Abortion

DarkJager

Atlantis50 wrote: »

Okay, so it's merely a 'potential life' right up to birth according to you.

So if the baby was aborted or killed at 38 weeks, that's fine because it's still merely a 'potential life' with no rights according to you. But if the baby was killed immediately after birth, that would be a murder.

Until it is born it is only a potential life and not an actual one. If it's existence poses a serious risk or harm to the mother then it doesn't have any rights, human being > potential being. Would you rather see an adult female die from complications than the termination of a potential being who may not stand any chance of survival once birthed anyway?

eviltwin

micropig wrote: »

But it seems ok for a woman to have an abortion against the will of her partner.....Why? Because it's her body, therefore she should ensure she is protected against unwanted pregnancy before fornicating.

* The man should also be responsible, but some men are dumb/lie/just want their hole

But that is just a fact of biology. None of us have the right to tell another person what to do with their body no matter how we feel about it. Where would it end?

Bullseye1

eviltwin wrote: »

Where is your evidence that most abortions happen outside marriage?

I don't have any, it's an assumption on my behalf. If you are in a loving marriage and financially sound your less likely to want an abortion, or am I wrong? Why would you chose that option unless you had a medical condition?

PrincessLola

Atlantis50 wrote: »

Okay, so it's merely a 'potential life' right up to birth according to you.

So if the baby was aborted or killed at 38 weeks, that's fine because it's still merely a 'potential life' with no rights according to you. But if the baby was killed immediately after birth, that would be a murder.

No, I think its still a potential life early on in the pregnancy. Obviously at some point it becomes a baby, probably once it is viable to live outside the womb, but I can't tell you the cut off point because I'm not fecking Jesus. But I can tell you that women are not walking incubators. Also, adult woman > fetus

micropig

eviltwin wrote: »

But that is just a fact of biology. None of us have the right to tell another person what to do with their body no matter how we feel about it. Where would it end?

No, but we can all make choices which protect ourselves from unwanted consequences

Prevention is better than cure

eviltwin

Bullseye1 wrote: »

I don't have any, it's an assumption on my behalf. If you are in a loving marriage and financially sound your less likely to want an abortion, or am I wrong? Why would you chose that option unless you had a medical condition?

Well its not a question you are asked so I doubt we will ever know.

In the past few years most abortions have been in the older age group so I would imagine many are married or in committed relationships. I myself am married and had an abortion in my 30's for a non medical reason. I was by no means the oldest woman there either.

I think some people would like us to think that its mostly irresponsible teens or women in their 20s who get pregnant after a drunken one night stand who want abortion and that for them it will a form of birth control but the stats dont really support that.

LilyCricket

micropig wrote: »

I don't disagree with you, but why should women have the final say on abortion, men are just as responsible for creating the child?


If I don;t want a child I use contraception. I don't make a child and then seek to terminate it (under normal circumstances ie no medical reasons)

Easy, isn't it?

Atlantis50

PrincessLola wrote: »

No, I think its still a potential life early on in the pregnancy. Obviously at some point it becomes a baby, but I can't tell you the cut off point because I'm not fecking Jesus. But I can tell you that women are not walking incubators,

Okay, so you have now clarified that it is only a 'potential life' early in the pregnancy. So you do believe that at some stage in the womb, the fetus becomes a living being with a right to life?

eviltwin

micropig wrote: »

No, but we can all make choices which protect ourselves from unwanted consequences

Prevention is better than cure

That is very true.

PrincessLola

Atlantis50 wrote: »

Okay, so you have now clarified that it is only a 'potential life' early in the pregnancy. So you do believe that at some stage in the womb, the fetus becomes a living being with a right to life?

Yep. Probably once its viable, or has a fully formed brain or something. I'm not advocating abortions at 9 months or anything

dark crystal

Atlantis50 wrote: »

When, in your opinion does life begin? At birth, conception, implantation, or at some stage in the womb?

I honestly don't know how to answer that. I'm not a scientist and for me, the life of my children began as soon as they started growing inside me, but that's an emotional answer on my part, not a scientific one.

