"New" Abortion Initiative

Wheely

So it looks like the abortion debate's about to kick off again given the press over the last couple days. Three women are taking a case to the European Court of Human Rights claiming that the ban on abortion in the country has violated their rights under 4 articles of the convention and the pro-choice and anti-abortion camps are raring up for another round of battle. Anybody think they've got a chance....or a point?

Dades

Wheely wrote:

Anybody think they've got a chance....or a point?

I think they've a point... but not a chance.

Nevyn

The Atheist wrote:

I think they've a point... but not a chance.

Same was said back in 1988 when some one went to the EU human rights court
about getting homosexuality decriminaled.

Executive Steve

about time someone dragged ireland kicking and screaming into the 20th century...

Sleepy

So, yet again we're going to ignore the day-to-day mismanagement of the country to focus on issues of morality?

Honestly, at times I wonder if Fianna Fail are paying these people to take cases.

What good will this do? None. At best it'll force another referendum and regardless of the result there'll be another one in three years time again. :rolleyes:

Sand

Same was said back in 1988 when some one went to the EU human rights court
about getting homosexuality decriminaled.

That would have only involved one persons rights, the homosexual person who was criminalised.

Abortion is far more complex, the rights of the woman and the rights of the child conflict directly, and of course the rights of the father - though it is not recognised that the father has any rights in the normal course of events. Responsibilities yes, rights no.

So any court case would have to establish whose rights where of prime consideration. And whether the right to life takes second place to the right not to face up to the responsibilities of sexual activity.

If the court case does establish a womans right to choose not to give birth, would it also then follow that a man right to choose not to support financially or otherwise any children he might father would also be established?

about time someone dragged ireland kicking and screaming into the 20th century...

Youre assuming that abortion is a progressive and liberal step. I might have agreed and while back, but Im not so sure these days. And its nothing to do with a sudden conversion to fundamentalist Catholicism. Once you start considering "rights" it goes beyond only considering them from one persons perspective and ignoring all others.

Nevyn

Sleepy wrote:

Honestly, at times I wonder if Fianna Fail are paying these people to take cases.

No the IFPA is behind this for the first time.

IFPA Launches Campaign for Safe and Legal Abortion in Ireland

- Release date: 09 August 2005

“Since the first Constitutional referendum on abortion in 1983, Ireland has changed: more women living in Ireland access abortion services and more women feel angry and frustrated that they have to travel to Britain and others countries to secure these services. The only thing that has not changed is the lack of courage and leadership demonstrated by successive Governments in dealing with abortion in a realistic and rational way.

The IFPA’s ‘Safe and Legal in Ireland’ campaign is all about ending the hypocrisy of exiling women in crisis pregnancy that choose to have an abortion. Last month, UK Ministry for Health statistics showed that 6,217 women who travelled from Ireland had abortions in England in 2004. From the IFPA’s own post abortion medical and counselling services, we know that potentially hundreds more women secured abortion services in countries such as the Netherlands, France and Spain last year. This highlights the hypocrisy of our legal ban on abortion, which is among the most restrictive in the world.

http://www.ifpa.ie/news/index.php?mr=111

Sleepy wrote:

What good will this do? None. At best it'll force another referendum and regardless of the result there'll be another one in three years time again. :rolleyes:

No they will have to amend the consitiation and it may not go to a referdum.

With the current escalting rates we are shipping our problem to other
countries and not dealing with it here.

Irish Abortion statistics

Between January 1980 and December 2004, at least 117,673 women travelled from Ireland for abortion services in Britain. There are no statistics to account for the number of women who travel to other countries for abortion services.

http://www.ifpa.ie/abortion/iabst.html

Victor

Thaed wrote:

No they will have to amend the consitiation and it may not go to a referdum.

The Constitution can only be changed by referendum.

If there is a clash, the Constitution still stands.

Flukey

The paradox is that they talk about a woman having the right to choose, which potentially denies her the right to be born in the first place.

simu

I'd love if they faced the fact that abortion is a reality for many Irish women no matter what the priests etc say and allow these same women to get it done as safely and soon as possible. Not holding my breath though.

OfflerCrocGod

Flukey wrote:

The paradox is that they talk about a woman having the right to choose, which potentially denies her the right to be born in the first place.

