Abortion should be legalised in Ireland

JustHalf

Originally posted by m1ke
I don't think anyone can prove whether the unborn child is sentient or not yet at a certain stage. And it seems to me the pro-life camp will not accept that naturally the mother of the child should have the right to terminate her pregnancy not the government.

Why should the mother of the child "naturally.. have the right to terminate her pregnancy"? You've just stated an opinion, and entirely failed to back up with even the slightest bit of reason.

Remember, I'm just asking what reason you have this opinion, because you haven't mentioned this at all. And you need a reason.

Originally posted by m1ke
Break it down into a 1 sentence "is it human life or not" issue is siding with the fear that women can't be trusted an archaic view.

The thing is, m1ke; if it's human life, then the mother-to-be and the doctors and attendants are all party to committing murder. If it's not a human life, then we don't need to worry about the ethical issues raised by this at all.

And with regards to trusting the women... by this logic, surely we should take away all laws, and trust people to do the right thing?

Mr.Applepie

Just a question. Isnt the referendum about criminalising abortion not making it legal ie by voting yes abortion becomes illegal no matter what the circumstances are?

I've given this a lot of choice over the last few weeks and i have to say i am pro choice. I believe that if say the x case should arise again well then the mother should be allowed to have an abortion

JustHalf

Originally posted by swiss
I would have to agree with this sentiment. I don't have an amazing insight into the psyche of the unborn to say at what stage in the pregnancy a foetus becomes 'sentient' and hence may be termed a human 'being'. This is another argument which the pro-life camp use to argue their point that at no stage in pregnancy can a foetus be aborted.

I believe that some of this contentious issue can be resolved by arbitrarily assigning a realitively early period in the pregnancy, a stage in which it is generally accepted a foetus is not a sentient human 'being' - say two or three weeks. After this date, abortion can be banned, not because the foetus has suddenly acheived the required sentience, but merely because there is no surefire way of finding out.

Swiss, any point in time chosen for the cut-off point for allowing abortion will be chosen arbitrarily, no matter how early. The fact that two- or three-weeks is chosen does not make it in any way certain not to involve the taking of a life. You say that there is no surefire way of finding out beyond this point, when in fact there is no surefire of finding out before this point, either.

koneko

Yeah.. err... swiss, did you stop to consider the fact that it was shown in RELIGION class might have had something to do with the fact it was out of context? It's like those anti-abortionist in town, that pull out any gory picture they can see, put it up for Shock Factor. Bully people into being "pro-life".
These "descriptions" you people give of how abortion is carried out are the very very extreme cases that shouldn't happen. I agree with Meglome when he says the time period should probably be lowered, but I'm "pro-choice" I have to say.

bonkey

Originally posted by meglome
we do need to seriously consider the thousands of Irish people like ourselves who feel they have no choice but to go to England and have an abortion.

Why?

Do we argue that cannabis should be legalised because we are not considering the thousands of Irish who fly to Amsterdam to get blitzed every year?

International law is a thorny issue, but the argument of "its legal over there, and we can go over there, so it should be legal here" is farcical.

Originally posted by Swiss
I believe that some of this contentious issue can be resolved by arbitrarily assigning a realitively early period in the pregnancy, a stage in which it is generally accepted a foetus is not a sentient human 'being' - say two or three weeks

Interestingly, the 2 week limit on genetic testing was formed for exactly those reasons. Once we throw out religious beliefs (soul "enters" body at instant of conception) then this is the most universally acceptable timeframe.

However, it effectively makes what we know as abortion illegal. It will permit the use of "morning-after" style drugs, but more than that....highly unlikely. It will effectively mean that by the time a woman finds out she is definitely pregnant, it is too late to have an abortion.

Which means that the pro-choice "side" would never agree to it. It is legalising abortion, while making it effecively non-existant.

Originally posted by Swiss
t's quite easy to not be extreme in your views. Simply respect that others do not agree with you.

This isnt making your views less extreme, simply the manner in which you voice them. Given that one side sees the action as murder, and other not, it isnt surprising that people get emotional and vocal about it. It is hard to agree to disagree over something as fundamental as classifying an act as murder or not.

