Abortion

Jimbo

I can see why these threads don't last very long.

Reasonable discussion thrown out the window

philologos

On an ethical level I can't see abortion as anything but a barbaric practice that should have been left back in the Stone Age. The lack of respect for human rights incurred by it on behalf of the unborn and on the behalf of many of those women who end up regretting the event is something that one cannot reconcile with a society that recognises freedoms for the individual. However it is true that in history a new minority must be chosen to be suppressed. It's much easier when they are voiceless to begin with.

I can't see abortion as anything but killing out of convenience. Destroying human lives which could have a lot of potential. It's a typical case of the weak being set below the stronger even though the weak are the ones who need defending most. If we are to truly honour human life, and if we are truly to believe that the conception is the act which begins the growth process which eventually ends in death, it is hard not to see why equality is important in this respect also.

Like with CathyMoran the only possible case I could find abortion morally acceptable is when there is a serious danger to the mothers life. If the child is likely to kill both it is best to save at least one life. However apart from this fairly limited scope I can't see the ethics behind it.

There are two rights to be considered here:
The rights of the mother to adoptive services, health services and so on.
The rights of the child to life. (UN Declaration of Human Rights Article 8).

TheZohanS

ibarelycare wrote: »

A friend of mine has had a couple of abortions

Now that's something I'm against. Anyone can make a mistake once, but there is no excusing twice unless it's rape.

Hamiltonion

Mr.Lizard wrote: »

Why? It's hardly too far off the mark already as it is. 93% percent of down-syndrome detections in the Untied States are aborted.

I'm very pro-abortion by the way. Can't stand humanity. I like the chinese method of limiting the amount of kids a couple can have. In fact I'd even take it a step further believe that people should be means tested before they're even allowed have kids. I'm sick of this race to the bottom being lead by inferior people who breed like rabbits because our society has made it economically viable to do so. Kill them before they're born and a lot of the problems we deal with in society would be greatly diminished.

I believe I speak for us all when i yell troll?:mad:

Would it not be a better idea to change our social infastructure and stop raising benefits in accordance with the amount of kids a couple has? ie. Child benefit for 1st/2nd child, then it stops, or adopt a completely free market stance and phase it out completely? Everyone is free to make their own choices, hell have 40 kids once you can provide for them financially and emotionally, but people have to accept its up to them to provide for their family rather than place the burden on the state, people would then have to accept consequences to their actions. In laymans terms you dont buy a 5L Mecedas V12 if you cant afford to run a 1.1L micra, then ask the state to run it for you?

Hamiltonion

Jakkass wrote: »

There are two rights to be considered here:
The rights of the mother to adoptive services, health services and so on.
The rights of the child to life. (UN Declaration of Human Rights Article 8).

What about the right to bodily integrity? Rights are conferred in accordance to the harm principle and responsibility, you can't limit a womans rights to bodily integrity under any circumstance

Bottle_of_Smoke

ibarelycare wrote: »

That's fcuking sick. What do you class as "handicapped?"

Take a child whos going to be fully physicaly handicapped, incontinent and will require care its entire life, it wont have any standard of living and will require care its entire life.

You say its "f*cking sick", but why is killing an unborn child not "f*cking" sick?

I reckon anti abortioners agree with me there's no difference. Pro-abortioners disagree because they like to believe abortion isn't killing

dollybird09

Mr.Lizard wrote: »

Why? It's hardly too far off the mark already as it is. 93% percent of down-syndrome detections in the Untied States are aborted.

I don't think thats what the previous poster meant...they mentioned 'putting down' your child if its born handicapped so long as its done in the first month...

actually waiting til the child is in your arms and then deciding, oh look I don't want this child because of x disability is disgraceful... if someone feels like this after giving birth to a child, the child should be adopted by parents who will love them regardless of disability and the natural parents should not be allowed to have children again.

What kind of parents would these people make? What happens if they have another baby, a 'perfect' child, and that child has a glandular condition that results in unavoidable obesity, or they are struck by a car and rendered paralysed with severe brain damage... would these parents abandon that child too because it doesn't live up to their expectations of "perfection"???