You have to be born to get pregnant, so while your above sentence sounds catchy it's actually a load of bull. If you think a Zygote is a person you may as well criminalize **** - think of all the millions of sperm which are being flushed down the toilets every day. WONT SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN! - that haven't been born yet. All those sperm could fertilise eggs so they can't be wasted!

There are so many women going to other countries to get abortions that it's ridiculous that we haven't legalised it yet. It's going to continue whatever your opinion it may as well happen here then in another country. There is also the crime rate link which should be taken into account. If you have a problem with it then don't do it else leave others be.

Sleepy

Thaed wrote:

No the IFPA is behind this for the first time.



http://www.ifpa.ie/news/index.php?mr=111




No they will have to amend the consitiation and it may not go to a referdum.

With the current escalting rates we are shipping our problem to other
countries and not dealing with it here.


http://www.ifpa.ie/abortion/iabst.html

My point is that regardless of the result, the debate will continue to rage and we'll end up with a referendum on this every few years. I don't see the anti-abortion movement being any less vocal than the pro-abortion movement in defeat, nor do I see the pro-abortion movement giving up gracefully if they lose the referendum again. (I refuse to use the terms pro-life or pro-choice as both are dreadful misnomers).

Essentially, I see another national debate on this topic to be yet another dreadful waste of the government's time and yet another excuse for them not to bother doing any real work.

sceptre

OfflerCrocGod wrote:

If you think a Zygote is a person you may as well criminalize **** - think of all the millions of sperm which are being flushed down the toilets every day.

<pedant>
A sperm is a mere gamete (a haploid cell). Ditto an unfertilised egg. When the sperm fertilises the egg, then you've got a diploid cell, commonly called a zygote down the pub. Given that this thread is serious I won't quote any Monty Python songs.
</pedant>

Victor

simu wrote:

I'd love if they faced the fact that abortion is a reality for many Irish women no matter what the priests etc say

When was the last time you heard a priest express anything on abortion?

OfflerCrocGod wrote:

There are so many women going to other countries to get abortions that it's ridiculous that we haven't legalised it yet.

Just because people are doing something doesn't make it right or necessary to make legal.

kasintahan

OfflerCrocGod wrote:

You have to be born to get pregnant, so while your above sentence sounds catchy it's actually a load of bull. If you think a Zygote is a person you may as well criminalize **** - think of all the millions of sperm which are being flushed down the toilets every day. WONT SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN! - that haven't been born yet. All those sperm could fertilise eggs so they can't be wasted!

It's a little more complex than that. At 8 weeks it has a beating heart and fuctional brain. It's where to draw the line and on what basis that has people so het up.

Sleepy

Victor wrote:

When was the last time you heard a priest express anything on abortion?

Eh, leaving cert, last time I had contact with a priest in any form of religious role. And my lay religion teacher devoted weeks to anti-abortion speeches.

Just because people are doing something doesn't make it right or necessary to make legal.

Agreed. TBH, the best arguments I can see for legalisation are economic (i.e. keep the business in Ireland rather than exporting it to England).

Personally, I'm completely unsure as to where I stand on abortion. I'd probably lean towards keeping it illegal until we're able to conclusively prove the exact timeframe at which the unborn child becomes life rather than a collection of cells... Then again, I've never been in the position of having an unwanted pregnancy so my views might change in that situation...

Dades

Sleepy wrote:

until we're able to conclusively prove the exact timeframe at which the unborn child becomes life rather than a collection of cells...

What constitutes "life"? Decisions will always be made without this "knowledge" as it is not a question that will ever be conclusively answered.

Nevyn

kasintahan wrote:

It's a little more complex than that. At 8 weeks it has a beating heart and fuctional brain. It's where to draw the line and on what basis that has people so het up.

So really at 8 weeks it will survive out side the womb then?
I think not.

If there was abortion here women could advail of it a hell of a lot sooner
with out the added expsenses of travel and accomadation so thier
abortion/termination of the pregnancy would be sooner and more of them would be with in the first 6 to 10 weeks.

Sleepy

The Atheist wrote:

What constitutes "life"? Decisions will always be made without this "knowledge" as it is not a question that will ever be conclusively answered.

That's pretty much my point The Atheist, I don't feel comfortable making that arbitrary decision. So, for the moment I think I'd rather we maintained the status quo.

simu

Victor wrote:

When was the last time you heard a priest express anything on abortion?Just because people are doing something doesn't make it right or necessary to make legal.

