

Pro-choice (while not approving of abortion)

Trouble is, as noted, there is overlap and the poll is unclear.

Why is there such a deluge of abortion threads recently, anyway?

Bottle_of_Smoke

Abortion should be legalised up to 16 wks, and 20 wks in fatality circumstances

picked a. Agree with half of C but in fatality circumstances I wouldn't have an upper limit

F.A.

Abortion should not be legalised

Voted for b, even though I'd replace 16 by 12.

ChocolateSauce

Abortion should not be legalised

Done to death indeed, but a good cliché never gets old.

carlybabe1

Abortion should not be legalised

stovelid wrote: »

Might help if you vote yourself?

I assume you are trying to differentiate between who is:

For abortion in any circumstances

For controlled abortion

Anti-abortion

Pro-choice (while not approving of abortion)

Trouble is, as noted, there is overlap and the poll is unclear.

Why is there such a deluge of abortion threads recently, anyway?

:o Shoulda pm'd you before I did it. though I did say twas my first

thebman

Abortion should not be legalised

I like Anti-Flag's song No Apology on Abortion.

making it illegal won't make it go away
the rich will fly to far off lands, the poor will stay and pray
that their back alley abortion is clean and safe

you can't make it go away,
so why endanger women's lives?
because the issue here for you isn't life...

it's control!
control of what we do and say
but you'll never gain control-control-control

Its about people who want to outlaw it in America but still relevant to our situation since I think most people who want to keep it illegal are forcing their own morals on people just for the sake of making a point considering most people who want an abortion in Ireland just go to Britain.

We seem to be content to just export our abortion. Might as well legalise it as do that IMO.

Morlar

People should have the choice to decide for themselves

One person can (and has) voted yes for options;

Abortion should be legalised

Abortion should be legalised up to 16 wks, and 20 wks in fatality circumstances

People should have the choice to decide for themselves

Pretty much guaranteeing that the NAY camp have one option and the YAY camp have 3 in this case guarantees that the NAY camp will not show as winning. One person should have one vote in a poll like this otherwise the results are skewed.

The vote of one YAY person counts 3 times and the vote of one NAY person counts once.

Black Swan

This thread has turned into a poll on the poll.

rainbow kirby

Abortion should be legalised up to 16 wks, and 20 wks in fatality circumstances

A meta-poll, one might say.

Voted A.

Ultravid

People should have the choice to decide for themselves

The only options needed were:

Yes
No
Not sure

A poll such as this will only give a rough idea of the views held of those who are members of the forum and who decide to vote on this poll. So it cannot be said to be representative of society as a whole.

Additionally we need to remember that the truth about anything is not determined by the views of many, a majority vote if you like, and we don't get rid of the evils in society by making them legal.

The truth is the truth even if no one believes it and a lie is a lie even if everyone believes it.

estebancambias

i agree with the stance of 'i'm against it, but ultimately its the persons decision. there is no point bringing a kid into the world if they aren't going to be cared for but then again maby the persons perspective could change with the birth of the baby.

Ultravid

People should have the choice to decide for themselves

estebancambias wrote: »

i agree with the stance of 'i'm against it, but ultimately its the persons decision. there is no point bringing a kid into the world if they aren't going to be cared for but then again maby the persons perspective could change with the birth of the baby.

That is fine. But the statement makes no sense if you then replace the word 'abortion' with any other evil. For example, rape.

''I am against rape, but I wouldn't force my morality on anyone else, and therefore wouldn't stop them from raping anyone.''

This is only a poll thread, there is an excellent discussion thread over in the humanities forum on this issue.

stovelid

Ultravid wrote: »

there is an excellent discussion thread over in the humanities forum on this issue.

Excellent meaning that it's the discussion thread that you started solely to pimp a website, as the first one you opened (sans discussion) got closed.

djpbarry

Abortion should not be legalised

Ultravid wrote: »

That is fine. But the statement makes no sense if you then replace the word 'abortion' with any other evil. For example, rape.

''I am against rape, but I wouldn't force my morality on anyone else, and therefore wouldn't stop them from raping anyone.''

Yeah, because that's the same thing :rolleyes:.

Voted 'b' myself; abortion should be legalised but there should be a time-limit based on current scientific knowledge, revised as necessary.

EDIT: And what's say we lay off carlybabe1; not easy to put together a poll on a subject such as this as people's opinions on the subject are rarely cut-and-dry, extremists aside.

carlybabe1

Abortion should not be legalised

brim4brim wrote: »

I like Anti-Flag's song No Apology on Abortion.



Its about people who want to outlaw it in America but still relevant to our situation since I think most people who want to keep it illegal are forcing their own morals on people just for the sake of making a point considering most people who want an abortion in Ireland just go to Britain.

