Doctor Jimbob wrote: » What if the baby is born and does get in the way of her studies, and her studies if uninterrupted could have resulted in the same revolutionary discoveries you're suggesting the baby could eventually contribute? If you're going to deal in hypotheticals like that you have to accept it works both ways.
Purple Mountain wrote: » I'm late to this thread so apologies if this has been addressed. I'm not pedalling either side here but has anyone outlined funding for abortion services if it's legalised? Will it be through the HSE or private clinics? Will it be covered by medical card/health insurance? Also, from my understanding it would be a pill induced abortion and not surgical. If a lady is say 12 weeks pregnant I'm assuming that's a more substantial miscarriage than a 3 week miscarriage and would they need to be under supervision and not sent home to pass the foetus?
RobertKK wrote: » The woman’s life comes first but a blatant disregard for the life she carries does give a view into the psyche of that woman or man who supports taking that life away. There is a lack of empathy with the other life if there is nothing wrong and you terminate his/her life in the womb. He/she in the womb is growing and showing he/she wants to live as there are two lives involved.
_Roz_ wrote: » That's what wrecks my head about it. It doesn't change the fact that I would have an abortion if my implant failed, because I don't want children, can't afford them, and would be a terrible mother most likely, and I do feel the mother takes precedence. But I struggle with accepting that it's any more okay to interrupt a process at an early stage than at a late stage, when both stags are part of the same process with the same outcome.
....... wrote: » This post has been deleted.
The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus in the sense that both lack those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual. Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’. We take ‘person’ to mean an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her. This means that many non-human animals and mentally retarded human individuals are persons, but that all the individuals who are not in the condition of attributing any value to their own existence are not persons. Merely being human is not in itself a reason for ascribing someone a right to life. Indeed, many humans are not considered subjects of a right to life: spare embryos where research on embryo stem cells is permitted, fetuses where abortion is permitted, criminals where capital punishment is legal.
Although fetuses and newborns are not persons, they are potential persons because they can develop, thanks to their own biological mechanisms, those properties which will make them ‘persons’ in the sense of ‘subjects of a moral right to life’: that is, the point at which they will be able to make aims and appreciate their own life. It might be claimed that someone is harmed because she is prevented from becoming a person capable of appreciating her own being alive. Thus, for example, one might say that we would have been harmed if our mothers had chosen to have an abortion while they were pregnant with us7 or if they had killed us as soon as we were born. However, whereas you can benefit someone by bringing her into existence (if her life is worth living), it makes no sense to say that someone is harmed by being prevented from becoming an actual person. The reason is that, by virtue of our definition of the concept of ‘harm’ in the previous section, in order for a harm to occur, it is necessary that someone is in the condition of experiencing that harm. If a potential person, like a fetus and a newborn, does not become an actual person, like you and us, then there is neither an actual nor a future person who can be harmed, which means that there is no harm at all. So, if you ask one of us if we would have been harmed, had our parents decided to kill us when we were fetuses or newborns, our answer is ‘no’, because they would have harmed someone who does not exist (the ‘us’ whom you are asking the question), which means no one. And if no one is harmed, then no harm occurred.
Ave Sodalis wrote: » I'm not sure if it helps, but it's very rarely as easy a decision as the pro-life side try to make it out to be. I know I'd go for an abortion if I got pregnant right now, but I've also put a huge amount of thought into it and have some valid reasons for doing so. I know some people try to make it out as though you just waltz into a clinic before your morning coffee because you woke up that morning and decided you couldn't be bothered with the whole pregnancy thing... but it's (from what I've heard through years of this debate) usually a long decision that takes a lot of time to come to terms with, and even then it's normal to have doubts. At the end of the day though, it's having that choice that matters.
_Roz_ wrote: » This topic wrecks my head. I'm pro-choice, always have been, but raised by pro-life parents. I always argued with my mother that if I abort an unwanted child, it's no different than not getting pregnant in the first place, as that particular egg would have been passed at the end of my monthly cycle anyway. "It was never meant to be a child." She (rightly) pointed out that it is different, because in one case, the event that leads to a child has not taken place (the fertilization) and in the other, it has, and if I did not abort, the potential life would become life. You may not be 'killing' a 'life', but you are interrupting a process which will most likely result in a life, and the act of intervention in that should be held accountable for.... something. I don't know what. And I feel this is true, too.
RobertKK wrote: » http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/03/01/medethics-2011-100411 From the British Medical Journal Goes onto say The authors are ethicists from Oxford University.
freshpopcorn wrote: » I'll probably get slatted for this but a big problem is that a lot of Irish families haven't had dealing with abortions and see what people who has one goes through. There main dealings with them is what they see in the soaps and it always seems to be nasty/sour character who gets one and they go home and have dinner and when a nice character does get one they always seem to regret it.
ohnonotgmail wrote: » not sure why you would post something that contradicts the rest of your posts.