If Ireland hadn't been a priest-ridden country for decades, Irish people wouldn't have such an issue with abortion.

Whwn at least 6,000 Irish women a year (and these are only the ones that get in done in the UK) are travelling to get it done and it's allowed in just about every other EU country, it's time to consider legalising.

Nevyn

Between January 1980 and December 2004, at least 117,673 women travelled from Ireland for abortion services in Britain. There are no statistics to account for the number of women who travel to other countries for abortion services

These are not facless numbers.

This is your sister, your friend, your work colleage, your aunt, your mother, your girl friend,
your ex girl friend, the person you see on the dart, luas, bus every morning,the girl in the newagents,
or checkouts or the girl that was giving you the eye the last time you were in that bar.

Every one of them made that very hard choice made even harder
by having to travel and in years gone by not being able to get information.

And then you have those that could not get the money together.
Who say they love thier kid but wished thier lifes could have been diffent
but they did not have the money for flights ect.

Ideally every act of conception should be one that both people have planned
but life doesnt work that way, esp with the lack of education and of cheap
contraception in this country.

So we ignore the big taboo.
Women dont tell thier stories.
They dont share why they full of relief, guilt,sadness and happiness twice a year,
usually the date of thier termination and that date the child would hve been born.

Being in the unenvible position of having to think about an abortion is hard.
Having to make that choice is hard.
Having to make an appointment to get information or a referal is hard.
Keeping that appointment and talking out loud about your choice is hard.
Booking flights and traveling over, knowing that the mid morning flights
carry other women like you and the air stewards can spot them is hard.
Having to get into a taxi and give the name of the clinic and seeing the look of sympathy or shock hard.
Facing the dr and the counsellor in the clinic in th UK and having then ask
you if you are sure even after you have travelled all the way there is hard.
Traveling home, telling no one, having to go through the mental , emotional,
horemonal and phsyical aftermath of a termination and most people not knowing what is up with you and you can't tell them is hard.
Having this topic bandied about by people who have never been through it is hard.
Seeing prolifer nuts on the streets of our city condeming so many women is hard.
Having it used as a political foot ball is hard.
Having it said that it is political foot ball is hard.
Having people make moral judgement about who would or could have a termination is hard.

And they say we DON'T punish women for having abortions in this country don't make me laugh.

Being able to be there for a friend and travel with them and offer solace
and waiting for thier call or text on those two days a year is hard also
but nothing compared to what they have been through.

nesf

Viability outside the womb is the essential line to be drawn imho. That at least can be a starting point for the debate. Few pro-choicers would agree with abortions past this point. As for waiting until we can say at what point it becomes a life... Eh, that's a very loaded question and a moot point. The religous opinion on this probably won't conform to science, if science can answer the question.


As is, I think there are far far too many unanswered questions in this debate and far too much "strong opinion" rather than facts. I would think that it is a decision for each couple to face, not something for others to choose for them.


In essence, they already can do this. They can choose to go to Britian and get an abortion there. In fact we've enshrined their right to do this into the constitution and their right to unbiased information on the subject. If anything, the pro-life rantings in schools etc are unconstitutional. A balanced viewpoint is what people should be given. If abortion is brought up in a school, then both sides must be discussed, not just one.

Would you not think it would be better for us to just accept it, and legalise it here, and by doing so ensure that our citizens recieve the correct healthcare and long term support if they choose to have an abortion? Women already have the choice and the legal right to one. It's just that they can't have it here.


Personally, I'd never want an abortion for a partner. That's my personal view. But I do not think I have any right to make this decision for the general public. It is a very grey area and completely open to personal opinion and is rarely discussed rationally. Legalise it, and leave it down to the individuals to decide whether or not it's moral or right.

Raytown Rocks

I agree 100% with Thaed.
Both myself and my wife very recently went through this exact thing.
Our unborn child was diagnosed (at a late stage) with an incurable disease.We spent many days visiting specialists in the UK, and talking to specialists all over the world.We were eventually given a zero chance of survival.

Our only offer here in Ireland was.

Wait untill baby is born, and then watch baby die.
Or
Visit England

Alas,for us the latter was our decision.

This decision was not taken lightly under any circumstances (was the toughest decision I have ever had to make).
The main problem is that there was nothing available in this country to help us.
We were basically on our own.
I agree that we should have the choice, especially in mitigating circumstances like this.
I feel for the many many women who need to travel away from family and friends on what possibly feels like the worst time of their lives.

isolde

Thaed wrote:

And they say we DON'T punish women for having abortions in this country don't make me laugh.