We seem to be content to just export our abortion. Might as well legalise it as do that IMO.

Excellent, that just says it all excellent post

carlybabe1

Abortion should not be legalised

Ultravid wrote: »

The only options needed were:

Yes
No
Not sure

This just proves how black and white you see this topic, and life experience will kick the black and white crap outta the average person and teach them that life isnot blacck and white its 40 million shades of grey (imo)

A poll such as this will only give a rough idea of the views held of those who are members of the forum and who decide to vote on this poll. So it cannot be said to be representative of society as a whole

Its meant to give an idea of the views held by the people who are voting. If I wanted to find out about the entire public. id become a politician

Additionally we need to remember that the truth about anything is not determined by the views of many, a majority vote if you like, and we don't get rid of the evils in society by making them legal.

The truth is the truth even if no one believes it and a lie is a lie even if everyone believes it.

And Shi*e is still shi*e is still sh*te no matter who reads it, and I find it largely egotistical of you to assume that because you believe its evil, that its evil. Its not twenty years ago that this shi*e was being spouted about homosexuals :mad::mad::mad:

Ultravid

People should have the choice to decide for themselves

This just proves how black and white you see this topic, and life experience will kick the black and white crap outta the average person and teach them that life isnot blacck and white its 40 million shades of grey (imo)

And Shi*e is still shi*e is still sh*te no matter who reads it, and I find it largely egotistical of you to assume that because you believe its evil, that its evil. Its not twenty years ago that this shi*e was being spouted about homosexuals :mad::mad::mad:

To kill or not to kill is black and white. Therefore it either is evil or it is not. It can't be both. I suppose it depends on how one lives one's life if one needs a Dulux shades of grey colour card to justify one's actions or not.

Abortion should not be legalised

Selected A and forgot to unselect B

I wouldn't say 16wks I'd say first trimester only, and anytime afterward for woman's life in danger

carlybabe1

Abortion should not be legalised

Ultravid wrote: »

To kill or not to kill is black and white. Therefore it either is evil or it is not. It can't be both. I suppose it depends on how one lives one's life if one needs a Dulux shades of grey colour card to justify one's actions or not.

It may help largely if you could prove that yes indeed abortion is killing. BUT you have not, and to force a woman to bring a pregnancy to term knowing it will kill her is not just murder, its cruel and unusual circumstances as well. I lead a good life, I'm polite, honest, mindful of peoples feelings, respectful of thier property, and I'm teaching my kids to be the same...Most importantly I always say, you DO NOT have the right to judge other prople for the decisions or mistakes they make in thier life. the old saying " THERE BUT FOR THE GRACE OF GOD, GO I" for all your spouting of good and evil, I see no compassion in your posts
maybe you should try it.

djpbarry

Abortion should not be legalised

Ultravid wrote: »

To kill or not to kill is black and white. Therefore it either is evil or it is not.

No it is not; it's opinions such as these that prevent any kind of rational, 21st-century debate on such a topic.

Taking antibiotics kills bacteria; is that evil?

Ultravid

People should have the choice to decide for themselves

djpbarry wrote: »

No it is not; it's opinions such as these that prevent any kind of rational, 21st-century debate on such a topic.

Taking antibiotics kills bacteria; is that evil?

No it is not. I do not mind killing bacteria. I do take exception when folks start killing children, including the unborn. This I do mind.

carlybabe1 wrote: »

It may help largely if you could prove that yes indeed abortion is killing. BUT you have not, and to force a woman to bring a pregnancy to term knowing it will kill her is not just murder, its cruel and unusual circumstances as well. I lead a good life, I'm polite, honest, mindful of peoples feelings, respectful of thier property, and I'm teaching my kids to be the same...Most importantly I always say, you DO NOT have the right to judge other prople for the decisions or mistakes they make in thier life. the old saying " THERE BUT FOR THE GRACE OF GOD, GO I" for all your spouting of good and evil, I see no compassion in your posts
maybe you should try it.

Abortion is the killing of an unborn human being. You need to prove that the being in the womb is not human. Good luck with that one.

At the foot of this post are a few quotes from abortion giants, Planned Parenthood.

As regards your other point, if a woman has a cancerous womb, and to remove the cancerous womb will save her and is necessary to save her, but result in the death of the baby, this is not actually abortion and is permissible. Look up the Principal of Double Effect. It is unfair to refer to this type of procedure as abortion. However, it is heroic to spare the child, and there are women who have done this: they gave their life so that the child might live.

How about respecting the right to life of every human being? Where is the compassion for the unborn child when it is being torn to pieces* and dumped in a bucket?


23 weeks, Dilation and Evacuation Abortion.

I do not judge your soul, I merely admonish those, as is my duty, who think it is ok to kill the unborn human child in the womb.



