Contraception v s abortion

gctest50

http://i.imgur.com/mG4sGcJ.jpg .

Samaris

gctest50 wrote: »

http://i.imgur.com/mG4sGcJ.jpg .

I really can't tell which side of the debate that's going for..

Neyite

Leanna Little Babel wrote: »

The MAP is absolutely 100% not abortion. This is a fact.

Well, your Roman Catholic Church Vatican Council categorised it as an abortificant.

The 1968 Humanae Vitae of Pope Paul VI addressed the churches stance on procreation and in a nutshell, basically outlaws all forms of methods for preventing conception, and post coital treatment to prevent implantation.

Are you disagreeing with Papal Infallibility? Surely not

Scientifically, the MAP in the same category as the coil, as one of the ways it works is by preventing a fertilised zygote from implanting in a fertile womb. But it works in other ways as a contraceptive, so it is technically both.

One eyed Jack

Neyite wrote: »

Well, your Roman Catholic Church Vatican Council categorised it as an abortificant.

The 1968 Humanae Vitae of Pope Paul VI addressed the churches stance on procreation and in a nutshell, basically outlaws all forms of methods for preventing conception, and post coital treatment to prevent implantation.

Are you disagreeing with Papal Infallibility? Surely not

Scientifically, the MAP in the same category as the coil, as one of the ways it works is by preventing a fertilised zygote from implanting in a fertile womb. But it works in other ways as a contraceptive, so it is technically both.

This is why I consider people's personal morality, however it is informed, should not be entertained in a discussion with regard to legislating for abortion in Ireland. We've had non-religious people argue cut-off points about when an abortion is morally acceptable to them based upon informing themselves with statistical evidence, but after that point it seems they are reluctant to acknowledge that the implication is that to them an abortion would be immoral after that cut-off point.

If we all have our own personal cut-off points, influenced by our personal morality, then is that not immediately imposing our morality upon other people, by definition denying them the same choice we would want for ourselves, by placing conditions upon their choices?

Seems like the epitome of anti-choice IMO, which makes for a very awkward position if someone describes themselves as "I'm pro-choice but..."

volchitsa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

This is why I consider people's personal morality, however it is informed, should not be entertained in a discussion with regard to legislating for abortion in Ireland. We've had non-religious people argue cut-off points about when an abortion is morally acceptable to them based upon informing themselves with statistical evidence, but after that point it seems they are reluctant to acknowledge that the implication is that to them an abortion would be immoral after that cut-off point.

If we all have our own personal cut-off points, influenced by our personal morality, then is that not immediately imposing our morality upon other people, by definition denying them the same choice we would want for ourselves, by placing conditions upon their choices?

Seems like the epitome of anti-choice IMO, which makes for a very awkward position if someone describes themselves as "I'm pro-choice but..."

I take your point, even though I don't entirely agree, because the term pro-choice is a bit of a catch-all, and isn't to be taken to a literal extreme. Just as "pro democracy" doesn't mean one refuses the right of the police to give orders for example.

But what I'm more interested in is what exactly you think legislation for abortion should be based on then, and what sort of legislation that would give?

Nodin

Neyite wrote: »

Well, your Roman Catholic Church Vatican Council categorised it as an abortificant.

The 1968 Humanae Vitae of Pope Paul VI addressed the churches stance on procreation and in a nutshell, basically outlaws all forms of methods for preventing conception, and post coital treatment to prevent implantation.

Are you disagreeing with Papal Infallibility? Surely not

Scientifically, the MAP in the same category as the coil, as one of the ways it works is by preventing a fertilised zygote from implanting in a fertile womb. But it works in other ways as a contraceptive, so it is technically both.

The churchs stance is manifold. given it has a problem with any contraception from the perspective that sex without the possibility of procreation is 'pleasure for pleasures sake' and thus 'intrinsically disordered' (that's within marriage, outside being no-go regardless).

zeffabelli

Nodin wrote: »

The churchs stance is manifold. given it has a problem with any contraception from the perspective that sex without the possibility of procreation is 'pleasure for pleasures sake' and thus 'intrinsically disordered' (that's within marriage, outside being no-go regardless).

Thats because like every other cult and fascist organisation, appropriates power through extracting it from the family.

And where else to start....reproduction....

One eyed Jack

volchitsa wrote: »

I take your point, even though I don't entirely agree, because the term pro-choice is a bit of a catch-all, and isn't to be taken to a literal extreme. Just as "pro democracy" doesn't mean one refuses the right of the police to give orders for example.

But what I'm more interested in is what exactly you think legislation for abortion should be based on then, and what sort of legislation that would give?

I think legislation specifically in relation to abortion should encompass a woman's fundamental human right to her bodily integrity, and to that end I would argue that it is a woman's right to her quality of life should supercede any perception that any form of life should have a fundamental right to life.

There are an infinite number of risks involved in pregnancy, from conception to giving birth, and the unborn has no responsibility, while the woman is charged with all the responsibility, and yet under current legislation which focuses on the equal right to life of both, one still has more responsibility than the other, yet they are both viewed as equal in terms of what rights are afforded to them.

