Abortion

Seachmall

zimmermania wrote: »

I believe its a womans right to choose.A thought just struck me,years ago when a woman miscarried the foetus was disposed of and sacriments were not administered.A lot of our hospitals were run by religous orders and it would appear that they did not consider that they were dealing with a human life.Limbo was in fashion then and despite the teaching that a child not baptized could not go to heaven and had to go to purgatory,foetuses were not baptized so it would appear that they were not considered to be human beings,strange?.

Traditionally many people, including the religious, believed that life began at quickness, so a miscarried fetus that didn't reach that stage wouldn't have needed the sacraments.

And many religious orders didn't treat children like humans, so it's unsurprising they wouldn't treat a fetus as human.

partyatmygaff

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Does that child have a right to live?

Yes, they've been born.

As far as i'm aware you do science in TCD.

Deary me is all I can say if you think an embryo and a tumour are equivalent in any way.

Want to list the differences for me?
They're both human cells, without the morphology of a person, which itself doesn't have the capacity to care whether it lives or dies. If I had a tumour, I'd get it removed. If that tumour was one day going to grow into a child and I wanted to raise it to adulthood or put it up for adoption, I'd keep it.

Why should elective abortion be considered acceptable let alone legal?

Because an unwanted pregnancy can be a horrific thing, which I don't think anyone should be forced to go through, or condemned for having gone through.

partyatmygaff

true-or-false wrote: »

Yes, they've been born.

So it's a matter of your location that determines whether or not you're considered human? News to me.

Want to list the differences for me?
They're both human cells, without the morphology of a person, which itself doesn't have the capacity to care whether it lives or dies. If I had a tumour, I'd get it removed. If that tumour was one day going to grow into a child and I wanted to raise it to adulthood or put it up for adoption, I'd keep it.

You're neglecting to mention a few things
Namely:
An embryo is a distinct organism from its mother (A tumour is not)
An embryo is not malignant and doesn't just "appear" as a result of damage to the body

The two are not equatable in any way, shape or form and to compare an embryo to a tumour is nothing short of flippancy about human life.

Because an unwanted pregnancy can be a horrific thing, which I don't think anyone should be forced to go through, or condemned for having gone through.

An unwanted pregnancy may be difficult but that doesn't give parents the right to kill their child.

The notion of killing a child just because they're "unwanted" is repulsive. There are better solutions than "Kill it quick before it starts looking more human!".

micropig

partyatmygaff wrote: »

The two are not equatable in any way, shape or form and to compare an embryo to a tumour is nothing short of flippancy about human life.

Both are a group just a group of cells

partyatmygaff

micropig wrote: »

Both are a group just a group of cells

Sure, you're a group of cells too.

You know what? Let's ignore what we know. Let's just leave it at "Ah yeah, that's a couple of cells. They're a couple of cells too."

Let's just pretend we don't understand and haven't learned anything about life. Sure, at the end of the day isn't a colony of E.Coli the same thing as a human blastula? It's all just cells, right?

partyatmygaff

partyatmygaff wrote: »

So it's a matter of your location that determines whether or not you're considered human? News to me.

As I've already said, I'm by no means suggesting that one day before birth is an acceptable stage to abort.

You're neglecting to mention a few things
Namely:
An embryo is a distinct organism from its mother (A tumour is not)
An embryo is not malignant and doesn't just "appear" as a result of damage to the body

Of course I didn't mention those things, I was suggesting similarities. Also, tumours aren't necessarily malignant, and don't always just "appear" as a result of damage to the body.

An unwanted pregnancy may be difficult but that doesn't give parents the right to kill their child.

The notion of killing a child just because they're "unwanted" is repulsive. There are better solutions than "Kill it quick before it starts looking more human!".

"Difficult" is an understatement. For some, it's the equivalent of a death sentence.

What is your magic "better solution"? If there was an alternative, I'd be all for it. I'm by no means a fan of abortion, and I certainly wish there was a better way.

Edit to include your latest post: If you're so shocked at someone pulling comparisons between a tumour and an embryo, then why are you so blind as to the differences between an embryo and a person?

partyatmygaff

true-or-false wrote: »

As I've already said, I'm by no means suggesting that one day before birth is an acceptable stage to abort.