14 weeks, Dilation and Evacuation Abortion.

Planned Parenthood - in Their Own Words

"An abortion kills the life of a baby after it has begun. It is dangerous to your life and health."
- Planned Parenthood 'Plan Your Children' pamphlet, 1963

"Abortion is the taking of a life."
- Former Planned Parenthood Medical Director
Mary Calderone, who is pro-choice [American Journal of Public Health]

Even Planned Parenthood admit what abortion is. Open your eyes.

* http://www.abort73.com/HTML/I-A-3-techniques.html

Virgil°

Abortion should not be legalised

Ultravid wrote: »

No it is not. I do not mind killing bacteria. I do take exception when folks start killing children, including the unborn. This I do mind.



Abortion is the killing of an unborn human being. You need to prove that the being in the womb is not human. Good luck with that one.

Except that you said "killing" was evil. That means all forms of it unfortunately.

At the foot of this post are a few quotes from abortion giants, Planned Parenthood.

As regards your other point, if a woman has a cancerous womb, and to remove the cancerous womb will save her and is necessary to save her, but result in the death of the baby, this is not actually abortion and is permissible. Look up the Principal of Double Effect. It is unfair to refer to this type of procedure as abortion. However, it is heroic to spare the child, and there are women who have done this: they gave their life so that the child might live.

How about respecting the right to life of every human being? Where is the compassion for the unborn child when it is being torn to pieces* and dumped in a bucket?


23 weeks, Dilation and Evacuation Abortion.

I do not judge your soul, I merely admonish those, as is my duty, who think it is ok to kill the unborn human child in the womb.



14 weeks, Dilation and Evacuation Abortion.



Even Planned Parenthood admit what abortion is. Open your eyes.

* http://www.abort73.com/HTML/I-A-3-techniques.html

Im gonna try take a page from your book and see how you cope with the irrationality that is your style of argument.
Here goes:[start]
Oh my god, how dare you make these poor women suffer and carry a child to birth. You wouldnt even care if it was put there by rape would you? Thats just pure evil. In fact im gonna go find a picture that says abortion is pure goodness and then link to loads of sites with the opinions of pro-choice zealots because my cognitive skills are seemingly not up to articulating my own opinions properly and rationally.[/end]

Ive never had to use the ignore button on a poster before, but its coming soon i reckon.

carlybabe1

Abortion should not be legalised

Ultravid wrote: »

No it is not. I do not mind killing bacteria. I do take exception when folks start killing children, including the unborn. This I do mind.

Abortion is the killing of an unborn human being. You need to prove that the being in the womb is not human. Good luck with that one.

Why because YOU say so? Biology says Its not an unborn, its a clump of cells, and again you've used drawings to illustrate, the same type of drawing that are used in books but that also state that they are visual aids only i.e. Its not a true representation
At the foot of this post are a few quotes from abortion giants, Planned Parenthood.

As regards your other point, if a woman has a cancerous womb, and to remove the cancerous womb will save her and is necessary to save her, but result in the death of the baby, this is not actually abortion and is permissible. Look up the Principal of Double Effect. It is unfair to refer to this type of procedure as abortion. However, it is heroic to spare the child, and there are women who have done this: they gave their life so that the child might live.

How about respecting the right to life of every human being? Where is the compassion for the unborn child when it is being torn to pieces* and dumped in a bucket?


23 weeks, Dilation and Evacuation Abortion.

I do not judge your soul, I merely admonish those, as is my duty, who think it is ok to kill the unborn human child in the womb.

14 weeks, Dilation and Evacuation Abortion.

This is what Id term as fanatical. Stand outside the GPO much????

Even Planned Parenthood admit what abortion is. Open your eyes.

* http://www.abort73.com/HTML/I-A-3-techniques

.html

NO people who no longer work for planned parenthood is one of your quotes, the other comes for 1973,
Open Your eyes, if it was that cut and dried it would be illegal everywhere.
And who do you think you are to even suggest judging anyones soul, who died/was aborted and made you god

Ultravid

People should have the choice to decide for themselves

Virgil° wrote: »

Except that you said "killing" was evil. That means all forms of it unfortunately.
...
im gonna go find a picture that says abortion is pure goodness and then link to loads of sites with the opinions of pro-choice zealots because my cognitive skills are seemingly not up to articulating my own opinions properly and rationally.

Human Life. It is wrong to kill human beings. Do you think it is good and right to kill human beings?

Is abortion pure goodness? Do you believe that? Look at the pictures I just posted and tell me that it is good and why it is good.