Look, I'll be totally honest here and say I'm uncomfortable with the idea of abortion and that's why I would never personally consider it. However, not all women feel the same way I do about pregnancy and therefore I don't feel I have any right to force my personal views on anyone else. I'm not the one who's going to have to bring up their child - they are. If they don't feel ready for that responsibility, then they should have the option to end that pregnancy without the added hardship of having to travel back and forth to the U.K to do so.

eviltwin

Everyone has their own idea on when life begins...even the experts can't agree so what hope do us mere mortals have

Atlantis50

DarkJager wrote: »

Until it is born it is only a potential life and not an actual one. If it's existence poses a serious risk or harm to the mother then it doesn't have any rights, human being > potential being. Would you rather see an adult female die from complications than the termination of a potential being who may not stand any chance of survival once birthed anyway?

Not according to science.

And your equation in the case where progressing with the pregnancy could result in the death of a mother would be 'Mother > Unborn'. I agree with terminations if carrying on the pregnancy could kill the mother.

LilyCricket

dark crystal wrote: »

I honestly don't know how to answer that. I'm not a scientist and for me, the life of my children began as soon as they started growing inside me, but that's an emotional answer on my part, not a scientific one.

Look, I'll be totally honest here and say I'm uncomfortable with the idea of abortion and that's why I would never personally consider it. However, not all women feel the same way I do about pregnancy and therefore I don't feel I have any right to force my personal views on anyone else. I'm not the one who's going to have to bring up their child - they are. If they don't feel ready for that responsibility, then they should have the option to end that pregnancy without the added hardship of having to travel back and forth to the U.K to do so.

Spot on crystal x

H2UMrsRobinson

micropig wrote: »

No, but we can all make choices which protect ourselves from unwanted consequences

Prevention is better than cure

If memory serves me correct from school, abstention is still the only method of contraception that is 100% effective. I agree that precautions should be taken but there will always be little accidents. Some will be happy ones, some not so happy. The option needs to be there for women who don't want to go through with a pregnancy. Whatever the reason.

Morag

LilyCricket wrote: »

Easy, isn't it?

No, as no form of contraception is 100% effective.

Doc Ruby

Meh, first trimester, yes, second trimester maybe, third trimester no. After a certain point its not your body any more, its someone else's body. Third trimester children are as far as I'm aware "persons" legally, so unless there is a clear threat to the mother's life, they should be treated as such. This also deals with cases like rape where the pregnancy can be aborted in the first trimester. I'm against the Irish government's attitude on abortion but also against extremist abortion on demand.

LilyCricket

Sharrow wrote: »

No, as no form of contraception is 100% effective.

woosh

micropig

H2UMrsRobinson wrote: »

If memory serves me correct from school, abstention is still the only method of contraception that is 100% effective. I agree that precautions should be taken but there will always be little accidents. Some will be happy ones, some not so happy. The option needs to be there for women who don't want to go through with a pregnancy. Whatever the reason.

The amount of girls I know personally who claim & insist to have been on the pill and still got pregnant is astonishing..I'm on the verge of writing to the pill manufacturers & asking them to review their testing procedure

Atlantis50

dark crystal wrote: »

I honestly don't know how to answer that. I'm not a scientist and for me, the life of my children began as soon as they started growing inside me, but that's an emotional answer on my part, not a scientific one.

Look, I'll be totally honest here and say I'm uncomfortable with the idea of abortion and that's why I would never personally consider it. However, not all women feel the same way I do about pregnancy and therefore I don't feel I have any right to force my personal views on anyone else. I'm not the one who's going to have to bring up their child - they are. If they don't feel ready for that responsibility, then they should have the option to end that pregnancy without the added hardship of having to travel back and forth to the U.K to do so.

Your emotional answer almost correlates with the legal opinion currently in Ireland. The nub of the issue really is when does life begin and if life is determined to exist, then that life is protected by laws like us all (right to life).