I accept that people disagree with me on the abortion issue. I also maintain fervently that they are either not addressing the core issue, or do not hold human life as sacrosanct, because not one of them is willing to address the issue of defining when the unborn child becomes a human life in a manner which is logical and consistent with their view on abortion.

Unfortunately, many of the pro-life people appear to be rabid right-wing religious fascists, as amply demonstrated on a sat. on O'Connell St., who seem to be of the opinion "If you don't agree with me then you MUST be a murdering satanist" or some such.

"rabid, right-wing religious fascists" ??? And you accuse these people of being extremist in their views? As for the basic opinion they are espousing....if you conspire with me to kill a person, and I perform the act, you are guilty by association.

Therefore, if you vote to legalise what these people see as murder, then in their eyes you are at best condoning murder, and at worst, assisting in the carrying out of murder by helping to legalise it.

You can say "but I only want to allow others to choose", but you are in effect saying "it is ok for people to decide to commit murder". To a pro-lifer it is the same thing - they see the life as human and sacrosanct. Why else do you think pro-lifers are against abortion? Because they find it distasteful?

I'm also willing to bet that very few, if any, will have the "satanist" term in there, but I hope they do...because otherwise you are the one sinking to new depths trying to discredit the opposite point of view.

jc

jc

Xterminator

I voted that abortion should be legalised in Ireland.

This is a very complex issue, and leads to great emotion in some people.

I saw a documentary on RTE where a woman who was pregnant was diagnosed with cancer, but was refused Chimotherapy on the grounds it would kill the child.
It was years ago etc, but it happened.
By the time the woman had the baby, the cancer was out of control, and she died soon after.
To me thats what i call murder.

I know at the moment, this should not happen again, as they now allow indirect killing of the baby eg. through Chimotherapy, but there are so may 'radicals' in the pro life movement who want to see travelling abroad for abortions banned, who want anything that endangers the unborn, (like drugs or therapy for sickness) banned, and who wish to impose there vocal radical opinions on the silent majority, who are either undecided or oposed to this view.

Another issue.
The medical council of Ireland have stated that there is never a medical situation (never ever) that might lead to the mother life being endangered by going through with a pregnancy, where an abortion might be advisable to protect the health of the mother.

Now if they said we can't forsee it happening, but if it does, we will provide the mother with a medically nessacary abortion etc., then I would have one of my concerns appeased.

Next.
Ireland has a large no. of mothers who have abortions. But only those who can afford abortions abroad get this "priviledge".
I belive the choices should be the same for everyboady, regardless of social status/finanacal status etc.
Many of you are quite happy to export this problem, to England, and wash your hands of it.
One word for this attidude. "Herod".

To those who think argue a foetus is a living person with rights, I ask what is a living person? (Can you prove what a living person is?) Is it a fertalised egg?
Not all fertalised eggs go on to become people, thus I belive it is a 'potential' person.

Does that make the coil an instrument of abortion?

I wish all the energy of the pro-lifers, and the pro choicers could be channelled into removing the reasons why people feel they must choose abortion. Tackle the cause not the symptom.

X

Lemming

Originally posted by bonkey
"rabid, right-wing religious fascists" ??? And you accuse these people of being extremist in their views?

I'm also willing to bet that very few, if any, will have the "satanist" term in there, but I hope they do...because otherwise you are the one sinking to new depths trying to discredit the opposite point of view.

jc

Nope .. I was called a "murdering satanist" by some maniac youth defense facist (I use the word facist because its the only word I can consider using for these people - ie. ram their opinions down your throat), because I simply said that I didn't agree with his view. As I walked away, he screamed it down the street repeatedly at me, whilst a few of his associates looked on approvingly.

Hence my experience with them has prompted the use of the word "rabid right-wing religious fascists".

chernobyl

Originally posted by Clain
No one will really be able to tell if the unborn or indeed if any human being has a soul.

Yes i can, a soul, a spirit, its far fetched drivel, completely unbelievable and used a bartering tool by the church.

bonkey

Originally posted by Xterminator
I saw a documentary on RTE where a woman who was pregnant was diagnosed with cancer, but was refused Chimotherapy on the grounds it would kill the child.
It was years ago etc, but it happened.

Perhaps, but under todays laws, and moral codes, that when a choice has to be made between mother and child, based on a credible risk, then the mother will be given the choice.