Ultravid

People should have the choice to decide for themselves

carlybabe1 wrote: »

Why because YOU say so? Biology says Its not an unborn, its a clump of cells, and again you've used drawings to illustrate, the same type of drawing that are used in books but that also state that they are visual aids only i.e. Its not a true representation

NO people who no longer work for planned parenthood is one of your quotes, the other comes for 1973,
Open Your eyes, if it was that cut and dried it would be illegal everywhere.
And who do you think you are to even suggest judging anyones soul, who died/was aborted and made you god

You are a bunch of cells right now, as am I, and as much as you are annoying me right now, I will defend your right to life. All we want is for you, and those who say abortion is a 'right' to recognise and defend the right to life of the unborn human being. In truth, there is no 'right' to abortion, as it is not a 'right' to kill any other human being. In picture B, above, you say that is just a clump of cells??? Looks like a human being to me...

What I actually said was:

I do not judge your soul, I merely admonish those, as is my duty, who think it is ok to kill the unborn human child in the womb.

Please read my posts properly.

Not all laws are good and just Carlybabe.

I also notice that neither Carly nor Virgil have commented on what they see in the pictures. These are illustrations; I would post pictures but the mods may not appreciate it. You can see what happens in abortion on http://www.abortionno.org/ It's all there in full colour. Not scientific illustrations, real images of real abortions.

Tell me, what do you see? What is happening? (You will have to visit the website and look at the videos to do this.)

F.A.

Abortion should not be legalised

Okay, Ultravid, since you forever demand answers in what comes across as rather triumphant ways (only to then dismiss or ignore these answers), maybe you can answer something for a change:

You keep claiming that an embryo or fetus is the very same as a human being that is already born. How come, then, that society does not organise funerals for those misfortunes that nature decided were unfit for life and, thus, aborted very soon after conception, say the first 12 weeks (as this is the time in which most natural abortions occur)? You know, full blown funerals, with wake, mass, burial. I mean, in your opinion, surely the death of an embryo or fetus that young is to be mourned in the same way, if not more, as anyone else's? So, why do you think society doesn't really seem that bothered?

It wasn't me!

There are circumstances in which it is entirely okay to kill another human being. If they pose a threat to your life or the life of someone unable to protect themself and whose defence you are charged with, and the only way to protect yourself or your charge is to kill the person, then I'd do it and sleep soundly. Personally, I think the same is true of abortion in all but exceptional circumstances.

djpbarry

Abortion should not be legalised

Ultravid wrote: »

I do not mind killing bacteria.

What about a virus? Or mites? When does killing become “evil” as per your black and white definition? Where is the threshold of sophistry that needs to be crossed?

Ultravid wrote: »

Abortion is the killing of an unborn human being.

A more accurate definition would be the premature exit of the products of conception from the uterus.

Ultravid wrote: »

You need to prove that the being in the womb is not human.

No, you need to prove that it is.

Ultravid wrote: »

How about respecting the right to life of every human being?

But we’re not talking about human beings, we’re talking about embryos and foetuses.

Ultravid wrote: »

Where is the compassion for the unborn child when it is being torn to pieces* and dumped in a bucket?

Those are some lovely pictures; not sure what you’re point is? Am I supposed to be shocked or something?

Ultravid wrote: »

It is wrong to kill human beings.

Yes, you’ve said that several times now and I think most people would agree. But we’re not talking about human beings, are we?

Ultravid wrote: »

You are a bunch of cells right now, as am I…

…as is a bacterial colony.

Ultravid wrote: »

In picture B, above, you say that is just a clump of cells??? Looks like a human being to me...

So does this.

Ultravid

People should have the choice to decide for themselves

It wasn't me! wrote: »

There are circumstances in which it is entirely okay to kill another human being. If they pose a threat to your life or the life of someone unable to protect themself and whose defence you are charged with, and the only way to protect yourself or your charge is to kill the person, then I'd do it and sleep soundly. Personally, I think the same is true of abortion in all but exceptional circumstances.

We are talking about the unjust killing of an innocent human being. Let me clarify that self-defence, using reasonable force, is justfied, even if this results in the death of the unjust aggressor. But the force used must not be excessive. An unborn baby is not, and can in no way, be said to be an unjust aggressor.

I'm afraid you are trying, in all this, to distract the discussion away from the key issue by nit-picking at my words, and that is that the unborn human being must be left in peace to grow in his mother's womb.

We've already established that those cases whereby the mother requires an operation or treatment which may, or will, result in the death of the baby, that this is not abortion. I cited the Principal of Double Effect here. It is unfair and dishonest to try and use this situation to try and justify abortion which is always wrong, since abortion is the willful and deliberate killing of the unborn child for no other reason than to kill the child. We can look at the abortion stats and see the reasons given for having the abortion in the first place. None of these 'reasons' are noble and just, as if there could ever be a good reason for deliberately killing the unborn child.

