"New" Abortion Initiative

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.

Victor

simu wrote:

Yeah - goddam hos!

It takes two to tango.

nesf wrote:

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.

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.

That sounds like an argument against the availibility of abortion.

* someone else's life - the mother / father / aggrieved middle-class, would-be, can't-have-it-happen-to-us grandparents.

nesf

Victor wrote:

That sounds like an argument against the availibility of abortion.

Depends on your perspective. Do you consider a 6 week old foetus a person or don't you?

That's what the arguments over The arbitrary line argument assumes they are people and due the same rights as one. That's the root of the argument.

simu

Victor wrote:

It takes two to tango.

Twas a joke.

Gets coat, grabs umbrella...

Victor

simu wrote:

Twas a joke.

I realise it probably was.

However, the comment does sound very like the argument that some people have that those who oppose abortion are doing so to trample on women's rights. That women should be allowed (a) to stay up late and watch TV (b) have abortions.

RainyDay

Having witnessed multiple ultra-sound scans on our unborn baby from as early as 7 weeks, my views on this matter have changed. You can see the heartbeat, and at later stages, fingers, nose, ribs, spine as baby somersaults around the womb. I find it really difficult to accept that the mother should be allowed terminate this life at will.

My heart goes out to any parent like Chef who faced such a difficult choice, and I really don't have an answer for such situations.

Raytown Rocks

RainyDay wrote:

Having witnessed multiple ultra-sound scans on our unborn baby from as early as 7 weeks, my views on this matter have changed. You can see the heartbeat, and at later stages, fingers, nose, ribs, spine as baby somersaults around the womb. I find it really difficult to accept that the mother should be allowed terminate this life at will.

My heart goes out to any parent like Chef who faced such a difficult choice, and I really don't have an answer for such situations.

Hey Rainyday
Thanks for the kind thoughts.
In our case we had no other choice.
I personally think it was better to terminate at 20+ weeks rather than watch a new born baby, be born, try to breath, realise it cant, and then watch it die.( all the hospital would/could do is to make it as painless as possible), but there would have to be suffering of some kind.

Parents instincts are in my opinion to help in any way possible to keep their children safe, and knowing that when my baby was born, he WAS going to die, without being able to help him was not something I wanted to put myself, my wife, may family and most of all my new born baby through.

I spoke to many, many specialists about the the age of our unborn child, and what pain if any he would experience. I was told in great detail that for my baby it would be "like a light going out". This was some solace ( not a lot) for us, as we did not want anything to hurt our baby.

I know what its like to see those scans, the joy of the world is with you. Then to be told at 20 weeks that things are seriously wrong is devastating. Personally I had never really had an opinion on terminations prior to this happening, was neither pro nor anti. but when somthing like this happens your perspictive immediately changes.

All I hope is that no reader of this Thread EVER has to make the decisions I found myself having to make.

cheers

Chef

isolde

chef wrote:

to be told at 20 weeks that things are seriously wrong is devastating. Personally I had never really had an opinion on terminations prior to this happening, was neither pro nor anti. but when somthing like this happens your perspictive immediately changes.

Chef, my heart really and truly goes out to you and your partner. To be anticipating the birth of your child with such excitement, only to learn of complications like that must have been heartbreaking. I have no words for it.

I think you have raised a really valid point in terms of a "normal" abortion, for want of a better word; by that I mean an abortion where the woman, or couple, decide to terminate the pregnancy for personal reasons, which do not involve the health of the child. I am not going to get into the technicalities here, or the rights and wrongs. What I will say, is that abortion is something which I don't feel you can truly understand unless you experience it personally. Maybe that's the easy way-out.. I'm not saying people who have never experienced it can't have an opinion on it, but I don't know how they can really understand.

No-one wants to be labelled a murderer, and surely very few people want to do the "wrong" thing. But when you find yourself in a situation where you become pregnant, whether it be in a loving, yet not-ready, relationship, or by an abusive or unloving partner, I think only then can you truly say what you would do, and comprehend the mindset and thinking behind it.

I think a lot of girls/women are pro-choice, yet when it comes down to it, they'd like to say that they would keep the baby; that things are different now and it's not shameful to be a single mother. And that is true; with that I can empathise. But, when faced with the decision, who really knows what anyone would do. You're scared; you're petrified. You're very alone. Your heart is breaking.
You never forget that baby. Call it whatever you like, pro-choice or not, it's still your baby in your mind. Because it had the potential to be so, eventually. And that's something I can't, and won't, deny.