Then when is it acceptable to abort? An arbitrary "X" number of weeks of our own choosing? Who are we to decide the start point of an individual's life or when their life becomes worthy of protection?

Of course I didn't mention those things, I was suggesting similarities. Also, tumours aren't necessarily malignant, and don't always just "appear" as a result of damage to the body.

I'm well aware.

It's just that your "similarities" between the two also happen to exist between almost all human cells.

"Difficult" is an understatement. For some, it's the equivalent of a death sentence.

It doesn't have to be, not with the right support services.

What is your magic "better solution"? If there was an alternative, I'd be all for it. I'm by no means a fan of abortion, and I certainly wish there was a better way.

Either ensure that "unwanted" pregnancies don't occur in the first place or as I said earlier drastically improve the supports. Those are two fine solutions.

"Just kill it" on the other hand is akin to how we'd deal with a parasitic infection, not with the life of another human being.

thomur

Abortion=Murder, simple

partyatmygaff

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Then when is it acceptable to abort? An arbitrary "X" number of weeks of our own choosing? Who are we to decide the start point of an individual's life or when their life becomes worthy of protection?

Anyone who participates in this debate is deciding just that - don't pretend it's just me! As for when it becomes unacceptable, I couldn't possibly claim to be informed enough to know that, but unfortunately it probably would have to come down to an informed, yet arbitrary line.

It's just that your "similarities" between the two also happen to exist between almost all human cells.

That was my entire point. That embryos are just human cells.

It doesn't have to be, not with the right support services.

In an idealistic world, sure, but not realistically.

Either ensure that "unwanted" pregnancies don't occur in the first place or as I said earlier drastically improve the supports. Those are two fine solutions.

The only way to ensure that is to never have sex at all. Let's not pretend that's a reasonable request for anyone who's not ready to have a baby. And that's not even bringing the rape scenario into it, or the possibility of wanting to get pregnant and then finding out your pregnancy will have abnormal life-threatening complications.

"Just kill it"

To put it politely, that's a terrible thing to say. With the possible exception of a few idiots, no one gets an abortion because they think "oh hey, let's just kill it". If that's how you see the women who get abortions, then you're clearly not informed enough to participate in a discussion like this.

micropig

thomur wrote: »

Abortion=Murder, simple

Meat is murder.. simpler

partyatmygaff

true-or-false wrote: »

Anyone who participates in this debate is deciding just that - don't pretend it's just me! As for when it becomes unacceptable, I couldn't possibly claim to be informed enough to know that, but unfortunately it probably would have to come down to an informed, yet arbitrary line.

If you, I and everyone here on this originated from a gastrula why is a gastrula not considered to be the "threshold" to definitively recognise an individual human life? Why do we ignore the knowledge we have of embryology and turn to arbitrary "Hmm, I'd say 20 weeks is when these few thousand cells suddenly acquire the status of human being"

That was my entire point. That embryos are just human cells.

Whose human cells? A tumour "belongs" to the person with the tumour. An embryo on the other hand is a distinct organism.

In an idealistic world, sure, but not realistically.

What's wrong with trying? It's not beyond the realms of possibility.

The only way to ensure that is to never have sex at all. Let's not pretend that's a reasonable request for anyone who's not ready to have a baby. And that's not even bringing the rape scenario into it, or the possibility of wanting to get pregnant and then finding out your pregnancy will have abnormal life-threatening complications.

People have to live with the potential consequences of their actions. As for rape things get a little less clear. Ideally, the child should be carried to term as it's in no way their fault. But... as things so happen for many people the idea of carrying a rapist's child to term would cause untold psychological damage and in that case the least disagreeable solution would be emergency "contraception". It's not ideal but there's no point in preserving the life of the child when it will absolutely destroy the mental health of the mother. The same goes for cases where the mother's physical health is at stake.

To put it politely, that's a terrible thing to say. With the possible exception of a few idiots, no one gets an abortion because they think "oh hey, let's just kill it". If that's how you see the women who get abortions, then you're clearly not informed enough to participate in a discussion like this.