As regards your post Virgil, I understand that many parents do indeed bury their child's remains, or cremate them. I understand that hospitals do this as well. The Irish, I am told, used to bury their miscarried baby's remains in graves with, for example, Baby X on the headstone, X being the family name. Since those babies where probably not baptised, it wouldn't have been proper to give them a Christian burial, since they were not, technically, Christians. Therefore a Funeral Mass would also not be fitting. These occasions are typically quiet, close family affairs, so I guess that is why we hear little about them, especially concerning such a painful loss to the parents. A wake is an opportunity for family and friends to pay their respects, and so again, with an unborn baby, they didn't know the baby so again a wake wouldn't be appropriate.

I am sorry if I come across as triumphant, I just have a zeal for Truth and for defending the lives of the unborn children.

Now, can you answer my queries Virgil? And Carlybabe.

Ultravid

People should have the choice to decide for themselves

djpbarry wrote: »

What about a virus? Or mites? When does killing become “evil” as per your black and white definition? Where is the threshold of sophistry that needs to be crossed?

Human life. Innocent Human beings must not be killed.

djpbarry wrote: »

A more accurate definition would be the premature exit of the products of conception from the uterus.

No I would say that is not more accurate. Call a spade a spade. Abortion kills a human life in the womb.

djpbarry wrote: »

No, you need to prove that it is.
But we’re not talking about human beings, we’re talking about embryos and foetuses.

I don't need to prove anything. I am not the one trying to justify murdering another human being.

BTW, If embryos and foetuses are not human beings, what kind of beings are they?

The terms embrtyo and foetus are not used to describe another life-form, they are merely developmental terms for human beings, such as infant, toddler, adolescent, adult, etc...

djpbarry wrote: »

Those are some lovely pictures; not sure what you’re point is? Am I supposed to be shocked or something?

The pictures show a baby about to get it's leg chopped off, and the other a baby about to be sucked out of the womb and mushed up in the process...

djpbarry wrote: »

Yes, you’ve said that several times now and I think most people would agree. But we’re not talking about human beings, are we?
…as is a bacterial colony.

Again, what kind of being is it that abortion kills in the womb?

F.A.

Abortion should not be legalised

Ultravid wrote: »

We've already established that those cases whereby the mother requires an operation or treatment which may, or will, result in the death of the baby, that this is not abortion. I cited the Principal of Double Effect here. It is unfair and dishonest to try and use this situation to try and justify abortion which is always wrong, since abortion is the willful and deliberate killing of the unborn child for no other reason than to kill the child.

Stop making things up, please. Nothing of the sort has been established. If you really want to differentiate, you can by using voluntary as opposed to spontaneous abortion. If a woman is ill and decides to have an abortion, it is still a voluntary one, though. Please use words correctly rather than in ways you make up as you go along.

As regards your post Virgil, I understand that many parents do indeed bury their child's remains, or cremate them. I understand that hospitals do this as well. The Irish, I am told, used to bury their miscarried baby's remains in graves with, for example, Baby X on the headstone, X being the family name. Since those babies where probably not baptised, it wouldn't have been proper to give them a Christian burial, since they were not, technically, Christians. Therefore a Funeral Mass would also not be fitting. These occasions are typically quiet, close family affairs, so I guess that is why we hear little about them, especially concerning such a painful loss to the parents. A wake is an opportunity for family and friends to pay their respects, and so again, with an unborn baby, they didn't know the baby so again a wake wouldn't be appropriate.

It was me who brought this up. And you don't really answer my question, I'm afraid. You talk about families and all that, but I talk about society. Funerals in some form or another are demanded in society for every born human. So why not for a fetus or an embryo?

Then again, I suppose your last bit did, to some extent, finally acknowledge that there is a difference between someone who is born, and a fetus or embryo. Thanks.

Ultravid

People should have the choice to decide for themselves

F.A. wrote: »

Stop making things up, please. Nothing of the sort has been established. If you really want to differentiate, you can by using voluntary as opposed to spontaneous abortion. If a woman is ill and decides to have an abortion, it is still a voluntary one, though. Please use words correctly rather than in ways you make up as you go along.

I'm not making it up. Are you familiar with the principal of double effect?

A woman with a cancerous womb, who decides to have it removed to save her life, is not choosing to abort her child; that is an undesired effect of the legitimate medical treatment. This is not abortion, and you know full well that most actual abortions are carried out for convenience 'reasons'. I'm not saying abortion can be carried out for good reasons - there is never a good reason to kill your child. The case of cancerous wombs and so-forth is not abortion. I respectfully suggest you familiarise yourself with moral theology, and stop trying to confuse people, including perhaps, yourself.

F.A. wrote: »

It was me who brought this up. And you don't really answer my question, I'm afraid. You talk about families and all that, but I talk about society. Funerals in some form or another are demanded in society for every born human. So why not for a fetus or an embryo?