In this case, we are looking at "one life or the other" based on a credible, assessible risk.

This, in fact, ties directly to the statement fro the medical council of Ireland who are basically (from what you have posted) denying that a situation like the above cannot occur - which seems strange. Even still, their position is that this is not classified as "elective abortion", and does not fall under the current legal restrictions.

Ireland has a large no. of mothers who have abortions. But only those who can afford abortions abroad get this "priviledge".
I belive the choices should be the same for everyboady,
regardless of social status/finanacal status etc.

Not true.

First of all, if abortion is introduced into Ireland, it will be classified as elective surgery. Elective surgery, when covered under public-health plans does not carry a guaranteed time-frame within which the operation must take place. Therefore, it is highly probable that abortion will remain the remit of those able to pay their own cash for it.

Many of you are quite happy to export this problem, to England, and wash your hands of it.
One word for this attidude. "Herod".

Who said pro-lifers are quite happy to export the problem? Was it not you who posted that so many pro-lifers want the availability of information restricted? Is this not because they will not turn a blind eye to the current practices?

I have already put forward my position. Just because the neighbours have it, doesnt mean we have to have it. We cannot stop people from travelling, nor can we stop them from having abortions abroad. However, this does not mean that we should legalise abortions here. In fact, I would say the opposite. It means that we should fight all the harder to put the appropriate structures in place to help kill the want for abortions (as you suggested).

I would suggest that it is the distraction of the pro-choice argument which has prevented this from happening. It is no longer a case of "how can we prevent them going to England", but rather a case of "how can we stop it coming in here, and stop people going to England".

So, while you call the pro-life crowd "Herod", is it not the insistence of the pro-choice crowd to continuously have referenda which prevents us from tackling the problem in any alternative manner?

To those who think argue a foetus is a living person with rights, I ask what is a living person? (Can you prove what a living person is?) Is it a fertalised egg?

Yet again, another pro-choicer who refuses to answer the question of life. We now have "guilty until proven innocent" as an apparent rationalisation. If we cant prove its life, then it isnt.

Funny - I've been asking you to prove it *isnt* life. This is the response?

OK. Fine. Lets leave that aside.

I would ask two simple questions to any pro-choicer.

a) Do you know when the legal cut-off point is - when the latest date a woman can have an abortion?
b) Do you know why that point was chosen?

If you cannot answer these questions, I would question your right to make decisions on whether or not abortion is ethical.

If you do know the answers, then I would ask you to justify the second one.

jc

bonkey

Originally posted by Lemming
Nope .. I was called a "murdering satanist" by some maniac youth defense facist (I use the word facist because its the only word I can consider using for these people - ie. ram their opinions down your throat), because I simply said that I didn't agree with his view. As I walked away, he screamed it down the street repeatedly at me, whilst a few of his associates looked on approvingly.

Hence my experience with them has prompted the use of the word "rabid right-wing religious fascists".

So one experience of one person (whom you class as a maniac, which would mean mentally inbalanced) gives you the insight to tar them all with the same brush?

Also, you tar them all as facists - using a term which means absolutely nothing like what you explain it as here.

Thank you - I think you proved my point about tolerance nicely.

jc

Lemming

Originally posted by bonkey


So one experience of one person (whom you class as a maniac, which would mean mentally inbalanced) gives you the insight to tar them all with the same brush?

Also, you tar them all as facists - using a term which means absolutely nothing like what you explain it as here.

Thank you - I think you proved my point about tolerance nicely.

jc

No .. not one experience .. but certainly the one which made me very coloured towards them. I'm not against pro-life people, just the methods used by what seems a rather large group of them in attempting to PUSH their views on others.

I do not tar them all as facists. As I said before .. there seems to be a large amount of these people in the pro-life groups (not the average joe bloggs now) who are of this militant mind-set.