Best post I've ever read. Agree utterly and completely.
Thank you, Thaed.

Wheely

In response in response to Sleepys assertion that pro-life and pro-choice are misnomers, I wonder if u could qualify that opinion with some back-up. If pro-choiceers are in fact pro-abortionists, what does that mean to be pro-abortion? Mandatory abortions for all? They advocate a choice. And to be honest I think they might be right. Its a very difficult and grey area to debate, but in this case the child cannot voice its own opinion. Just as a new-born infant cannot voice its opinions to its parents, the parents do what they think is best, for them and the child! All they advocate is a personal decision rather than a legislative one. It has to be an unbelievably difficult decision to make, and as a guy, Im sure Ill never feel how difficult it is but I think its one the mother carrying the child must be better qualified to make than the government. I cant agree that the govt should be involved in oneof the most intensely personal de3cisions that any women would ever have to make,even less so that they have the power to take that decision completely out of her hands. I dont think the women bringing the case before the European Court will get anywhere tho...going on past jurisprudence from that Court Id asy they dont have a snowballs chance in Hell. The Irish would love if Europe ordered them what to do...that way it would take anyresponsibility out of their hands and they could take the "but they made us" route. This, however, is very doubtfully going to happen.

rsynnott

sceptre wrote:

<pedant>
A sperm is a mere gamete (a haploid cell). Ditto an unfertilised egg. When the sperm fertilises the egg, then you've got a diploid cell, commonly called a zygote down the pub. Given that this thread is serious I won't quote any Monty Python songs.
</pedant>

This brings up the interesting questions of the morning after pill and IUD.

The Corinthian

simu wrote:

I'd love if they faced the fact that abortion is a reality for many Irish women no matter what the priests etc say and allow these same women to get it done as safely and soon as possible. Not holding my breath though.

While I’m not entirely sure who you mean by they, I would imagine that the fact that many Irish women go abroad for abortions is hardly news to us or them any more than the fact that some go abroad to places like Bangkok seeking sex with minors.

nesf wrote:

Viability outside the womb is the essential line to be drawn imho. That at least can be a starting point for the debate. Few pro-choicers would agree with abortions past this point.

Viability is a dubious criteria for humanity. After all, premature births are not all that uncommon and without medical assistance, most notably with the use of artificial incubators, the child, or developed foetus, would almost certainly perish. Yet would this essentially define it’s humanity?

nesf wrote:

As for waiting until we can say at what point it becomes a life... Eh, that's a very loaded question and a moot point.

Realistically it’s also a philosophical question. After all, if between conception and birth we cannot say at which point a foetus becomes a person, can we roll the dice that we can guess correctly?

The religous opinion on this probably won't conform to science, if science can answer the question.

Religion aside, science is hardly a reliably arbitrary of what is human and what is not - or have we already forgotten how science has been repeatedly ‘proven’ how blacks, Jews or even Irish were not really human?

catholicireland

about time someone dragged ireland kicking and screaming into the 20th century...

Really? :rolleyes: You have a very narrow mind of the world if you believe that, you should go travel the world and then come home and you'll thank god were in such a liberal country.
If killing un-born babys is part of being "in the 20th century", then I have no wish to be part of it.

nesf

The Corinthian wrote:

Viability is a dubious criteria for humanity. After all, premature births are not all that uncommon and without medical assistance, most notably with the use of artificial incubators, the child, or developed foetus, would almost certainly perish. Yet would this essentially define it’s humanity?

Agreed, but there is a line between what could potentially be saved and what couldn't. It's not a thin line, it's a very broad one, but there is an area where there is no chance of saving the child, ie the foetus has not developed enough.

The Corinthian wrote:

Realistically it’s also a philosophical question. After all, if between conception and birth we cannot say at which point a foetus becomes a person, can we roll the dice that we can guess correctly?

Again, I agree. But the majority of people don't see it that way. They take an absolute position based on some arbitrary line that's been drawn. The philosophical arguments for and against are very different to this. They don't begin with chosing a position.

My point was that, it seems to me to be a moot point because people on both sides seem to have made their mind up already.