I know that most people have a conscience and don't just say "Let's kill it" with that level of flippancy. They choose to kill the child out of desperation because they see that as being the only option available to them when it really isn't.

hattoncracker

Irishchick wrote: »

hattoncracker wrote: »

People also have this fairytale notion that a choice for abortion is easy...

But good going, you've lowered the tone of your own argument..

I never said it was easy. Doing the right thing seldom is.

So what do you think should be the legal punishment for the women who have an illegal abortion in Ireland? (ie order the bills, etc. because they cant afford to travel).

philologos

true-or-false wrote: »

Wow, Philologos, that's a lot of questions you want me to answer, especially considering you didn't answer mine.
I think people should have human rights to prevent suffering. I don't believe a foetus is capable of complex emotions and thought processes that lead to suffering in the same sense that an actual person would, or even as an animal would. I think human rights are also important in a selfish sense. Everything we do can be found to have a selfish component. Ensuring that people have human rights ensures that our society is somewhat co-operative and give us a far better chance of preserving ourselves.

I think human rights are important, in every sense. That's why I'm pro-life rather than pro-choice.

Why is feeling "complex emotions and thought processes" important? - That's the same development issue that koth has got himself in. You're essentially saying that because the unborn child isn't as old (I.E developed) as you are, that you have the right to kill it. I can rightfully extend that logic, to say why can't a mum kill her three year old child? What's the difference, the child is still not as developed as she is?

Edit: I could say that someone isn't developed enough because they can't cycle up Mount Fuji while playing a viola and juggling 572 oranges, and 273 pears. This is about as arbitrary as the point of development that you've given me. It has no objective basis. As to whether something is alive or dead, that is a fact.

Some people abort on the basis of gender. Is that an acceptable reason for abortion? The problem of pro-choice thinking is that it literally means that a mother can decide to kill a child on the basis of anything, even if unsound.

I don't think people realise, but it is extremely dangerous logic, so much so that Australian bio-ethicists have now said that after-birth abortion (infanticide) should be acceptable. This is problematic, because I think like them abortion is pretty much equivalent to infanticide in terms of logic, but they have drawn a very different conclusion in terms of acceptability.

The conclusion on the abstract of their paper:

If criteria such as the costs (social, psychological, economic) for the potential parents are good enough reasons for having an abortion even when the fetus is healthy, if the moral status of the newborn is the same as that of the infant and if neither has any moral value by virtue of being a potential person, then the same reasons which justify abortion should also justify the killing of the potential person when it is at the stage of a newborn.

Where does this stop? What is reasonable? Why is it only reasonable in-utero rather than ex-utero?

The pro-choice side needs to provide some clarification on this.

I don't believe an embryo should have rights in the same way I don't think a tumour has rights.

true-or-false wrote: »

The difference between in-utero and ex-utero is obvious. In one case the child is connected to it's mother's body, in the other it is a distinct entity. In addition, while I think that abortion should be socially acceptable and legal in this country, I'm by no means saying that one day before birth is still a viable stage for abortion.

Why is connection important? - We need to get to the bottom of these.

So when does the "foetus" stop being just a "foetus" (even though the Latin means "young one")? You say that a day before birth is not an acceptable time for abortion. When is? (I bet you any money it's going to be another situation where you claim the child is less developed than the mother, but we'll see).

true-or-false wrote: »

As for why shouldn't people like Gianna Jessen "have had the unalienable right to life as all other humans have?" The answer I would give to that is that it's because she wasn't Gianna Jessen when she was still a clump of cells. I don't think that living material has rights just because it's living. Although I think that 7 months may be past the stage where I would call abortion acceptable.

We're all a clump of cells. I'm tired of hearing that argument. It falls into the same logical trap as the one you got yourself into earlier with "complex emotions and thought processes). Young humans aren't as developed as older ones. I get it. Why does that make it acceptable to kill an unborn child?

true-or-false wrote: »

The abortion probably wouldn't have been a rushed botched attempt at 7 months if her mother had had better access to the options available to her. If abortion wasn't such a taboo, and if her mother hadn't been a scared 17 year old, the abortion would have had a far better chance of succeeding.