ANd the word "facist" would come in here nicely actually. "My way or no way". "Do what I say when I say it how I say it no compromise or else I say that you are as bad as my worst enemy". That seems pretty clear to me as being a somewhat facist attitude.

bugler

I say no, and many are shocked when I espouse that view too. I think in so far as people do not hurt anyone else, then what they do with their lives and selves should be subject to no interference by the state. Unfortunately, I cannot say I believe abortion hurts noone but the woman in question. I believe in the right to life of the unborn. Pro-choice advocates constantly raise the issues of rape and incest when discussing the topic, bu the fact is that the huge majority of abortion cases will be accidental pregnancies in which contraception was not used or was used improperly. To me, the action of abortion because someone was careless/féckless is morally decrepid. I would rather not live in a country in which we terminate our children before they are born. So many thoughts and righteous anger on how there is little respect for life in todays world, regarding war, disease etc. So little discussion of abortion as a symptom of how little many people give a shít...

bonkey

Originally posted by Lemming
No .. not one experience .. but certainly the one which made me very coloured towards them. I'm not against pro-life people, just the methods used by what seems a rather large group of them in attempting to PUSH their views on others.

OK - sorry for being a bit harsh

Truth be told, Ireland has a large number of "pro-lifers" who are actually more correctly classified as "the pro-catholicism faction" - people who have not rationalised their own feelings, but who basically swallow whatever their religion has told them to swallow, and then regurgitate it without considering the other aspects of their religion (which would preclude such extreme behaviour as what you described).

To be honest, I see their fanaticism as part of the problem. These people will proselytise on end about no contraception, no sex before marriage, no this, no that and no the other. All I can say is that they should wake up and look around at the world we live in.

While it is very well to stand in a pulpit, and preach to the world about what it is doing wrong, the solution is not "if you were all good catholics....."

While abortion itself is a field where there can never really be an acceptable compromise, the Catholic faction should accept that they have to give some ground somewhere. More sex-education in our Catholic schools, and not in the form of "here's what happens, but dont do it till youre married". Better availability of counselling, improved adoption services, and so on. The pro-Catholicism faction have stood in the way of much of this in the past and would do so again because the entire thing is decidedly non-Catholic in flavour.

As a side note, the latest Sci-Am shows a chart of percentage of children born outside wedlock, on a per-nation basis. I'd be interested in hearing anyone's estimate of the figures in Ireland and England. In other words....dont go researching it to post the correct answers. Have a shot.....what do you *think* they are. I would ask people who do know the answers (Im not the only SciAm reader here, I'm sure) not to post it either.

jc

JustHalf

Originally posted by Xterminator
Ireland has a large no. of mothers who have abortions. But only those who can afford abortions abroad get this "priviledge".
I belive the choices should be the same for everyboady, regardless of social status/finanacal status etc.

This is what we call "a retarded argument". The fact that some people can afford to go abroad to dodge the law and others can't doesn't mean that abortion is an economic issue. Indeed, this argument boils down to:
"it's like this way in another country, so it should be like it in ours"
which is no real basis for an argument. In China, you can't wave your arms in an amusing fashion in public for fear of imprisonment. Therefore, it should be like that over here.

See, it doesn't make any sense, does it?

Originally posted by Xterminator
Many of you are quite happy to export this problem, to England, and wash your hands of it.
One word for this attidude. "Herod".

Erm, I think you mean "Pilate". If you're going to use Biblical analogies, at least use the right ones.

Although, Herod was a baby killer...

JustHalf

Originally posted by bonkey
This, in fact, ties directly to the statement fro the medical council of Ireland who are basically (from what you have posted) denying that a situation like the above cannot occur - which seems strange. Even still, their position is that this is not classified as "elective abortion", and does not fall under the current legal restrictions.

I'm pretty sure they were referring purely to "elective abortions", as opposed to killing the baby through a medical process.

And to be fair to Catholicism, if you were a good Catholic than abortion wouldn't be a problem. However, you can't force your religious beliefs on someone, so you're going to have to come up with secular reasons for your argument to convince everyone who'll bother to listen.

Which is what Bonkey and myself have been trying to do, I might add.

Lemming

Originally posted by bonkey


OK - sorry for being a bit harsh

Nae bother bonkey

While abortion itself is a field where there can never really be an acceptable compromise, the Catholic faction should accept that they have to give some ground somewhere. More sex-education in our Catholic schools, and not in the form of "here's what happens, but dont do it till youre married". Better availability of counselling, improved adoption services, and so on. The pro-Catholicism faction have stood in the way of much of this in the past and would do so again because the entire thing is decidedly non-Catholic in flavour.