I agree with abortion, but it has to be right for the person involved....

JC 2K3

The consequences of abortion to society - 0.

In terms of legality, that should be the only factor considered.

As for whether I agree with it, well yes, I do, I find no reason not to. However, one has to acknowledge the fact that should they themselves be faced with the decision, they would be likey to experience intense, irrational emotions, and due to this, it might be better for one's long term mental well being to go through with the pregnancy.

ibarelycare

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Take a child whos going to be fully physicaly handicapped, incontinent and will require care its entire life, it wont have any standard of living and will require care its entire life.

You say its "f*cking sick", but why is killing an unborn child not "f*cking" sick?

I reckon anti abortioners agree with me there's no difference. Pro-abortioners disagree because they like to believe abortion isn't killing

Why do handicapped children have less of a right to life than a non-handicapped child? With your reasoning, then why not allow any child to be killed within a month of being born if the parents decide they don't want it? :rolleyes:

philologos

Hamiltonion wrote: »

What about the right to bodily integrity? Rights are conferred in accordance to the harm principle and responsibility, you can't limit a womans rights to bodily integrity under any circumstance

Problem: If we are discussing the right to bodily integrity, you would have to consider the foetus and the mother to be the same biological entity.

Opinion:
I don't consider the foetus and the mother to be the same biological entity, but two differing and distinct human lives.

The foetus by extension if a separate human biological entity would arguably have to be conferred the same right to "bodily integrity".

We have a collission of interests here which contradict. I would argue a compromise has to be drawn between the right to life of the foetus, and the right of the mother not to have to keep the child. In that case adoptive services seem to be the legitimate via media.

I could equally argue that you cannot take away the life of the foetus under any circumstance, and the interesting thing is this right is codified internationally. I could also argue on the bodily integrity of the unborn and having procedures imposed on it without consent. I'd argue as you obviously cannot gain consent it is best not to explore that option if we are to consider the rights of the unborn, but to find another suitable via media.

JC 2K3 wrote: »

The consequences of abortion to society - 0.

In terms of legality, that should be the only factor considered.

The consequences to society is actually far greater than zero, it's a human life thrown down the drain.
In terms of legality this should also very much be under consideration.

Bottle_of_Smoke

ibarelycare wrote: »

Why do handicapped children have less of a right to life than a non-handicapped child? With your reasoning, then why not allow any child to be killed within a month of being born if the parents decide they don't want it? :rolleyes:

THe adoption market covers that so no one would do it.

Are you anti abortion or pro abortion?

If you're anti abortion I can understand your moral outrage but if you're pro-abortion then what is the difference?

Mr.Lizard

dollybird09 wrote: »

I don't think thats what the previous poster meant...they mentioned 'putting down' your child if its born handicapped so long as its done in the first month...

Yeah I accept that as a point. Some people see a distinction (wrt to murder) between a foetus and newborn. Personally I don't. But either way you look at it you're killing a life because it suits you. The latter is just an extension of the former.

I believe I speak for us all when i yell troll?

Not at all. I'm quite serious about my views on the matter. Have been for several years. It's not a politcally correct pov but it is my belief.

ibarelycare

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

THe adoption market covers that so no one would do it.

Are you anti abortion or pro abortion?

If you're anti abortion I can understand your moral outrage but if you're pro-abortion then what is the difference?

Says who? So there are no children in care in this country that can't find a family to adopt them? And how do you know that a family wouldn't take on a child with a handicap?

I'm not pro-abortion, I'm pro-choice. However that's of no consequence to this argument! You're saying that a child without a handicap has more right to live than a child with a handicap, that's nothing to do with abortion.

Bottle_of_Smoke

ibarelycare wrote: »

Says who? So there are no children in care in this country that can't find a family to adopt them? And how do you know that a family wouldn't take on a child with a handicap?

I'm not pro-abortion, I'm pro-choice. However that's of no consequence to this argument! You're saying that a child without a handicap has more right to live than a child with a handicap, that's nothing to do with abortion.

There are huge waiting lists for parents who want to adopt new born babies.