I think it would have been hugely wrong if it did succeed. I think despite the difficulties of her situation Gianna Jessen has lived a full life. Who are you to say that she shouldn't have had that opportunity?

true-or-false wrote: »

How on earth would you do that?

Promote good teaching on the subject. Both in respect to 1) abstaining until one is ready to deal with the consequences, or 2) in the event that one can't do this, then make proper use of contraceptives.

From my own POV, there would be pretty much zero cases of abortion if most people waited until marriage before sexual expression.

If you argue that people won't be willing to do at least one of those things, then one could argue that they regard their conjugal rights to be more important than the life of an unborn child.

philologos

zimmermania wrote: »

I believe its a womans right to choose.A thought just struck me,years ago when a woman miscarried the foetus was disposed of and sacriments were not administered.A lot of our hospitals were run by religous orders and it would appear that they did not consider that they were dealing with a human life.Limbo was in fashion then and despite the teaching that a child not baptized could not go to heaven and had to go to purgatory,foetuses were not baptized so it would appear that they were not considered to be human beings,strange?.

I'm not talking about religion. This is an ethical issue. I'm a Christian, but one needn't be a Christian to understand simple logic. I couldn't care less as to who baptized what. (From my own perspective, I think adult baptism is better, but that's another topic).

I don't believe it's a woman's right to choose to kill. That's where the line is for me.

nozzferrahhtoo

philologos wrote: »

I think human rights are important, in every sense. That's why I'm pro-life rather than pro-choice.

Nor are you special in this. So your "thats why" does not follow. Most pro choice advocates think human rights are important too. The difference is where and when they assign them.

The suggestion "I think human rights are important so that is why I am pro life rather than pro choice" has built in it the suggestion that therefore if you are pro choice you are NOT interested in human rights.

That is the kind of dishonest and disingenuous type of suggestion that paints all too many of your ilk. It would be so easy for you to simply paint all pro choice advocates of being evil and devoid of an interest in human rights.

Put yours straw men away, we are just as interested in human rights as you. We simply do not think a clump of undifferentiated cells should be allocated them.

philologos wrote: »

The pro-choice side needs to provide some clarification on this.

They do. All the time. You just ignore it and then pretend that they are all evil monsters with no concern for human rights. Just because you act all world weary and put upon with lines like "I am so tired of hearing this argument" this does not mean the arguments are not valid and have not been made. You just ignore them and then demand clarification be given as if it has not already.

philologos wrote: »

From my own POV, there would be pretty much zero cases of abortion if most people waited until marriage before sexual expression.

Ah yes, abstinence only education and the like. How did that work out for them in the States? Oh yes, that's right, it did not.

philologos wrote: »

I'm a Christian, but one needn't be a Christian to understand simple logic.

Indeed. And one does not need to be an atheist in order to start USING some either. So perhaps you might consider trying.

partyatmygaff

partyatmygaff wrote: »

If you, I and everyone here on this originated from a gastrula why is a gastrula not considered to be the "threshold" to definitively recognise an individual human life? Why do we ignore the knowledge we have of embryology and turn to arbitrary "Hmm, I'd say 20 weeks is when these few thousand cells suddenly acquire the status of human being"

But gastrula is just as arbitrary as 20 weeks. Why gastrula and not blastula? I don't think that where everyone here originated from is important. I originated from my mother and my father, and their reproductive cells were human and had life, and had the potential to create an adult human being, but you wouldn't have counted me as a person before my genetic material came together.

What's wrong with trying? It's not beyond the realms of possibility.

If you think a terrified 13 year old who can't handle the prospect of pushing a child out of her vagina just needs some support, you're not getting how traumatising it can be.

People have to live with the potential consequences of their actions. As for rape things get a little less clear. Ideally, the child should be carried to term as it's in no way their fault. But... as things so happen for many people the idea of carrying a rapist's child to term would cause untold psychological damage and in that case the least disagreeable solution would be emergency "contraception". It's not ideal but there's no point in preserving the life of the child when it will absolutely destroy the mental health of the mother. The same goes for cases where the mother's physical health is at stake.

But sometimes a birth from consensual sex can destroy the mental health of the mother.