I would happily agree with what someone else mentioned previously on this thread about rather than catering for or against abortion, that more energy should be put into eliminating the NEED for it.

Most certainly I would agree that the pro-catholic faction needs to pull its head out of its proverbial a*se on such things as sex education in schools, etc. I mean .. sex ed. in my day (not that long ago even!) was pathetic. Needless to say, this leads to the inevitable "school yard rumours" which really need to be dispelled authoratively so that we don't see a bunch of young kids running around with not a lot of a clue and a wholelot of hormones.

Teenagers will end up having sex anyway (not all ,, but quite a few), so do we bury our heads in the sand and hope for the best, or give them the necessary knowledge to make informed decisions? This would certainly cut down the number of unwanted teenage pregnancies at any rate.

I know this doesn't solve all pregnancy issues, but it does tackle teenage pregnancies .. and this will have a knock-on effect into later life.


Just as an aside .. I was thinking last night about the current abortion referendum, and what a leading doctor had said. Something along the lines of "Doctor's will be forced to turn their backs on patients" as regards the mental health issue.

Now think this .... the state is wanting to say "if she's gonna commit suicide ,.. then let her". This would mean a failure to protect the unborn since the child would die too. What are they going to do. Force the mother to live through the pregnancy when she clearly wants to die?

One of them is at exceptional risk. Which will it be? Problem is, if the mother dies, then both die. SO either choose to protect the life of the mother on mental health grounds, or else fail to, and loose two lives. What does everyone else think on this one?

Lemming

Just another thought:

How many of the posters here are women??

I'd like to hear from women on this one, since most of the views I've heard are from men.

Whilst men ARE affected, its ulimately the woman who takes the full brunt of any pregnancy. What do they think about having a choice or not?

What do they think of the new proposed legislation that a woman can be fobbed off even if her mental state of health is in DIRE question

Hussy

Originally posted by Lemming
Just another thought:

How many of the posters here are women??

I'd like to hear from women on this one, since most of the views I've heard are from men.

Whilst men ARE affected, its ulimately the woman who takes the full brunt of any pregnancy. What do they think about having a choice or not?

What do they think of the new proposed legislation that a woman can be fobbed off even if her mental state of health is in DIRE question [/QU

I think women should have the choice!Most men will say NO to abortion being legalised in Ireland but it is not there bodies and lives that undergo a transformation when they have a baby!!!!!

Typedef

I can't let this issue alone.

I have real problems with the logic the Hussy has just espoused. By Hussy's logic it's ok for the state to assasinate people it finds 'inconvienent' because it's the state's country. It is a small abstraction to view the state as the mother and the child as the citizen in this instance, why does the ending of a citizen's life become ok when you can't tangibly see that person and they don't effect your life? Is it a case of out of sight out of mind? Perhaps that is why drugs are such a massive problem in Dublin, because you don't actually see the heroin addicts falling around the streets of the capital it's kind if simple to think they don't exist?!?

Your logic Hussy says that because it's your body you should be entitled to decide if it's ok to kill another human being, becuase after all it's your body.

So what if it's your body? Don't you think that the baby inside your body has more right to be alive than you have right to have your body the way you'd like it?

A further abscration. If a woman should be allowed to decide what goes in her body then should a child not be allowed to decided if it is alive? At which point in time exactly did the issue of aborting a small human life become a matter that 'women exclusively' should have some kind of illucidated tabernacle of truth and wisdom about?

Perhaps if the pro-Choice debate made some kind of non-emotive qualification of their position or clearly spelled out why they think that abortion is not in effect a murder then I might change my view, but the pro-Choice argument always hinges on the tired maxim, "it's a womans body so she should decide" and it has never come up with a rational argument that clearly sets out how the termination of pregnancy is a morally justifiable thing.

Don't get me wrong, I have no religious interest in this, I don't believe in Jesus or any of the Christian(or any other religion for that matter) religious belief, it simply strikes me a hypocracy that women, so downtrodden for centuries by men should seek to victimise a section of society even more vunerable than themselves and I'm sorry if that offends people, but that is the way it is.