I see that sort of arbitration as dehumanising to both a woman, and to the unborn, as it offers no recognition that not only are they separately individuals in their own right, but that one is dependent upon the other, and the 8th amendment supports this position that they only be viewed in terms of their existence, as opposed to one having contributed to society already, and the unborn with only the potential to contribute to society, upon provision that the woman should give birth to them.

Effectively what the 8th amendment seems to do IMO is that it places the right to life of the unborn above the rights of a person who is actually already living, and it's that position which I find ethically unjustifiable in terms of the fundamental human rights we afford to living persons upon whom we balance their rights with their responsibilities.

If someone is to be charged with a responsibility, then it should be ultimately down to them whether they choose to accept that responsibility, or whether they choose not to accept that responsibility and instead choose to forego that responsibility by means of availing of a termination of the pregnancy.

Legislation should not exist where the State can force women to not alone remain pregnant against their will, but also force women to give birth against their will. That, to me at least, is a manoeuvre I consider to be ethically abhorrent.

volchitsa

I think that's a very well-argued position, OEJ, it's clear and logical. Thanks.

Is there any point, before birth, at which you consider that those rights do become equivalent in some way?

One eyed Jack

volchitsa wrote: »

I think that's a very well-argued position, OEJ, it's clear and logical. Thanks.

Is there any point, before birth, at which you consider that those rights do become equivalent in some way?

There isn't IMO, because the arbitrary point is the moment at which the woman gives birth. Up until that point, the unborn is exactly that.

That's not to say that the unborn shouldn't be afforded the appropriate dignity and respect for human life that we would afford to all human life in death. I don't think we should dehumanise and reduce any human life to merely just 'a clump of cells', but we shouldn't IMO place the life of the unborn equal to or even above the life of the person who is charged with responsibility for giving birth to the unborn life.

I think if they were given a choice, and by that I mean an actual choice, not one with terms and conditions attached, that there would be far less risk of traumatising a woman who chooses to terminate her pregnancy. I think if we were able to promote understanding in Irish society of affording dignity and respect for all human life, including the unborn, even in death, that it would reduce both the stigma, and the risk of further trauma which would negatively affect a woman's quality of life, which would mean that she would not feel she was forced into a position where not only would she feel she had to remain pregnant against her will, but also that she wouldn't feel she was forced to give birth against her will, to a child she didn't want.

There are numerous indignities and lack of respect for human life involved in the current legislation where a woman is forced to give birth unless she is deemed suicidal (and even then being granted a termination of their pregnancy doesn't mean the unborn ceases to live, as the pregnancy can also be considered terminated by caesarean section), to a human being whom is unwanted and rejected by their biological parent, so that human beings quality of life is compromised from the moment they're born.

There's absolutely no dignity nor respect for human life in that scenario as far as I can see, it's merely making other people suffer when there is no reason why we should make them suffer, let alone prolong the indignity they suffer on top of everything else.

zeffabelli

One eyed Jack wrote: »

There isn't IMO, because the arbitrary point is the moment at which the woman gives birth. Up until that point, the unborn is exactly that.

That's not to say that the unborn shouldn't be afforded the appropriate dignity and respect for human life that we would afford to all human life in death. I don't think we should dehumanise and reduce any human life to merely just 'a clump of cells', but we shouldn't IMO place the life of the unborn equal to or even above the life of the person who is charged with responsibility for giving birth to the unborn life.

I think if they were given a choice, and by that I mean an actual choice, not one with terms and conditions attached, that there would be far less risk of traumatising a woman who chooses to terminate her pregnancy. I think if we were able to promote understanding in Irish society of affording dignity and respect for all human life, including the unborn, even in death, that it would reduce both the stigma, and the risk of further trauma which would negatively affect a woman's quality of life, which would mean that she would not feel she was forced into a position where not only would she feel she had to remain pregnant against her will, but also that she wouldn't feel she was forced to give birth against her will, to a child she didn't want.

There are numerous indignities and lack of respect for human life involved in the current legislation where a woman is forced to give birth unless she is deemed suicidal (and even then being granted a termination of their pregnancy doesn't mean the unborn ceases to live, as the pregnancy can also be considered terminated by caesarean section), to a human being whom is unwanted and rejected by their biological parent, so that human beings quality of life is compromised from the moment they're born.

There's absolutely no dignity nor respect for human life in that scenario as far as I can see, it's merely making other people suffer when there is no reason why we should make them suffer, let alone prolong the indignity they suffer on top of everything else.

Yeah and this is an uncomfortable position that takes some tolerance to sit with though. That they have to have debates in the middle of a delivery as in the Halvatipar case, is indicative of the secondary position of the woman.

Saying this, I don't think that medically an OB must be forced to perform such an abortion unless the life of the mother is at risk, after all such a procedure carries its own risks, and certainly whichever life is ending, be it mother or infants, should be as pain free as possible and what I mean by this is anesthesia.

The burden of travel also extends risk as that takes time, and with time comes more risk, this then increases for women with complicated GYN problems or post caesarian women who may need a couple of appointments or perhaps a private doctor over a clinic.

And of course travel increases the risks of infection, which after a GYN procedure can cause all sorts of additional and unpredictable problems.