The Corinthian wrote:

Religion aside, science is hardly a reliably arbitrary of what is human and what is not - or have we already forgotten how science has been repeatedly ‘proven’ how blacks, Jews or even Irish were not really human?

And those examples invalidate science? Cause us to use results with reasonable caution yes, but invalidate? No. I don't see how that position is tenable.

I'm not arguing science as a final arbiter here, but as a useful companion to the debate. It at least can potentially change it's position based on new evidence. Religion lacks this, and popular beliefs tend to resist it some of the time.

I do appreciate it's a very complex question, and the problem of what is and isn't concious human life doesn't even have a concrete point to start from yet.

Is it based on being a member of the human species or having the awareness of one? Is there something sacred and special about being a member of said species or only to specific ones?

Not a simple question.

Nevyn

No one is pro abortion.

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

But we dont have 100% contraceptions advailible for all,
or a good health based sex education program,
or cheap contraception consulsts and precriptions.

We live in an imperfect world and as long as there have been men
and women there have unwanted pregnancies and abortions.
There were egyptian heiroglyphs detailing the insertion of bamboo slivers to induce a miscarriage.

This is not a 20th century issue at all.

rsynnott

The Corinthian wrote:

Religion aside, science is hardly a reliably arbitrary of what is human and what is not - or have we already forgotten how science has been repeatedly ‘proven’ how blacks, Jews or even Irish were not really human?

That wasn't real science, rather it was politics dressed up as science. That said, of course, most 'scientific' treatment of abortion is likely to be something similar, on both sides of the fence.

KnowItAll

Abortion is murder. Simple as that. It would only be acceptable if the unborn child was going to be born handicapped and would live a hard life.

simu

KnowItAll wrote:

Abortion is murder. Simple as that. It would only be acceptable if the unborn child was going to be born handicapped and would live a hard life.

Do you think this country should classify abortion as murder and prosecute women who've gone to have it done then?

And why is it acceptable to murder an unborn handicapped child but not a "normal" child anyway?

OfflerCrocGod

Victor wrote:

Just because people are doing something doesn't make it right or necessary to make legal.

When condoms were illegal in Ireland people used to travel up North to buy large numbers of them. If your argument had been followed back then we would all have to organise trips up the North to buy 100 packs of Durexs so families wouldn't have 1000 children and drunken liasons wouldn't all end up with unwanted children. Just because there is a law againts something doesn't mean the law is sensible or right. Women are forced to the same thing our grandparents had to do......go to the British to sort out or problems :rolleyes: Open your eyes and accept the fact that women don't care about other peoples moral prejudices they want final say over their bodies.

OfflerCrocGod

The Corinthian wrote:

Religion aside, science is hardly a reliably arbitrary of what is human and what is not - or have we already forgotten how science has been repeatedly ‘proven’ how blacks, Jews or even Irish were not really human?

All that bigotry was about as scientific as Intelligent Design: in other words it wasnt science.

KnowItAll wrote:

It would only be acceptable if the unborn child was going to be born handicapped and would live a hard life.

What about the life of the mother? Get of your high horse and get pregnant from a one night stand and see how you feel about it then. Smug fool. No doubt being brought up by a single working mother would be paradise for both the mother and the child. Youre making judgement calls and condeming people without taking into account the lifes of those affected. Then again I doubt you really care since to you it's fine to kill someone if they are handicapped.

The Corinthian

nesf wrote:

My point was that, it seems to me to be a moot point because people on both sides seem to have made their mind up already.

I would agree. The abortion debate is largely inductive - people begin with their position, be it pro-life or pro-choice, and then work backwards to justify it.

I'm not arguing science as a final arbiter here, but as a useful companion to the debate.

Again I agree, but it is all too often cited without question is the problem.

rsynnott wrote:

That wasn't real science, rather it was politics dressed up as science. That said, of course, most 'scientific' treatment of abortion is likely to be something similar, on both sides of the fence.

I wonder what those past 'scientists' would have said of previous scientific misconceptions..?

No doubt scientists today are different and free from political influence. No doubt our science is 'real' this time.

nesf

The Corinthian wrote:

I wonder what those past 'scientists' would have said of previous scientific misconceptions..?

Different time period. Scientific research of that day was not under the same scrutiny that it is under today. Not a guarantee of accuracy, but it does add a safety net or two to the process.

The Corinthian wrote:

No doubt scientists today are different and free from political influence. No doubt our science is 'real' this time.