Lemming

Originally posted by Typedef

Perhaps if the pro-Choice debate made some kind of non-emotive qualification of their position or clearly spelled out why they think that abortion is not in effect a murder then I might change my view, but the pro-Choice argument always hinges on the tired maxim, "it's a womans body so she should decide" and it has never come up with a rational argument that clearly sets out how the termination of pregnancy is a morally justifiable thing.

IMO to date, its been a great deal of the pro-life people lacking "non-emotive qualification" as you put it. Spell out in non emotive terms why it is murder please.

As for the "tired maxim" as you put it. Perhaps there IS a semblence of truth in it?? How would yoiu like someone telling you that you can't grow your hair, or you can't have a body piercing?? (not the same I know .. but bear with me on that one).

I'm not saying that abortion is morally justifiable here TypeDef, just that I will leave that to the individual, since neither you nor I (nor anyone else who HASN'T faced abortion in the eye personally ie. their child) has the right to judge others on such a delicate and deeply personal matter.

It simply strikes me a hypocracy that women, so downtrodden for centuries by men should seek to victimise a section of society even more vunerable than themselves and I'm sorry if that offends people, but that is the way it is.

I could point out hypocrisy in what you've jsut said inthat quote TypeDef. Here's a man telling women what they can and cannot do.
Your response is exactly the reason why I wanted to hear what women thought about the whole sorry situation. All we've heard from (for the most part) is the male perspective. Instead of condeming Hussy for her remarks, we might do well to try and understand WHY she(I assume its a she from the name) said them

Beruthiel

I'd like to hear from women on this one, since most of the views I've heard are from men.

my view is very straightforward, and its my view for me alone, I'm not speaking for other women.

I already have a beautiful girl, I've done the whole mother thing and now she's 13yrs. old - she changed my life in all sorts of wonderful ways - but she also changed my life in some ways that were difficult to handle

I have no intention in going back to the start again, I would never have another child, if by some chance I was to fall pregnant again I'd be on that boat faster than the speed of light. I don't give a toss what other peoples thoughts are on this, I am the ONLY one who has to live inside my head and I intend to keep it straight for myself - I can't stand other people telling me what to do, I can think for myself and make my own decisions and I know myself well enough to know what's right for me - the amount of stress it would cause me would be unbareable for me.


Therefore on those grounds alone, a woman should have the right to choose

Beruthiel

So what if it's your body? Don't you think that the baby inside your body has more right to be alive than you have right to have your body the way you'd like it?

I just have to answer you on the above Typedef

I'm afraid you have no clue what you just said there, I DO have a right to my own body - have you any idea what some women go through while being pregnant - during childbirth and the following months? no you do not
It may have been 13 years since I gave birth but that day is forever stuck in my mind - hell does not begin to describe it!
and it took me a FULL year to physically and mentally get over it!

so do not tell me I don't have the right to decide whither I want to put myself through that again or not!

Typedef

Go ahead call me a sexist maschoginist woman hating repressive man, but by the logic above, it's ok to kill a small human being, because the mother has to live with pregenancy 'in her head'. Oh well in that case it's ok for me to go an blow up a pub because for me 'the Republic is in my head'. What, since when does your inner sanctum of personal comfort become grounds for the vitcimisation of the most vunerable section of society, namely the unborn?

Spell out in non emotive terms why it is murder please.

Quite simply I believe that the ending of a human life unless it is by the consent of that human (ie Euthanisia) is a forced death and is therefore a crime. In this society forcing the death of someone who doesn't want it is a crime, and killing someone before they even have a chance to be born, a person convicted of no crime is in itself a crime, there does not seem to be any real ambiguity for me on this issue.

How would yoiu like someone telling you that you can't grow your hair, or you can't have a body piercing?? (not the same I know .. but bear with me on that one).

Are you seriously equating a babies life to a hair cut? I've got news for you pal, cutting your hair and aborting a human foetus are not even remotely the same and it is sickening, morally reprehensive and totally repugnant for you to equte the two.

I have no intention in going back to the start again, I would never have another child, if by some chance I was to fall pregnant again I'd be on that boat faster than the speed of light.