Then again, I suppose your last bit did, to some extent, finally acknowledge that there is a difference between someone who is born, and an fetus or embryo. Thanks.

The difference is that they were either born or not born. They are still, as ever, a human being, or a human child if you prefer. Born or unborn, equally human. I stated that these times are sensitive, and parents want to mourn the death of their unborn child in peace, without too much attention or fuss form the extended family.

Phototoxin

People should have the choice to decide for themselves

Oh my god, how dare you make these poor women suffer and carry a child to birth.\

I wasn't aware that pregnancy was a disease to suffer through..

In fact im gonna go find a picture that says abortion is pure goodness and then link to loads of sites with the opinions of pro-choice zealots because my cognitive skills are seemingly not up to articulating my own opinions properly and rationally

If you can get a nice image showing how the slicing up of an unborn baby is a good thing then post it by all means..

Biology says Its not an unborn, its a clump of cells

,

biology says YOU are a clump of cells forming tissues forming organs forming systems that is the sum total of your body. However not having an organ doenst make you less human does it ?

This is what Id term as fanatical

fanitical : having an extreme, irrational zeal or enthusiasm for a specific cause

why is it an irrational zeal? If you thought it was a human you were killing you would believe the same. So its not irrational, just different than your opinion.

You keep claiming that an embryo or fetus is the very same as a human being that is already born. How come, then, that society does not organise funerals for those misfortunes that nature decided were unfit for life and, thus, aborted very soon after conception, say the first 12 weeks (as this is the time in which most natural abortions occur)? You know, full blown funerals, with wake, mass, burial. I mean, in your opinion, surely the death of an embryo or fetus that young is to be mourned in the same way, if not more, as anyone else's? So, why do you think society doesn't really seem that bothered?

that does actually happen somtimes ya know...

A more accurate definition would be the premature exit of the products of conception from the uterus.

the products beign a human... and premature enough so that it will kill it.
Products of conception being HUMAN

Yes, you’ve said that several times now and I think most people would agree. But we’re not talking about human beings, are we?

well WE are, you're talking about wax...

F.A.

Abortion should not be legalised

Ultravid wrote: »

I'm not making it up. Are you familiar with the principal of double effect?

Nope. Are you familiar with dictionaries?

A woman with a cancerous womb, who decides to have it removed to save her life, is not choosing to abort her child; that is an undesired effect of the legitimate medical treatment. This is not abortion, and you know full well that most actual abortions are carried out for convenience 'reasons'.

Like it or not, by choosing treatment, the woman voluntarily undertakes an action that results in an abortion as defined by the dictionary.

I respectfully suggest you familiarise yourself with moral theology, and stop trying to confuse people, including perhaps, yourself.

And I respectfully suggest you leave theology out of this discussion where it has no place. I am an atheist and do not buy into religious nonsense, nor is there any obligation for me to do so.

The difference is that they were either born or not born. They are still, as ever, a human being, or a human child if you prefer. Born or unborn, equally human. I stated that these times are sensitive, and parents want to mourn the death of their unborn child in peace, without too much attention or fuss form the extended family.

And ONCE AGAIN: I never said it wasn't a human being. It is a human being at an extremely early stage of development. Different stages of development give you different rights and different duties. Nature aborts at least 25% of all embryos and fetuses during the first 12 weeks. Society does not in any shape or form demand a funeral. In fact, many pregnancies end in a toilet. It is quite clear, therefore, that society does not grant a human being at this early stage of development the same rights as it does those of later stages of development. I can therefore not reasonably argue against women using this time frame to act on their duty to act in the best interest of themselves and the embryo or fetus that may OR MAY NOT otherwise become their child.

Alas, you have finally made it chrystal clear that you argue from a religious background. I do not argue on that basis as it is not based on rationality. I suggest that if you want to continue, leave emotions completely out of it. They simply cannot pass for reasonable argument.

RealJohn

People should have the choice to decide for themselves

Abortion is murdering a child which isn't capable of defending itself. It's one of the worst things a person can do.

I don't understand how people can be so casual about it. I'm strongly against children being raised by parents who don't want them but that's hardly an excuse to kill the child.

djpbarry

Abortion should not be legalised

Ultravid wrote: »

Call a spade a spade. Abortion kills a human life in the womb.

That would depend on the definition of a human life; clearly yours is different to mine.

Ultravid wrote: »

I don't need to prove anything.

Providing some rationale for your belief that an embryo is a human being might help your argument.

Ultravid wrote: »

BTW, If embryos and foetuses are not human beings, what kind of beings are they?

The terms embrtyo and foetus are not used to describe another life-form, they are merely developmental terms for human beings, such as infant, toddler, adolescent, adult, etc...