Well, one only needn't look far to see the effect of political bias in the social "sciences".

It is though quite difficult to detect any in the hard sciences. Physics and Chemistry tend to be fields where the results are the same regardless of location, politics etc. Biology too, to a lesser extent.

The (over)analysis that modern science is subjected to is reassuring in that it does keep people in line.


There is a serious problem however, not with the results themselves, but with how politicians and lay people choose to interpret them. But that's not the scientist's fault. The research is sound, it's just taken out of context by people who are not trained enough to grasp the results in the first place. Or deliberately taken in a specific context to suit the person's needs. The media are guilty of the latter, the general public the former.

Zombrex

KnowItAll wrote:

Abortion is murder. Simple as that. It would only be acceptable if the unborn child was going to be born handicapped and would live a hard life.

So its ok to kill handicapped kids?

nesf

Wicknight wrote:

So its ok to kill handicapped kids?

Well, to be fair, it's not like they are human or anything :rolleyes:

Sleepy

Thaed wrote:

No one is pro abortion.

No sane person is "anti-choice" or "anti-life" either but that's what the extremists on both sides in this argument want to do: make the other side look insane. If you prefer I'd be happy to change my phrasing to 'pro-legalisation of abortion'.

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Couldn't agree more and I believe it's something that both sides of the debate would advocate strongly.

Sleepy

OfflerCrocGod wrote:

Open your eyes and accept the fact that women don't care about other peoples moral prejudices they want final say over their bodies.

This is one of the other phrases I hate in this debate. Women having an abortion aren't just having a final say over their bodies, they are having the final say on the right to life of the unborn child.

As I've already stated in this thread, I'm undecided on this topic as I don't know enough to make the decision as to when (or if ever) it's okay to terminate a pregnancy. The level of propoganda and rhetoric used by both sides is enough to put me off siding with either though tbh.

The Corinthian

nesf wrote:

Different time period. Scientific research of that day was not under the same

scrutiny that it is under today. Not a guarantee of accuracy, but it does add a safety net

or two to the process.

That wasn't really the point I was making - I was simply pointing out that in the past people were as certain that their scientific principles were correct and that all those that preceded them had been spurious. Just like here.

There is a serious problem however, not with the results themselves, but with how

politicians and lay people choose to interpret them.

While I do think my point on science still stands, I would concede that this is a far more important point. For example, science can tell us whether a foetus is viable outside of the womb, but it is ultimately an philosophical or moral question whether this makes it human or not - and whether even as a human, it ascribes it rights.

Wicknight wrote:

So its ok to kill handicapped kids?

You're assuming that he/she is coming from the philosophical or moral position that humans all share equal rights. For that matter you're assuming that humans all share equal rights.

Wheely

KnowItAll wrote:

Abortion is murder. Simple as that. It would only be acceptable if the unborn child was going to be born handicapped and would live a hard life.

So abortion should be classed as murder unless in the case of a handicapped child. By that logic, the murder of a handicapped person couldnt be classed as a murder. Also a hard life.....what about a baby being born into a working class family, or to alcoholic parents, or drug addicts? Should we assess all potential parents financial means when pregnant...decide whether or not we think that childs life would be "difficult" and then order them to have a mandatory abortion? Or amybe just issue them with a cert allowing them to have an abortion ie exempting them from criminal prosecution? It is immpossible to make such sweeping blanket statements as that when talking about something as gray and complex as abortion. The topic may be a lot of things but it will never be "Simple as that"!

KnowItAll

OfflerCrocGod wrote:

Get of your high horse and get pregnant from a one night stand and see how you feel about it then. Smug fool. No doubt being brought up by a single working mother would be paradise for both the mother and the child. Youre making judgement calls and condeming people without taking into account the lifes of those affected.

The real problem today is women thing it's ok to have a casual 'shag' but don't want to take responsibility when they become pregnant.

OfflerCrocGod wrote:

Then again I doubt you really care since to you it's fine to kill someone if they are handicapped.

Did you ever hear the term 'cruel to be kind'? If a child is going to live a life of misery wouldn't it be the right thing to do? There are different degrees of being handicapped btw.

nesf

The Corinthian wrote:

That wasn't really the point I was making - I was simply pointing out that in the past people were as certain that their scientific principles were correct and that all those that preceded them had been spurious. Just like here.