As for your second point. This is an abortion thread, my argument is within that context

Hamiltonion

Jakkass wrote: »

Problem: If we are discussing the right to bodily integrity, you would have to consider the foetus and the mother to be the same biological entity.

Opinion:
I don't consider the foetus and the mother to be the same biological entity, but two differing and distinct human lives.

The foetus by extension if a separate human biological entity would arguably have to be conferred the same right to "bodily integrity".

We have a collission of interests here which contradict. I would argue a compromise has to be drawn between the right to life of the foetus, and the right of the mother not to have to keep the child. In that case adoptive services seem to be the legitimate via media.

I could equally argue that you cannot take away the life of the foetus under any circumstance, and the interesting thing is this right is codified internationally. I could also argue on the bodily integrity of the unborn and having procedures imposed on it without consent. I'd argue as you obviously cannot gain consent it is best not to explore that option if we are to consider the rights of the unborn, but to find another suitable via media.



The consequences to society is actually far greater than zero, it's a human life thrown down the drain.
In terms of legality this should also very much be under consideration.

Yes but that argument is rendered null by the fact that the feutus is completely dependant upon the mother for its survival, the mother has no obligation to volunteer her body to facilitate this. Although that does bring up the argument of terms of abortion as the feutus can survive unaided after 24 weeks
As for opinion, that their not one entity, well as long as the child is solely dependent on the mother for survival then yes they are, until the child can breath, excrete, respond to stimuli and carry out respiration then it cannot be considered a separate being, its being facilitated by the body of the mother

ibarelycare

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

There are huge waiting lists for parents who want to adopt new born babies.

As for your second point. This is an abortion thread, my argument is within that context

No it's not at all, it's a complete separate issue. Saying it's ok for newborn handicapped babies to be killed is nothing to do with abortion

mehfesto2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5R7JmZ1q310

Jimbo

Mr.Lizard wrote: »

Yeah I accept that as a point. Some people see a distinction (wrt to murder) between a foetus and newborn. Personally I don't. But either way you look at it you're killing a life because it suits you. The latter is just an extension of the former.

If you see no distinction between killing an unborn child and killing a living person, why are you pro abortion?

If it ok for me to kill another person just because it suits me?

Stercus Accidit

I know a girl who had two abortions, within a few months of each other.

She's only 19 and by god the father wouldn't support her if it came to it, she has the mental age of a 15 year old.

It is a bit fcuked up, first one was with an operation, second with a pill, but there ye go. It messed her up a good bit, but she's better off now TBH.


I say once there is conscious brain activity, thats it, no abortion of a foetus, until there is some conscious brain activity it is just human tissue, with some functional elements. Its the conscious mind I consider to be the thing worth a damn, not an egg and some sperm, and stem cells eventually.

I would base the decision on that, but its not to be taken lightly.

Be careful and use protection, worst case scenario, catch it before you get to some level of development where the foetus has consciousness.

My opinion.

philologos

Hamiltonion wrote: »

Yes but that argument is rendered null by the fact that the feutus is completely dependant upon the mother for its survival, the mother has no obligation to volunteer her body to facilitate this. Although that does bring up the argument of terms of abortion as the feutus can survive unaided after 24 weeks

Problem: A child is dependant on it's mother for many reasons after it is born.

Opinion: Why are your rights different post birth than pre birth. Legally in the world dependance has no bearing on what you can do to your child. When I was a child I was dependant on my mother and my father for many things, education, food, and shelter being the primary three. Why didn't my parents have the right to kill me then. Why does the abhorrence differ post birth than pre birth? This point doesn't stand unfortunately. If the mother has a legal obligation to provide food to a child, why is it any different that she should have an obligation to provide for the birth of the child that is growing within her? With pregnancy I would argue comes responsibility for the welfare of the child just like in post-birth situations.

As for your point about 24 weeks. There have been abortion survivors who have suffered disability from the result of their botched abortions in the USA in particular. There was a point when the law in the USA said that if a child survived abortion, not only was it the norm to kill the child in the womb, there was a legal right to infanticide until George W. Bush in one of his finer decisions deemed it illegal to kill an abortion survivor outside of the womb. If there is such ambiguity about what a child is there shouldn't be abortion in the first place.