No, they are not just used to describe human development. Cat embryo, donkey foetus, infant elephant, adolescent lion; all perfectly acceptable terms. A human embryo is not a human being, it is a human embryo. It develops into a human foetus, which develops into a human being.

Ultravid wrote: »

Again, what kind of being is it that abortion kills in the womb?

It’s not a being; a being implies sentience. A being cannot be sentient without a nervous system. A pregnancy terminated prior to 14 weeks or so will kill an embryo or foetus.

Phototoxin wrote: »

However not having an organ doenst make you less human does it ?

Is a body without a brain human?

Phototoxin wrote: »

Products of conception being HUMAN

No, they’re not (see above).

Ultravid

People should have the choice to decide for themselves

F.A. wrote: »

Different stages of development give you different rights and different duties.

Upon what authority do you make this decision about 'rights'?

thebman

Abortion should not be legalised

Ultravid wrote: »

I'm not making it up. Are you familiar with the principal of double effect?

A woman with a cancerous womb, who decides to have it removed to save her life, is not choosing to abort her child; that is an undesired effect of the legitimate medical treatment. This is not abortion, and you know full well that most actual abortions are carried out for convenience 'reasons'.

Define "convenience reasons"?

Is being raped a convenience reason? Is not going to be able to feed the child a convenience reason? Is having a terminal disease that has a strong chance of being passed on to the child a convenience reason?

Who are you to tell other people what a convenience reason is in the first place? If they feel they can't afford or are not mature enough to raise the child, isn't that reason enough? If the potential parent can't cope with the situation they probably won't make a very good parent and the child isn't going to have a good quality of life.

Which is better, giving someone a crap live in which they are under nourished or deformed or are in agonising pain for a lot of their live or saving them the above tourtures by aborting the child?

You say killing an unborn child is never acceptable but there are plenty of people that will tell you, there are many cases where living is worse than death.

Nevyn

Abortion should not be legalised

Ultravid wrote: »

As regards your post Virgil, I understand that many parents do indeed bury their child's remains, or cremate them. I understand that hospitals do this as well.

This is fairly recent, seems you missed the scandals where the remains of miscarriages, still births and those who died soon after birth where retained by hospitals and experimented on.

Ultravid wrote: »

The Irish, I am told, used to bury their miscarried baby's remains in graves with, for example, Baby X on the headstone, X being the family name. Since those babies where probably not baptised, it wouldn't have been proper to give them a Christian burial, since they were not, technically, Christians. Therefore a Funeral Mass would also not be fitting. These occasions are typically quiet, close family affairs, so I guess that is why we hear little about them, especially concerning such a painful loss to the parents. A wake is an opportunity for family and friends to pay their respects, and so again, with an unborn baby, they didn't know the baby so again a wake wouldn't be appropriate.

Cite your resources for this please.

And really "The Irish" can you be more conedsending.

Both my grandmother's had miscarriages, still births and babies born who died just after birth, these were never spoken of, the remains were removed and disposed of and they never spoke about the 'children'.

Some of my aunts and others of their generation had miscarriages and stillbirths and those remains were placed in 'Angel plots', large mass graves with no headstones.

Again done quietly and no fuss made, it is only in the last 10 years things have changed and later term foetus are buried and their remains given blessings and religious rites.

Yes there is provision to protect the unborn but funny how the law here does differentiate between those who are considered worth of a registration of a stillbirth and legal reignition and those who are not.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/birth-family-relationships/miscarriage-and-stillbirth/registering_stillbirth

All stillbirths occurring in Ireland since 1 January 1995 must be registered, if the baby weighs at least 500 grammes or has a gestational age of at least 24 weeks.

Before that there is no legal way to register the 'child' as you keep asserting it it.

It's the same with maternity leave.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/employment/employment-rights-and-conditions/leave-and-holidays/maternity_leave

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. From 1 March 2007 this means a basic period of 26 weeks and 16 weeks of additional maternity leave. If you have satisfied the PRSI requirements, Maternity Benefit is payable for the 26 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.

Again the cut off for 24 weeks.
Seems pretty clear that it's not a baby and your not a mother until you and the feotus is passed 24weeks of gestation according to legislation.

F.A.

Abortion should not be legalised

Ultravid wrote: »

Upon what authority do you make this decision about 'rights'?

Had that one covered before too, but what the heck... *I* do not pose as authority. My government does. And before you bring that up too: not the Irish government since I'm not Irish.

In more general terms, however, reason gives us all a certain authority. Reason tells us that it is not exactly practical to give children the right to drink, vote, drive, have sex, get loans, and whatever else. As they get older, turn into adolescents, become adults, they are granted more and more rights which go hand in hand with more duties. The authority to turn these reasonable thoughts into law and determine age limits lies then with the government, and as this is elected by the people, it goes back to society, to the majority of people in a democracy.