They choose to kill the child out of desperation because they see that as being the only option available to them when it really isn't.

It might not be the only option, but it's certainly the best option. Suicide, life long abstinence, or forcing someone to give birth because you've given them "support", are not very good alternatives.

OldNotWIse

hooradiation wrote: »

Sarcastic? I assumed you considered your 'point' well and truly dealt with?

Well, this is unusual.
Oh! The answer was "the woman", by the by. That might clear things up.

Bizzare...

philologos wrote: »

Why do you think anyone else should have human rights?

I think the burden is on those who wish to deny the unborn child those rights to suggest why they shouldn't have these liberties unlike other humans?

The question is why do people think there is a fundamental difference between in-utero and ex-utero? Why isn't infanticide a reasonable suggestion? What is the difference between a child in the womb, and the day it is born? Or even a child in the womb a day before it is born, and when it is born?

There's no difference? - Children which have been born have been left to die in hospitals. Indeed, people have survived abortions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPF1FhCMPuQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8B1nKGIAeg

Why shouldn't people like Gianna Jessen have had the unalienable right to life as all other humans have? Why as a result of the botched abortion that her mother had to endure was it acceptable that that happened to her? Why is it acceptable that it happens to anyone? She's lucky - she survived. 50 million each year don't - I find that deeply wrong.

Simply put, abortion is not a solution to any problem. What is a solution to a problem is finding out a way to reduce and tackle head on the issue of unplanned pregnancy.

Seven and a half months? My gawd :eek: How barbaric.

eviltwin wrote: »

If you read back over the thread you will see posts from women who have travelled. Some are having a hard time coming to terms with it. The last thing they need is your prolife images.

What you mean is, "the last thing they need is the truth".

Sharrow wrote: »

Ok then if it's illegal to have an abortion here, when was the last time any woman was prosecuted for it?

So because there are not as many prosecutions as there should be, the law is, in fact, negated? What law school taught you that?

Seachmall wrote: »

The same way it's reasonable to say a seed is not a tree.

But it is not a different species. Saying a seed is not a tree is not the same as saying a fetus is not a human. What is it if not human? Plant?

eviltwin wrote: »

I have just reported your post Irishchick

Yeah I too hate when people tell the truth.

Seachmall

Definition of Manslaughter (source)

1. Manslaughter by unlawful and dangerous act ie the act must be a criminal offence, carrying with it the risk of bodily harm to another – a tort will not suffice (dangerousness is judged objectively);
2. Manslaughter by gross negligence involving a high risk that substantial personal injury will follow the accused’s negligent act or omission.

If we accept that at some stage during early pregnancy, say in the first trimester, that the fetus is a human being and has a the same right to life as anyone else we can agree that abortion is murder. If we do that then we must also agree that the laws of manslaughter also apply. So taking the second definition of manslaughter above would, or should, the following result in the prosecution of the mother?

• The pregnant mother plays on a trampoline and falls off.
• The pregnant mother uses a chair to change a light bulb and the chair breaks.
• The pregnant mother cycles an old, unmaintained bike to work and the breaks fail resulting in a crash.
• The pregnant mother fails to wear her seat belt properly and is involved in a minor crash.

In all of the above the child dies. Is the mother responsible, she was being negligible, and should she be prosecuted?

I'm trying to work out exactly how much the child's implied right to life hinders the mother's rights.

OldNotWIse wrote: »

But it is not a different species. Saying a seed is not a tree is not the same as saying a fetus is not a human. What is it if not human? Plant?

Define a human being/person/whatever and I'll work on that definition.

KeithM89_old

OldNotWIse wrote: »

....
.....
But it is not a different species. Saying a seed is not a tree is not the same as saying a fetus is not a human. What is it if not human? Plant?
....
Yeah I too hate when people tell the truth.

Mod
7 posts merged, please use multiquote.

prinz

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

The suggestion "I think human rights are important so that is why I am pro life rather than pro choice" has built in it the suggestion that therefore if you are pro choice you are NOT interested in human rights.That is the kind of dishonest and disingenuous type of suggestion that paints all too many of your ilk. It would be so easy for you to simply paint all pro choice advocates of being evil and devoid of an interest in human rights..