Hamiltonion wrote: »

As for opinion, that their not one entity, well as long as the child is solely dependent on the mother for survival then yes they are, until the child can breath, excrete, respond to stimuli and carry out respiration then it cannot be considered a separate being, its being facilitated by the body of the mother

This is nonsense, read the point at the start. There is no difference between pre-birth and post-birth understandings of this. My view is consistent with the reality post-birth, yours is not. This to me shows your reasoning to be fallacious.

Mr.Lizard

Jimbo wrote: »

If you see no distinction between killing an unborn child and killing a living person, why are you pro abortion?

Because I place no value on much of human life and wish it not to exist. Killing people via abortion is just a quicker and easier way of killing them than doing so after birth, not to mention more palatable for most people.

If it ok for me to kill another person just because it suits me?

Sure. As long as the law sanctions it.

Hamiltonion

Jakkass wrote: »

Problem: A child is dependant on it's mother for many reasons after it is born.

Opinion: Why are your rights different post birth than pre birth. Legally in the world dependance has no bearing on what you can do to your child. When I was a child I was dependant on my mother and my father for many things, education, food, and shelter being the primary three. Why didn't my parents have the right to kill me then. Why does the abhorrence differ post birth than pre birth? This point doesn't stand unfortunately. If the mother has a legal obligation to provide food to a child, why is it any different that she should have an obligation to provide for the birth of the child that is growing within her? With pregnancy I would argue comes responsibility for the welfare of the child just like in post-birth situations.

As for your point about 24 weeks. There have been abortion survivors who have suffered disability from the result of their botched abortions in the USA in particular. There was a point when the law in the USA said that if a child survived abortion, not only was it the norm to kill the child in the womb, there was a legal right to infanticide until George W. Bush in one of his finer decisions deemed it illegal to kill an abortion survivor outside of the womb. If there is such ambiguity about what a child is there shouldn't be abortion in the first place.



This is nonsense, read the point at the start. There is no difference between pre-birth and post-birth understandings of this. My view is consistent with the reality post-birth, yours is not. This to me shows your reasoning to be fallacious.

Sir, there is a huge difference. If i was deprived of food or water I would too die, however I can sit upon this planet and live quite happily from one minute to the next provided nobody interferres with me. A feutus cannot survive outside the womb as it has not yet aquired the characteristics of life which I have listed for your benefit. Hence as it is dependent completely it cannot be deemed a life at this point.
In regards the 2nd point of 24 weeks you seem to have misunderstood, I'm refering to the point before an fetuses body is no longer completely dependant on the mother, ie before 24 weeks

Thoie

Thoie wrote: »

I'm pro-choice, but I kind of side with your friends on this one - you've managed to make it sound a bit more like a contraception plan :S

It's possible that your friends were hoping that given how you both feel, you'd be doubly careful to avoid the situation in the first place.

I hear you, but no the conversation was about abortion, whether it's right or wrong, I was just using myself as an example, I'm not using it as a contraceptive plan

Elliemental

brummytom wrote: »

Sorry, I'm not feeling great at the moment, so I realise my previous post didn't make much sense.

I suppose my point was that circumstances change. While someone/a couple may not feel able to cope when finding out they are having a baby, who knows what the future can bring. I think killing a baby is a little short-sight, you could feel a lot different after the birth... again, apologies if that didn't make much sense

You're using your experience of one person, and generalising that onto the rest of the population.
Your letting your personal emotion cloud your judgement. You think abortions are nasty, so no one else should be able to have one.

Tell me, what have you got against choice?

Nodin

Ultimate Chin wrote: »

I find it amazing how much debate and activity there is on both sides when abortion is brought up in this country. It really is baffling. Do people not realise that theres always a staircase handy somewhere?