Doc Ruby

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Third trimester children are as far as I'm aware "persons" legally, so unless there is a clear threat to the mother's life, they should be treated as such. This also deals with cases like rape where the pregnancy can be aborted in the first trimester.

You can't really argue that 3rd trimester should be the cut off for abortion because of how the law views them. That's using the assumption that the law is valid, which is what this thread is debating.

As for dealing with rape in the first trimester, many women don't report being raped, and many are so traumatised they try to pretend nothing has happened, so it's perfectly reasonable to assume that there are instances where a woman doesn't realise she is pregnant from a rape until very far into the pregnancy. It actually seems to me to be quite logical that a raped woman would be less likely to accept the fact that she might be pregnant than would a woman who had consentual sex.

kieranfitz

Yes, and paid for by the state. Think of The savings on loan parents and children's allowances.

LilyCricket

kieranfitz wrote: »

Yes, and paid for by the state. Think of The savings on loan parents and children's allowances.

So shocking. I know of one girl, who has 2 kids. 4 abortions. Paid for by friends, privately.

Atlantis50

true-or-false wrote: »

You can't really argue that 3rd trimester should be the cut off for abortion because of how the law views them. That's using the assumption that the law is valid, which is what this thread is debating.

As for dealing with rape in the first trimester, many women don't report being raped, and many are so traumatised they try to pretend nothing has happened, so it's perfectly reasonable to assume that there are instances where a woman doesn't realise she is pregnant from a rape until very far into the pregnancy. It actually seems to me to be quite logical that a raped woman would be less likely to accept the fact that she might be pregnant than would a woman who had consentual sex.

So when should the cut-off be in your view? Is there some stage in the womb that the fetus develops a right to life?

Doc Ruby

true-or-false wrote: »

You can't really argue that 3rd trimester should be the cut off for abortion because of how the law views them. That's using the assumption that the law is valid, which is what this thread is debating.

There is the formation of grey matter neurons and detectable mental activity in the third trimester, so yes I feel quite comfortable saying that's the cutoff. Womens' reluctance to deal with rape has more to do with the legal and societal issues surrounding the assault though, all of which can be improved independently of abortion procedures.

Bullseye1

kieranfitz wrote: »

Yes, and paid for by the state. Think of The savings on loan parents and children's allowances.

But if a woman wants an abortion she will have it. Why would she go ahead with the birth? Are you saying its expensive? And why should the rest of us pay for someones operation when it's not life threatening?

Should we also pay for circumcisions, breast enlargements, tummy tucks? Unless its for serious medical reasons these operations shouldn't be paid for by tax payers especially if many believe it's wrong.

Atlantis50

Atlantis50 wrote: »

So when should the cut-off be in your view? Is there some stage in the womb that the fetus develops a right to life?

I honestly don't know enough about birth and abortion to say when the cut off should be. As a crude estimation, I would say 24 weeks, as from what I think I know, there is a good chance of survival outside the womb at that stage. But the quote you responded to was not my attempt at giving an opinion of when the cut off point should be (as I said, I don't feel at all qualified to form such an opinion) - rather I was only protesting to the way the other poster had argued their point.

Atlantis50

true-or-false wrote: »

I honestly don't know enough about birth and abortion to say when the cut off should be. As a crude estimation, I would say 24 weeks, as from what I think I know, there is a good chance of survival outside the womb at that stage. But the quote you responded to was not my attempt at giving an opinion of when the cut off point should be (as I said, I don't feel at all qualified to form such an opinion) - rather I was only protesting to the way the other poster had argued their point.

Ah right. So basically your view is that the right to life begins once the fetus can survive outside the womb (or am I putting words in your mouth?). Fair enough, although I would disgree.

eviltwin

Atlantis50 wrote: »

Ah right. So basically your view is that the right to life begins once the fetus can survive outside the womb (or am I putting words in your mouth?). Fair enough, although I would disgree.

What makes you think your view on the point life begins is any more valid that TrueorFalses?

Da Shins Kelly

It should be legal. End of.