I have to ask, sorry in advance. Do you actually think your own comfort and if I may say so frivilous id-self comfort is the most important part of this equation? You say that

I am the ONLY one who has to live inside my head

, but who cares? The child that you kill has more right to be alive and participate in the world than you have right to feel ok in your head, sorry, but that is the way it is for me. Oh and men don't have babies, so what, big deal, most people in this country don't get shot at by the government of this country, but does that mean that when it is done to citizens of other countries that people should just accept that it is happening in another country and therefore is only the business of that country? Of course not, therefore I shall not simply accept that your gender gives a unique and more valued outlook on this issue, it's illogical, yes I understand that a woman's body undergoes massive change during pregancy and I will attempt to empathise, here is my but, but it's not a reason to end another person's life.

I am glad the state protected my life and protects the right to life of my fellow citizens, I am glad I am alive, that is what it boils down to for me and abortion if it were legal would have enabled someone to take my life away from me for the crime of being concieved, now that really is a crime a crime against my, your and eveyone's intrinsic rights as humans.

seamus

Quite simply I believe that the ending of a human life unless it is by the consent of that human (ie Euthanisia) is a....

And that's the whole problem with the abortion debate. It's all 'I believe's and 'In my opinion's from both sides. No-one has any facts, yet everyone talks as if they are speaking facts. 'You do not have the right....', 'You do have the right.....', maybe it's just the way it comes out when it's being typed, but I don't think so. People talk about abortion in this way, probably because it's such an emotional issue. Neither side has any proof as to why their opinion is more right, yet both sides attempt to speak as if they have facts, as if they were talking scientifically.
It's still a great read though Especially when the TV has women saying 'oh you never know until you have kids how important it is not to get an abortion', and then we get someone here saying, 'I have a kid, and I'm crazy about her, but there's no way in hell I'd have another one right now!'.

Just on an aside - wtf is the referendum about? I thought it was for the legalisation of abortion, but I saw a sign yesterday saying 'Protect the rights of the unborn, Vote Yes'.

bonkey

Originally posted by Beruthiel
so do not tell me I don't have the right to decide whither I want to put myself through that again or not!

Excuse me, but since when was abortion the only way to prevent yourself from putting yourself through that again?

Anyone who has done the tiniest bit of research into contraception will know that there is absolutely no guaranteed contraceptive, short of.....wait for it.....not having sex in the first place, or having your ovaries removed. The male "snip" procedure has been known to be reversed through spontaneous regeneration, therefore, this is not foolproof.

If you are so set against ever becoming pregnant again, then dont have sex, or have your ability to become pregnant midically removed. Its that simple.

On the other hand, if you want to have sex, you must face the possibility, however remote, that even with contraception used correctly you could still end up pregnant.

This is your choice. You make it. You live by it.

What you *want* is the freedom to not have to live by the consequences to your actions. You justify this with "its my body", but you do not address the very real fact that it is no longer just your body, but also the host for a new life.

Which brings me neatly to :

Originally posted by Lemming
Spell out in non emotive terms why it is murder please.

1) Immediately after the moment of birth, once the umbilical cord is cut, the newborn is classified as human, and therefore its life is sacrosanct under the Geneva Convention

2) Very few, if any people, will argue that the act of cutting the umbilical is what makes the child human. This can be evidenced by the almost universal abhorrence of the Chinese practice of killing female children as they "crown" during the birth procedure., before the child draws its first breath. Therefore, we can assume with reasonable certainty that the point of "becoming human" occurs before birth, not during.

3) There is no clearly identifiable point prior to this where we can definitively say "this is now human". Therefore, by teh same logic, there is no point where was can clearly say "this is not yet human". The exception to this may be the limitation placed for genetic experiment (2 weeks), after which the proto-form of individual organs and the umbilical chord can apparently be discerned.

4) Therefore, we are left with a grey area, spanning at worst from conception to birth, or at best from conception + 2 weeks to birth where we can not definitively decide whether the life is human or not.

5) The currently accepted cutoff point for abortions in most nations where it is legal is set to be at a fixed period in time before the earliest known early-birth survival.

6) We are therefore saying (for example) that today (timepoint A), it is acceptable to abort up to 15 weeks, but next month (timepoint , due to advances in science, it will be acceptable to abort only up to 12 weeks. (I am not aware of the actual time-periods, so forgive me if these are wrong).