Indeed, I've never, ever, ever heard someone say 'I support womens rights, therefore I am pro-choice.' I bet that makes your head explode.

OldNotWIse

Seachmall wrote: »

Definition of Manslaughter (source)

1. Manslaughter by unlawful and dangerous act ie the act must be a criminal offence, carrying with it the risk of bodily harm to another – a tort will not suffice (dangerousness is judged objectively);
2. Manslaughter by gross negligence involving a high risk that substantial personal injury will follow the accused’s negligent act or omission.

If we accept that at some stage during early pregnancy, say in the first trimester, that the fetus is a human being and has a the same right to life as anyone else we can agree that abortion is murder. If we do that then we must also agree that the laws of manslaughter also apply. So taking the second definition of manslaughter above would, or should, the following result in the prosecution of the mother,

• The pregnant mother plays on a trampoline and falls off.
• The pregnant mother uses a chair to change a light bulb and the chair breaks.
• The pregnant mother cycles an old, unmaintained bike to work and the breaks fail resulting in a crash.

In all of the above the child dies. Is the mother responsible, she was being negligible, and should she be prosecuted?

I'm trying to work out exactly how much the child's implied right to life hinders the mother's rights.


Define a human being/person/whatever and I'll work on that definition.

Why? So you can disect it? (no pun intended). Are we really going to compare a woman who intends to gestate her baby to full term and give it life but who has an accident carrying out some household task with a woman who travels abroad with the sole intention of destroying the life of her baby?

Note: a lot of pro-choice for the mother people suggest that "personhood" is obtained upon birth ie; you are not a "person" until you pass through the birth canal (God help those of us who were section) but being "human" refers to our belonging to a specific species (h.sapiens as we all know) and belonging to a particular species does not just begin when we are born. We are human before birth.

seamus

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Why? So you can disect it? (no pun intended). Are we really going to compare a woman who intends to gestate her baby to full term and give it life but who has an accident carrying out some household task with a woman who travels abroad with the sole intention of destroying the life of her baby?

If we're going to make the issue of abortion so inanely black-and-white, then why not compare the two?

I love how the anti-abortion brigade always try to paint a picture of a woman skipping daintly out of the abortion clinic, satisfied in herself.

There are plenty of perfectly legitimate reasons why an abortion is a reasonable, if not preferable course of action than carrying the child to full term.

Seachmall

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Are we really going to compare a woman who intends to gestate her baby to full term and give it life but who has an accident carrying out some household task with a woman who travels abroad with the sole intention of destroying the life of her baby?

Yes. Morals, Ethics and Law require us to.

OldNotWIse

KeithM89 wrote: »

Mod
7 posts merged, please use multiquote.

Thanks! I was wondering how the hell they all ended up as one

nozzferrahhtoo

prinz wrote: »

Indeed, I've never, ever, ever heard someone say 'I support womens rights, therefore I am pro-choice.' I bet that makes your head explode.

I would have just as much issue with that phrase too and I have heard it myself often and usually I would have a word with the person using it too. It clearly is designed to suggest that the "other side" has no interest in such rights. It is a propoganda trick and no more and I prefer to arguing the facts, evidence, data and reasoning rather than linguistic word plays designed only to make the other side look bad.

Clearly the difference in opinion between people like myself on the pro choice side and people like philologos is not that one of us is concerned for human rights and the other is not. That is how he wishes to paint it, but it is disingenuous and insidious world play, no more. Alas a type of tactic the user in question is more than used to implementing throughout the forum.

The difference of opinion is more related to when and where we each feel human rights are applicable. An argument that said user is not actually quite good at which is likely why he prefers to suggest that my side of this particular fence have no interest in human rights at all.

Seachmall

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Note: a lot of pro-choice for the mother people suggest that "personhood" is obtained upon birth ie; you are not a "person" until you pass through the birth canal (God help those of us who were section) but being "human" refers to our belonging to a specific species (h.sapiens as we all know) and belonging to a particular species does not just begin when we are born. We are human before birth.

Which is why I specified a "human being", as in "an organism that belongs to the homo genus". Or at least that's how I'd define it, how would you?

