LirW wrote: » A lot of the "first trimester" abortion pictures are pictures of miscarriages, ectopic or fallopian pregnancies taken out of context. They'd usually be quite well documented because the embryos are kept for further research if there was something wrong with them because it could indicate that there's a genetic issue with the mother or father.
uptherebels wrote: » you realise that a first trimester abortion would be via pills or an aspiration abortion neither of which would be graphic ......right?
LirW wrote: » Pretty unspectacular, medical abortion is like a strong period and there's not much that you'd see from the outside of a mechanical one. I was just thinking of this nonsense graphic that went around on Social media for a while where a late term abortion is shown where they rip the baby apart and first remove single legs and then hands and arms until the head only is left and then they pull it out. It's so stupid it makes me laugh. I think that's the morbid splatter fantasy that people like to use to scare others. That's not how it works anyway.
Hoboo wrote: » Eh, very. Very very. Plenty of photos online.
uptherebels wrote: » how graphic is a first trimester abortion?
markodaly wrote: » Maybe we can legalise it up to say 10 weeks but also commission ads that show the graphic and true nature of having an abortion, kinda like those drink driving ads and smoking ads.
end of the road wrote: » it's not comparable. the 12 week unborn will become sentient if not aborted. a rock or a table will not become sentient ever. a 12 week unborn will be sentient. as it is going to be sentient iit has to receive protection to allow it to become sentient as it has the right to be sentient. if bar extreme circumstances, the choice of one human being impacts on the right to life of another human being then that choice has to be restricted for the greater good of the human being who's life is at risk.
spookwoman wrote: » If you think abortion is murder then that is your prerogative, no one is forcing you to have an abortion. But you want to force women to have children they don't want, you want to force your morals and your beliefs on another person because of something you don't like.
Zubeneschamali wrote: » That's very odd, because the 8th was opposed in its original referendum by all Christian churches in Ireland except the Catholic church, before you even got to the godless atheists like me.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » As I explained to another user earlier this afternoon however, the difference between "Do not like murder, then do not kill people" and "Do not like abortion, then do not have one" arguments is that in the former case we have moral and ethical arguments against murder. With abortion however no one, including yourself, are presenting moral or ethical arguments against abortion. You do not PERSONALLY like abortion then? Fine, then do not have one! But that line of thinking can not be made analogous in murder because there are genuine moral and ethical reasons why no one should murder, rather than a handful of vocal cranks being personally against it.
end of the road wrote: » it's not comparable. the 12 week unborn will become sentient if not aborted. a rock or a table will not become sentient ever. it does if the 3 things are not comparable. which the 3 different things you mention aren't, as 1 can become sentient and the others cannot ever. a 12 week unborn will be sentient. as it is going to be sentient iit has to receive protection to allow it to become sentient as it has the right to be sentient. if bar extreme circumstances, the choice of one human being impacts on the right to life of another human being then that choice has to be restricted for the greater good of the human being who's life is at risk. we are told what we must do on a daily basis, where our choices have the potential to effect others badly.
end of the road wrote: » someone murdering someone else doesn't effect me. doesn't mean they aren't wrong. it doesn't have to effect one directly for it to be wrong. if someone is aborting their child based on the sex they are a nutjob, we don't tolerate sexism for children and adults so it should be the same for the unborn. sometimes hard choices have to be made to protect others. in the case of abortion on demand, we have to protect the life of the unborn as much as is practical, so we don't allow it bar extreme circumstances. when it comes to someone doing harm to others, we have a duty to step in as society where practical and stop that from happening. so if it is a choice between allowing someone do harm to the unborn because the unborn is inconvenient, or protecting the unborn as much as it is possible, then the unborn should be protected. the other option is the allowing of the killing of the unborn. as i said, hard choices do have to be made, and while i can safely say none of us do want people to suffer, we do have to decide ultimately which of the situations must be prevented more. for me it is where killing will take place, as much as is practical to do so. yes people are traveling abroad or taking pills here, but there are abortions which are stopped by the 8th. there are other issues caused by the 8th of course, and i think if there was a guarantee that no abortion on demand would be legislated for in ireland, the referendum to repeal it would definitely get a yes vote.
AnGaelach wrote: » Don't want to tax evade? Then don't tax evade. Don't want to kill someone? Then don't kill someone. Don't want to inject heroin? Then don't shoot up. The thing is, while you think that soundbit might sound witty, it isn't very persuasive. We live in a society, and we all agree what is condoned in this society. Of course I'm going to care about what you do, because we're both members of this society and the "stop caring about people!!" shíte is a ridiculous libertarian stance. One that should have been left in America rather than imported here by pseudo-intellectuals, capitalists and the self-obsessed.
AnGaelach wrote: » I'm not religious, I'm pro-life. Most of the people I know who are pro-life aren't religious.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » Except it is comparable. None of them are sentient NOW. You pretty much say so yourself.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » Just because you can find differences between three things, does not mean the things are not comparable.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » Why "must" it? Aside from saying "must" can you ground that assertion in any way? And as I said that is where we differ. I think people should have free choice when their choice does not impact on the rights of another sentient entity. Since we are agreed the fetus at 12/16 weeks is NOT one, I see no reason to curtail the rights and choices of an ACTUAL sentient entity to protect a NON sentient entity.
maxsmum wrote: » I hear your 'must' and I say no thanks very much to you telling me what I 'must' do if I found myself in dire straits with an unwanted pregnancy. The people will speak anyway. And if it's a no, then I still 'must' be able to access abortion in the UK as previously, so the status quo will continue. You telling me what I 'must' do is still irrelevant.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » Sure, and I hope you remember that next time you have a burger which killed a cow. Write on paper which killed a tree. Or take a medicine which will kill millions of bacteria. Or you could stop and realize that mere "life" is not solely what we predicate moral and ethical concern on. There is more to it than that. And when you identify what that "more" actually is, you will notice that it is EXACTLY the thing that a fetus at 12/16 weeks gestation not only lacks entirely, but it lacks also many of the pre-requisites for it too. Which you likely ALSO do every day. Ever drive a car? That is what life is, a series of actions which at every turn risk the life or the well being of you or those around you. And life is about balancing our desire to perform actions, with the risk inherent to yourself and others in those actions.
end of the road wrote: » the unborn's rights must be protected over the choice of the woman to abort it.
end of the road wrote: » a 12 week unborn is on the way to being a sentient entity so is not comparible to a rock or a table
end of the road wrote: » therefore it must remain to be given protection as it is becoming a human life.
end of the road wrote: » and that is my view also. however when it effects the unborn, then bar extreme circumstances the unborn's rights must be protected over the choice of the woman to abort it.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » I think sentient entities should be protected and given rights. Non-sentient entities like rocks, table legs, and 12 week old fetuses for me do not qualify morally or ethically for any such protection. So I am all for changes to the current status quo that have us doing so.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » Pregnant women however are sentient entities. And I am all for maximizing both their choices in life, and their personal well being, where practical and possible.
Hoboo wrote: » You're only giving examples of risking your own life. The killing of another life, due to ones choices, is completely different.
Hoboo wrote: » Thats risking another life for your own needs or wants.
end of the road wrote: » we don't tolerate sexism for children and adults so it should be the same for the unborn.
end of the road wrote: » the unborn should be protected.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » LIFE runs the risk of trauma, depression and leaving us in pieces. We all seem content to keep on living however The constituent parts of life however, see us making balanced decisions between our desires, and such risks, all the time. You get in a vehicle, you run those risks. You go out for a party, you run those risks. Each of us balances what we want in life, and the risks of pursuing it, all the time. Sex should certainly be no different.