So...from these points, we can see that the current acceptable timeframe for abortions is purely and solely decided on proven survivability.

So - we now have a siutuation where what is legal today, becomes illegal tomorrow. In fact, this is highly probable. The pro-life "camp" look at this and say that is is not acceptable that the definition of humanity changes based on medical survivability.

Thus, if it is probable that medical advances in the forseeable future will push this date back, it is morally incumbent on us to push the date back now, or else we are condemning to abortion embryos which would be legally granted the right to live had they simply been conceived at some point in the future.

In short - our humanity does not change from one day to the next, but the definition of when it is permissable to abort will change on an ongoing basis. Therefore, the current definition of "acceptable term for abortion" is morally flawed. In the absence of being able to definitively state when humanity starts, we cannot simply kill life based on an amoral moveable feast.

As a further note....there is much research currently underway which indicates that it may be possible to bring embryos partially (or even fully) to term outside the womb. Were this science *not* prevented by the laws banning testing on embryos after 2 weeks, it is highly probable that it would soon be able to provide survivability from as early as conception itself.

This research, which has been theorised for quite some time, would ultimately require that all currently acceptable abortions would be classified as murder, using the current methods of qualifying when abortion is permissable. Therefore, in this regard, it is morally incumbent on us to classify them as murder today, and to retain this until such times as the above-mentioned research is proven to be impossible.

Is this non-emotive enough for you? Would you care to show me the flaws in my logic, and why my argument is not valid? I'm willing to listen

jc

JustHalf

Here here.

smiles

Originally posted by Lemming
Just another thought:

How many of the posters here are women??

I'd like to hear from women on this one, since most of the views I've heard are from men.

Whilst men ARE affected, its ulimately the woman who takes the full brunt of any pregnancy. What do they think about having a choice or not?

What do they think of the new proposed legislation that a woman can be fobbed off even if her mental state of health is in DIRE question

I posted this earlier:

Originally posted by smiles
It's an incredibly complicated issue, and there is no cut and dried answer for me, nor for most people it would see.

[...]

I havent voted in the poll because it leaves a very open intrepretation. (that and i'm not sure!)

I think that if it was legalised that there should be specific criteria that must be met and personal interviews/counscilling as a prerequist so that anyone going down that path would know fully the consequences of their actions, physically, mentally and so on and so forth.

Lots of people have mentioned the physical and mental anguish a rape victim must go through, but no one seems to have mentioned the problems associated with abortion, physical (and i'm not talking just the scary photos here, there are some hard facts) and the mental stuff (flashbacks, regret, etc.)

I don't know how I would react if I was in the situation myself, I dont think I could actually go through with having an abortion, whether i was raped or not. It's a personal thing, but that said, I'm not (thankfully) in that situation and I'm not condemning anyone who has made that choice.

Some contraceptives are techincally abortiofesicants (or some spelling), according to our latest discussions in religion, as in they do not prevent conception, but merely prevent the growth of a baby (ie. morning after pill).

<< Fio >>

[appoligies for the spellings, i'm rather tired]

As for the man having a say?
Well thats a pretty damn hard question to answer, there are some instances where I'd be totally against the man having input, like in abusive relationships, rape, etc.

I think that it is very important that the father be involved in discussions where there is any doubt for the mother about keeping the baby, but I also think that if the woman has made her mind up totally that she wants to have an abortion then the man shouldn't be told, it'd only cause more problems.

<< Fio >>

Hussy

Originally posted by smiles


As for the man having a say?
Well thats a pretty damn hard question to answer, there are some instances where I'd be totally against the man having input, like in abusive relationships, rape, etc.

I think that it is very important that the father be involved in discussions where there is any doubt for the mother about keeping the baby, but I also think that if the woman has made her mind up totally that she wants to have an abortion then the man shouldn't be told, it'd only cause more problems.

<< Fio >>

it is important for the father to be involved but not if you know that he won't stick around once the child is born...A child needs a stable upbringing and if he/she can't be given that ,well then the only option for me personally would be abortion!

smoke.me.a.kipper

what about adoption?? im sure the child wont mind not having a father figure around for 9 months, but after that....

Hussy

adoption is an option for some women but you would spend every day wondering where your child was adn what they were doing,I couldn't cope with that!!