Bannasidhe wrote: » Oh look. It's the having an abortion can cause women to become child abusers nonsense all wrapped up in psychobabble. As previously brought to you by your local friendly unregulated pro-life 'family planning' clinic
RobertKK wrote: » I don’t care what side they are in. I value democracy and I always vote and do so legally.
RobertKK wrote: » The authors are ethicists from Oxford University.
RobertKK wrote: » I don't mind posting challenging views which challenges people even if my own.
RobertKK wrote: » Too many people want to dismiss opinions they disagree with rather than consider them.
RobertKK wrote: » I was asked for an argument that compared the unborn lives in the wombs to the born lives of infants and newborn and the moral equivalence of ending their lives.
_Roz_ wrote: » I really don't like the 'my body, my choice' arguments'. It is your body, but I don't 100% feel that gives you full rights over what happens to a life growing in you, due to my above statement about interrupting an ongoing process.
RobertKK wrote: » There are many women against abortion. A survey by Newstalk with a polling company found more men were prochoice than women. Your post is tacking the person and not the topic at hand which shows you have a weak argument if you can’t argue the topic.
RobertKK wrote: » Being a woman in 2018 means if you are man you are a pervert...
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » But we do not assign rights to "processes" do we? That is the crux of the issue for me. Identify what EXACTLY rights are for, and what we ACTUALLY assign them to.... and you very quickly realize that the answers list a set of attributes the fetus not just slightly but ENTIRELY lacks at 12/16 weeks gestation.
kylith wrote: » What a selfish bitch! How very dare a teenaged girl think about her studies and how they could better her position in life!? She should absolutely be forced to give up on college and any dreams she had for a career and a good life. :rolleyes: Even if it could be called selfishness, would you want someone so selfish to have sole charge of a child?
freshpopcorn wrote: » To me a repeal is important but I think the most important to people to target now are those on the fence voters is the most important. It's easy enough to figure out TD's who are against abortion and who have being campaigning in the dail for it with years and those who are middle of the road.(changed there mind over time). Just note not all TD who have being campaigning for abortion for years are strong as others. When the debates start's for example I don't think those who are a lot more liberal about the matter comes across well to people who are unsure of the matter or people who might vote for abortion up to twelve weeks but if they hear future governments can legislate on the matter easily and change it easily and that TD admits I'd always support the woman's choice. I think these people won't do the campaign any favors.
Joeytheparrot wrote: » Is that evidence there are TDs who want no term limit abortion?
freshpopcorn wrote: » You no perfectly well there isn't evidence and that's it's just my opinion but in my opinion they are TD's out there with this view and they are fairly easy to pick out. I am not going to name names because I'd just be told I'm slanderous/etc. If these people state that in the future that they are will support abortion with no limit or choice. I think they could damage the campaign. The same goes for anybody involved in the campaign that might say they support abortion with no limit. The no side will essential say on that day in May when you vote to all abortion up to twelve weeks in years to come they could be no time limit. This will make a lot of on the fence voters uncomfortable. I don't understand why you can't understand this?
ohnonotgmail wrote: » But your opinion must be based on SOMETHING. Otherwise it is just scaremongering.
freshpopcorn wrote: » It's how they've spoken on the matter over the years!
_Roz_ wrote: » It's not about rights for me, its that you're consciously choosing to end a potential person and I'll never fully accept that it's fair for anyone to make that choice just because of the stage of development the foetus is at.
freshpopcorn wrote: » I am not going to name names because I'd just be told I'm slanderous/etc.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » Correct me if I am wrong but if they can be quoted on something they have said, as a matter of record, then you can not be accused of slander? It is not slanderous to quote what someone ACTUALLY and DEMONSTRABLY said? Or have I completely misunderstood the definition of the term "slander"? Someone on another (I think) thread put it well today I think. The fact that we legislate for the age of sexual consent means POTENTIALLY the government could reduce the age of consent to 12 or 6. But the fact they potentially COULD do this does not in any way mean they are likely to. The narrative of "no limits abortion" is generally coming from people who want that potential to scare people, but the people it is coming from appear in NO WAY inclined to show it is in any way likely or credible. But I suspect that, with a few people like yourself, the spark of fear is enough to light a fire. And we should not let that fire spread by in turn perpetuating this unsubstantiated concern to others.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » The fetus is a 12-16 week old mass of barely differentiated cells, has absolutely no sentience or consciousness of any kind.... and in fact not even many of the pre-requisites of it. It is not a person. It has no concerns, desires or choices or free will. I see no good reason to afford such an entity moral and ethical concern or rights at all. LET ALONE in relation to (or even to the detriment of) that of the woman in question.