Simple, really.

Virgil°

Abortion should not be legalised

Phototoxin wrote: »

If you can get a nice image showing how the slicing up of an unborn baby is a good thing then post it by all means..

I was in fact simply using that as a means of showing just how bloody ridiculous Ultravids arguements are.I didnt of course expect him to get it but I thought everybody else would.
He comes in here demanding answers then seemingly ignores them when given and continues to ask new questions or simply repeat the older ones backed up with irrelevant pictures and nonsensical links to zealot pro-lifers on some stupid forum."killing is bad and evil". "i stand for truth".No rational person could actually deal with that ****.
And i for one am done with replying to him. Ultravid if you want ANY of your questions answered then just read through the other thread that we have going.Im fairly sure theyll all be there but you wouldnt know that would you?
/presses ignore button.

Phototoxin

People should have the choice to decide for themselves

Is having a terminal disease

you mean life ? 100% fatilty rate ? Yes appararnly so ! (this thread needs humour... its very droll)

You say killing an unborn child is never acceptable but there are plenty of people that will tell you, there are many cases where living is worse than death.

who are you to decide that ? Should we just bomb 3rd world africa because they are better off dead ?

This is fairly recent, seems you missed the scandals where the remains of miscarriages, still births and those who died soon after birth where retained by hospitals and experimented on.

exactly, as our technology and understanding has advanced people have started to bury them and attribute more respect to them.

Again the cut off for 24 weeks.
Seems pretty clear that it's not a baby and your not a mother until you and the feotus is passed 24weeks of gestation according to legislation

Pretend that tomorrow a law will be passed saying its ok to shoot and eat black people. Does that make it true ?

bquinn

People should have the choice to decide for themselves

djpbarry wrote: »

No it is not; it's opinions such as these that prevent any kind of rational, 21st-century debate on such a topic.

Taking antibiotics kills bacteria; is that evil?

Why do you people go so off topic, when it's obvious what was meant! Ultravid is obviously referring to human life, which obviously begins at conception, Abortion kills a living homo sapiens. i.e. murder
You can argue whether or not that human life has the right to live, whther it should be defined as person under definitions of obtaining concious, but it's the same debate as to whether slavery was acceptable, or when the Nazis killed Jews, Christians, blacks, etc... They all used the same argument. Those beings aren't considered persons, because their brains are less developed, or they just are worth as much as a white person, a German... Over and over history has shown what happens when people try to decide whose life is worth more. As to why we aren't doing more to solve the worlds problems, I really don't know what you mean. Every person I know who is active in promoting the protection of the pre-born are also strongly compassionate for those who are born. Who do you think opens up orphanages, takes food and medical supplies to those in need? Who goes into war torn countries to bring them aid. Sure, some people who call themselves pro-choice help, but working in these charities, it's rare to find the pro-abortion people helping out. Just my experience.

bquinn

People should have the choice to decide for themselves

F.A. wrote: »

Okay, Ultravid, since you forever demand answers in what comes across as rather triumphant ways (only to then dismiss or ignore these answers), maybe you can answer something for a change:

You keep claiming that an embryo or fetus is the very same as a human being that is already born. How come, then, that society does not organise funerals for those misfortunes that nature decided were unfit for life and, thus, aborted very soon after conception, say the first 12 weeks (as this is the time in which most natural abortions occur)? You know, full blown funerals, with wake, mass, burial. I mean, in your opinion, surely the death of an embryo or fetus that young is to be mourned in the same way, if not more, as anyone else's? So, why do you think society doesn't really seem that bothered?

Obviously for several reasons.
1. Baby hasn't met many people yet, the more one knew in life the more peple who will atend funeral. Since Baby hasn't developed relationships, not that many know of their existance. Who hasn't met you that would show up at funeral, but you're still a person. Aren't you?
2. Miscarriages are very painful and most of the time the parents want to grieve in private. Other deaths are painful, but less able to grieve in private because others know and want to grieve too.
3.Society has devalued human life, so forcing people who do want to have a funeral for their pre-born child to feel awkward about it.
4. I've been to several funerals for babies who have died as a result of miscarriage. I know cemetaries which are devoted to those who have died before birth. Two funeral I've been to, were for babies that were only 6 wks from conception.

bquinn

People should have the choice to decide for themselves

F.A. wrote: »

Funerals in some form or another are demanded in society for every born human. So why not for a fetus or an embryo?

Really? Who has a funeral for a homeless person?

F.A.

Abortion should not be legalised

bquinn wrote: »

Really? Who has a funeral for a homeless person?

I don't know about Ireland, but where I come from, homeless people recieve a burial too, maybe anonymously, but still a burial, which is the essential part of a funeral. I was under the assumption that was what happened here too, but apparently not? Do they leave them in the streets here?