And, like Thaed said before, there are particular days of the year when you think about it, and what could have been, and what you've done, and you doubt yourself just a little, and you wonder about it all. And there are just normal days when you see a girl with a baby or toddler on the street, and you'd want to have a heart of stone to just walk by and feel nothing.

It stays with you; it doesn't leave you. I don't know if it ever will. And it is a huge taboo. You can go to the best counsellor in the country, but at the end of the day it is a huge secret that remains locked inside you. That makes it harder because you feel that your actions have been condemned. But despite it all, despite all of that, it's not a clinical, clear-cut thing, and you know truthfully, deep down, that you couldn't have had it, for whatever reason. And it sounds so cold, but you're better off now. And one day, one day you'll have children, whom you'll love and care for in different, in better, or happier circumstances. And if that makes you a "murderer" in the eyes of some, then so be it. Because they have obviously never had to make such an agonising decision, and hopefully never will. I've said it before.. damn all those who think they know better. Only that individual person knows what is right for their individual situation. And surely one day, not too long from now, we won't have to pretend, we won't have to lie, we won't have to hide any more. And people will understand. Maybe.

Xterminator

Just to add my 2 cents to the discussion.

It was mentioned earlier that a lot of people have a pre-determined view, and work backward looking for evidence and memories that support their view and discarding that which conflicts with their views.

That is not just an abortion thing but a proven social psychological process. (Kunda 1990).

So does it really matter that some scienticists can manipulate data to support the view that the feotus is alive soon after conception, while others choose other points such as viability outside the womb etc. There will never be complte consenus.

And the availability of such arguments is only a crutch anyway for most people

Getting back to the original point that women are travelling to britian , and other places such as france for abortions. The argument boils down to will we continue the status quo, (i.e. export the problem, and pretend it doesnt happen,and those going over are invisible) or will we provide the services here in good 'oul Ireland?

At present, you can only go over if you can afford it. So women who cant afford it, but wish to avail of it, are denied the same options as those who can pay. That means currently the most vunerable in our society, for example the incest victims, or those living in poverty, cannot avail of this option, yet they are the very poeple who cannot easily avail of contraception for both economic and practical factors!

And those who do 'go over' are often denied the support of friends and partners at a time of personal crisis for them, when the need such support most! (Both because of the expense and distance etc).

I dont think the status quo is reasonable or justifiable. My personal opinion, the majority cannot know what it is like to be in the position where you are so desperate you have choose to abort or not.

So personally, I dont believe we should leave things as they are, or legislate against stopping pregant women travelling for the purpoes of abortion.
That leave legitimising abortion here. I dont like it, but i do accept thre are people and cases whwre its needed.

X

chump

To begin with, I'm pro-choice.

I wont go into all the reasons for this, as it would go on and on...

But I have the following thought... (hardly original)

The argument surrounding "life" and the "life of the unborn" is one I just can't fathom. Surely life has to be lived for it to be life?

Is it not better for a young woman with generally poor circumstances in which to raise a child, if she so chooses, to have an abortion, become independent and have children when the time is right?
By postponing having a child, she has changed her entire future, and so it can't really be said that she is stamping out a life, because from that decision more life might thrive.

I suppose it comes down to this. I don't feel any great compassion for a Zygote. I, of course, realise its value and its worth (were it to be born). But I also put value and worth behind its termination.

Two different paths exist when the decision comes about.
I don't believe that a decision to keep the child will lead to more life, but instead to different life.

Everyone uses the example, jeez would you like if you had been aborted?

No

But the whole cycle of life insists that alterating any tiny factor could/would lead to you not being born.

I suppose it comes down to how sentimental you are about a Zygote.
Personally I think they're overrated, afterall, in the majority of cases, post-abortion more will be created and "different" life will thrive.

I'll also say that I don't believe abortion to be a pleasant thing, or a thing I would want anyone to go through. But I do believe that in many cases it serves the good.

Dun

chump wrote:

I suppose it comes down to how sentimental you are about a Zygote.
Personally I think they're overrated, afterall, in the majority of cases, post-abortion more will be created and "different" life will thrive.

Not to be a pedant, but a zygote is one cell. It develops into a blastocyst (multi-celled), and then into an embryo. By nine weeks it's a fetus. So what you're going to be talking about in most cases is a fetus.

I guess zygote's an easier word to be less 'sentimental' about.