OldNotWIse

seamus wrote: »

If we're going to make the issue of abortion so inanely black-and-white, then why not compare the two?

I love how the anti-abortion brigade always try to paint a picture of a woman skipping daintly out of the abortion clinic, satisfied in herself.

There are plenty of perfectly legitimate reasons why an abortion is a reasonable, if not preferable course of action than carrying the child to full term.

It's not about making things "black and white" - nothing is. But I detest verbal gymnastics in order to get across a point. If an argument can be so stong as to support itself then it shouldn't require taking one scenario and trying to merge it with a completely different scenario and tell other people that the two are exactly the same when they are clearly not. In fact I would challenge you to tell any woman who tragically lost her baby through no fault of her own that she is standing on the same moral ground as one who intentionally killed her baby. You'd want to have the door open

Re women skipping from an abortion clinic, I think we all know this is not the case, any more than the image painted of pro-lifers is that of an angry mob impregnating a woman against her will and holding her down for nine months, forcing her to gestate a non-human.

I am aware there are some cases where abortion is required (very young, rape victims, indirect abortions as a result of medical treatment for the mother) but the problem in this country (and it's one that goes across the board) is legalisation without legislation. Legalising abortion (for those who need it) will lead to abuse of the system. Eventually, all women will have to do is go to their GP and say,"If I cannot have an abortion I will throw myself of the nearest bridge" and she will be allowed to have one. Anyone who thinks that this proposed system will not be exploited is living in la la land.

hattoncracker

OldNotWIse wrote: »

hooradiation wrote: »

Sarcastic? I assumed you considered your 'point' well and truly dealt with?

Well, this is unusual.
Oh! The answer was "the woman", by the by. That might clear things up.

Bizzare...

philologos wrote: »

Why do you think anyone else should have human rights?

I think the burden is on those who wish to deny the unborn child those rights to suggest why they shouldn't have these liberties unlike other humans?

The question is why do people think there is a fundamental difference between in-utero and ex-utero? Why isn't infanticide a reasonable suggestion? What is the difference between a child in the womb, and the day it is born? Or even a child in the womb a day before it is born, and when it is born?

There's no difference? - Children which have been born have been left to die in hospitals. Indeed, people have survived abortions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPF1FhCMPuQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8B1nKGIAeg

Why shouldn't people like Gianna Jessen have had the unalienable right to life as all other humans have? Why as a result of the botched abortion that her mother had to endure was it acceptable that that happened to her? Why is it acceptable that it happens to anyone? She's lucky - she survived. 50 million each year don't - I find that deeply wrong.

Simply put, abortion is not a solution to any problem. What is a solution to a problem is finding out a way to reduce and tackle head on the issue of unplanned pregnancy.

Seven and a half months? My gawd :eek: How barbaric.

eviltwin wrote: »

If you read back over the thread you will see posts from women who have travelled. Some are having a hard time coming to terms with it. The last thing they need is your prolife images.

What you mean is, "the last thing they need is the truth".

Sharrow wrote: »

Ok then if it's illegal to have an abortion here, when was the last time any woman was prosecuted for it?

So because there are not as many prosecutions as there should be, the law is, in fact, negated? What law school taught you that?

Seachmall wrote: »

The same way it's reasonable to say a seed is not a tree.

But it is not a different species. Saying a seed is not a tree is not the same as saying a fetus is not a human. What is it if not human? Plant?

eviltwin wrote: »

I have just reported your post Irishchick

Yeah I too hate when people tell the truth.

You cant speak truthfully about something if you've never been in the situation. Then it's not truth, just an opinion.

OldNotWIse

Seachmall wrote: »

Which is why I specified a "human being", as in "an organism that belongs to the homo genus". Or at least that's how I'd define it, how would you?

You actually said, "define a human being/person/whatever" which is why I tried to address the idea of beign human as distinct from being a person.

OldNotWIse

hattoncracker wrote: »

You cant speak truthfully about something if you've never been in the situation. Then it's not truth, just an opinion.

I am sure whoever took the photos was there. Photographs are not capable of having opinions, and they certainly cannot lie, much as we'd like them to.