The 'bungalow boom' has disenfranchised many, unfortunately. Backstreet step laddering is on the rise as a result.

philologos

Hamiltonion wrote: »

Sir, there is a huge difference. If i was deprived of food or water I would too die, however I can sit upon this planet and live quite happily from one minute to the next provided nobody interferres with me. A feutus cannot survive outside the womb as it has not yet aquired the characteristics of life which I have listed for your benefit. Hence as it is dependent completely it cannot be deemed a life at this point.
In regards the 2nd point of 24 weeks you seem to have misunderstood, I'm refering to the point before an fetuses body is no longer completely dependant on the mother, ie before 24 weeks

Much respect for your continued replies and your mutual respect

Yes you too would die without these resources. As for a foetus not being able to exist outside the womb. This is a fallacy because rights generally aren't distinguished by location. Human rights are made clear by the fact that we recognise our common dignity towards on another and we can empathise with the harm that we can cause to other human beings in a secular sense of course. I do hold other beliefs concerning the child and the process of it's forming in the womb but there is no point in basing my argument on beliefs that others cannot possibly relate to. Would you agree that location has no bearing on the discussion of human rights in a reasonable arena? For example we are equally outraged if people do not have access to food and if they have lost their home through displacement in war whether or not that happens in Ireland or in the Gaza Strip. We recognise that these are basic rights. I would contend that there is or there should be a recognition of the basic right to life irrespective of the location of the individual concerned.

EDIT:

Elliemental wrote: »

Tell me, what have you got against choice?

Is this choice secured for the unborn as well as the mother? If not it is this discrimination that I find wrong with the prospect. I personally would be outraged if my mother had the right to make a decision to end my life in the here and now, just because the unborn are voiceless doesn't mean that they don't have the right to this defence. That's what I find appalling about choice. There is no right in my books to choose about someone elses life.

I have the ability to be able to live my life abundantly and I have the ability to live a fulfilled life by whatever means I have chosen (for myself) to live that life. Why should the unborn be any different than I am?

As I say if there are two biological entities to be considered, there are two sets of rights to be considered. This is what is fair about the pro-life position, we promote reason and compromise. The pro-choice position eliminates the rights of the unborn, thus making it discriminatory.

The_Minister

6 pages?!

This thread really gestated quickly.




unlike some things...

Hamiltonion

Jakkass wrote: »

Much respect for your continued replies and you respect

Yes you too would die without these resources. As for a foetus not being able to exist outside the womb. This is a fallacy because rights generally aren't distinguished by location. Human rights are made clear by the fact that we recognise our common dignity towards on another and we can empathise with the harm that we can cause to other human beings in a secular sense of course. I do hold other beliefs concerning the child and the process of it's forming in the womb but there is no point in basing my argument on beliefs that others cannot possibly relate to. Would you agree that location has no bearing on the discussion of human rights in a reasonable arena? For example we are equally outraged if people do not have access to food and if they have lost their home through displacement in war whether or not that happens in Ireland or in the Gaza Strip. We recognise that these are basic rights. I would contend that there is or there should be a recognition of the basic right to life irrespective of the location of the individual concerned.
quote]

A pleasure, I enjoy a reasoned debate;)

Location has nothing to do with it, I'd completely concede everything but for the fact that the fetus cannot survive, even fir a second, outside the mothers body. If the fetus could be delivered and live at 2 weeks things would be different, however, as a dependant the chice lies with the mother and she has every right, due to the prnciple of bodily integrity. At 8 months this may not be the case but as long as the fetus has not yet developed the facuties needed to survive outside of the womb it holds true

ChocolateSauce

My opinion is there's nothing wrong with abortion on demand and it's your business, not your friend's. They can't prove their right and you're wrong and so the only way to proceed is to leave it up to the individual's judgment. You wouldn't force them to have abortions so they shouldn't force your gf not to.

Nehaxak

Don't agree with abortion, never did and really never will as I can't understand how anyone could abort their own flesh and blood but that's not to say I should impose my own personal views on to others.

So, the answer I'd give is that I'd be pro choice along with providing counselling/help/support before and afterwards, whatever the ultimate decision taken by the parent(s).

This country/state/government is still (whether you admit it or not) influenced by the catholic church, so, honestly, it's not going to be legalised here anytime soon.