I don't dispute that. I just feel that the same could be said with regard to philosophy and other such human endevours. Nothing we do is perfect, and science is constantly improving. It has a long way to go, and there is still a lot of spurious research of dubious nature out there. Especially in the social sciences and also in biology. This doesn't dismiss science as a valuable tool though.

The Corinthian wrote:

While I do think my point on science still stands, I would concede that this is a far more important point. For example, science can tell us whether a foetus is viable outside of the womb, but it is ultimately an philosophical or moral question whether this makes it human or not - and whether even as a human, it ascribes it rights.

One of the principles of science is that it seperates itself from philosophical discussion. The results stand as science, the philosophical/moral/whatever reprecussions of the results should not change their validity from a scientific perspective.

But I do agree with you. Science does not hold all the keys on this issue and cannot be looked at as the final arbiter in our decisions. It's just one facet of the argument. I'd even argue that by itself, science does not hold much relevance. It's relevance comes from the influence it should exert on moral and philosophical arguments. It doesn't control either, but both should pay heed to it.

The Corinthian wrote:

You're assuming that he/she is coming from the philosophical or moral position that humans all share equal rights. For that matter you're assuming that humans all share equal rights.

That's one of the most overlooked questions in this debate imho. The assumption that all humans share equal rights to life etc brings with it more than a few complications.

nesf

KnowItAll wrote:

Did you ever hear the term 'cruel to be kind'? If a child is going to live a life of misery wouldn't it be the right thing to do? There are different degrees of being handicapped btw.

How about you bow out gracefully and admit you know nothing about what you are talking about?

Handicapped people don't have poor qualities of life from their perspective. Quite a few of them are happy optimistic people. Yet you'd lump them into the same boat and euthanise them.

Of course euthanise is the wrong term here, since the person involved would have no choice in the matter. Then again, is it a person in the womb? You seem to think so since you declare all abortions to be murder.

So in essence you are arguing for meditated and systamatic murder of unborn children due to some arbitrary line you draw that seperates happy fulfilled lives from unhappy and hard lives.


You can tell you've never worked with or lived with a disabled/handicapped person.

MrPudding

nesf wrote:

You can tell you've never worked with or lived with a disabled/handicapped person.

Apart from, apparently, himself.

MrP

simu

KnowItAll wrote:

The real problem today is women thing it's ok to have a casual 'shag' but don't want to take responsibility when they become pregnant.

Yeah - goddam hos!

Did you ever hear the term 'cruel to be kind'? If a child is going to live a life of misery wouldn't it be the right thing to do? There are different degrees of being handicapped btw.

So - which handicapped creatures are going to live, which to die then? Things would seem to be somewhat less simple than you originally claimed them to be.

heggie

OfflerCrocGod wrote:

No doubt being brought up by a single working mother would be paradise for both the mother and the child. Youre making judgement calls and condeming people without taking into account the lifes of those affected. Then again I doubt you really care since to you it's fine to kill someone if they are handicapped.

So dont have a one night stand unprotected. I was brought up by a single working mother, should i have been aborted?

nesf

MrPudding wrote:

Apart from, apparently, himself.

MrP

You took the words right out of my mouth.

OfflerCrocGod

KnowItAll wrote:

The real problem today is women thing it's ok to have a casual 'shag' but don't want to take responsibility when they become pregnant.

As has already been said there are no forms of perfect contraception, accidents happen and I don't see why women should abstain from having sex unless they mean to have a child. Abortion is there in case of accidents, in case of the unforeseen. I doubt many men would turn down a one night stand with someone they found attractive just to spare the women a possible pregnancy. I suppose it's the womans fault.

KnowItAll wrote:

Did you ever hear the term 'cruel to be kind'? If a child is going to live a life of misery wouldn't it be the right thing to do? There are different degrees of being handicapped btw.

Ummm I thought you were AGAINTS abortion, all of a sudden you are making arguments FOR it; make up your mind.

heggie wrote:

So dont have a one night stand unprotected. I was brought up by a single working mother, should i have been aborted?

It was her decision heggie and she decided againts it, that's why you are here. I'm not saying ALL single mothers would want one but there may be many young women who want to wait until later in their lives to have children or who simply can't cope/afford to have a child. These situations arise and the availablity of abortion in this country would be a boon for those women. The world is not perfect; abortion is a way of recognizing that fact and it's a get out clause for what could potentially be a life destabilizing event.