Delirium wrote: » Every other country in the world manages without abortion policy embedded in the constitution, and they have abortion policies that vary from highly restrictive to the other side of the pendulum.
smacl wrote: » My own opinion is that there is a huge difference between survivability and being grown from an early gestational stage in-vitro. There's nothing to say that science may not progress where a person can be grown entirely in-vitro but you still have to choose a developmental stage where you start calling the foetus a baby. My opinion would be when measurable brain activity moves beyond a rudimentary stage. Maybe science might even reach the stage where the foetus could be transferred to the innards of a middle-aged pro-life bloke, though I imagine they might become scarcer at that point
J C wrote: » The main reason why killing another human is morally repugnant is because it cuts short their potential for life ... and the potential is greatest, the younger the person is when they are killed. For this reason child killing is regarded as the most reprehensible of all killings. Abortion is somewhere in-between morally due to the possibility of risk to the mothers life from a pregnancy.
ABC101 wrote: » Smacl, you mention brain function / activity as a method to choose personhood. However physical development / mental development has no bearing on personhood outside the womb. In fact a child has a greater number of neural connections than a adult. So if physical development / mental development has no bearing on person hood outside of the womb, why should it have a bearing inside the womb?
J C wrote: » I'm not in the least patronising ... but I'm a little fed up by the 'too posh to push' brigade not being too posh to kill their unborn child ... just because they want to. There are serious life and death situations where abortion is necessary ... but it is sickening, quite frankly, for perfectly healthy women and their so-called partners utilising the plight of these seriously ill women, to campaign to be allowed kill their unborn children ... for no other reason, than just because they want to.
pilly wrote: » And now the nasty is coming out. Didn't take long to surface. :eek:
Delirium wrote: » There are risks to health and life for the woman. Why can she not choose what is best for her health? If she doesn't feel up to the risks or the mental/physical demands of a pregnancy, who are we to decide we know better?
smacl wrote: » I guess it is only morally repugnant to those who consider a foetus in the first trimester as person in the same sense as we consider a born child to be a person. I don't at all, but understand that many people do. At some point, you have to decide what are the essential attributes that are unique and necessary for a person to exist. To my mind, as an atheist, this includes a minimal threshold level of measurable brain activity. I don't find early stage abortion morally reprehensible for a pregnant woman any more than I would an immediate relative of someone in a permanent vegetative state taking them off life support. Sad and unfortunate maybe, but not immoral. I do find it morally reprehensible for a third person to demand how a pregnant woman deals with her pregnancy based on their own unfounded beliefs. These are choices we cannot and should not make for other people.
pilly wrote: » And now the nasty is coming out. Didn't take long to surface.
WhiteRoses wrote: » Its very disheartening to see such misogynic, judgmental, prehistoric attitudes are still alive and well in Ireland. I thought we had come a long way from the days of condemning women and celebrating the ostracizing of members of our society, but obviously not. So disappointing.
....... wrote: » This post has been deleted.
end of the road wrote: » there is a massive difference between condemning the potential allowing of abortion on demand within the state and the attitudes which you rightly complain about which existed in ireland.
end of the road wrote: » they are choices we have to make for other people to prevent them doing harm to others
smacl wrote: » Only if you consider the likes of a first trimester foetus an 'other' person. You might, I don't. Thus from my perspective, this makes the pro-life stance morally reprehensible as all you achieve is causing hardship to vulnerable pregnant women.
end of the road wrote: » because we decide legislation all the time to stop people from commiting harm to others. in those cases we should perhapse leave people to make the choices, but it is recognised that simply leaving people to make choices isn't viable, otherwise the risks of harm to others would be to great to allow, verses implementing the legislation. abortion is the same, we have the legislation in place to (as much as is practical) protect the right to life of the unborn, as we believe allowing the unborn to simply be left at the mercy of the mother and her choices is not good for society. of course she can and may do travel, but her choices are not legitimized or facilitated or funded within the state. so at least her traveling is essentially her problem to deal with.
WhiteRoses wrote: » They still exist. His posts have been disgraceful.
WhiteRoses wrote: » He wasn't condemning abortion, he was condemning the women who procure abortions.
WhiteRoses wrote: » He was doing this despite not knowing what circumstances a woman might find herself in to require an abortion in the first place.
WhiteRoses wrote: » It makes me sick to think people consider women to be inferior members of society at the expense of a mere weeks old fetus. No compassion, no sympathy.
WhiteRoses wrote: » She is important and her feelings are valid, despite how much people like JC would try to deny her any rights.
WhiteRoses wrote: » Once again, people going on and on and on about the baby and saving it and protecting it. Not a word about the welfare of the woman from the pro-life side. She is an irrelevant vessel.
WhiteRoses wrote: » Its about time people like this were called out for what they are.
WhiteRoses wrote: » Thank God they are in a minority, because the circles I'm in certainly don't share that type of view.
WhiteRoses wrote: » They still exist. His posts have been disgraceful. He wasn't condemning abortion, he was condemning the women who procure abortions. He was doing this despite not knowing what circumstances a woman might find herself in to require an abortion in the first place. It makes me sick to think people consider women to be inferior members of society at the expense of a mere weeks old fetus. No compassion, no sympathy. She is important and her feelings are valid, despite how much people like JC would try to deny her any rights. Once again, people going on and on and on about the baby and saving it and protecting it. Not a word about the welfare of the woman from the pro-life side. She is an irrelevant vessel. Its about time people like this were called out for what they are. Thank God they are in a minority, because the circles I'm in certainly don't share that type of view.
end of the road wrote: » they aren't at all. they are truthful. he was condemning abortion and didn't condemn the women. but even if he was condemning the women, then considering the same women would be condemned if they killed the same child once born, then his viewpoint of condemning the women for having an abortion outside medical reasons would be valid. i wouldn't go that far myself, but the view is valid. actually, no he wasn't. he was clear that if it is for medical or other extreme reasons he believes an abortion should happen. it makes me and many others sick to think people consider the unborn to be inferior or something that can be killed just because. but some do. the good news is that most of us don't think women are inferior to the unborn, we believe both to be equal except where the mother's life is under threat, or she is under threat of permanent injury or disability. people like JC are not trying to deny her any rights. this is something you have made up in your head but it's not real. again this is made up. the pro-life side have been clear that where the mother's life is under threat, or she is under threat of permanent injury or disability, then an abortion must be facilitated and performed. but because she wants to have an abortion is not a valid reason. people who are against abortion on demand. nothing wrong with being called out for that as we are prowd to be against abortion on demand. actually, we don't know if those against abortion on demand are in a minority, because there are many other reasons why one may be in favour of repeal, yet could be against abortion on demand. the circles you are in don't really mean anything as by the sounds of it they are idealistic rather then being realistic.
WhiteRoses wrote: » Imagine being so arrogant as to believe you know what's better for another adult than they do themselves. As if another adult isn't capable of making their own informed choices that will affect their own life. What's that phrase, "saving them from themselves"???
Delirium wrote: » All that means is that some harm is acceptable and other isn't, i.e. the legislation requires the woman to be put at risk before allowing for an abortion. This allows for a certain amount of harm to be inflicted on the woman before allowing for an abortion. Also, if a woman having an abortion is bad for society then why isn't having the abortion abroad an issue? The woman still had the abortion. The result to society is still the same, i.e. the abortion occurred.
Gerry T wrote: » Funny how people see pro life in such a black and white scenario, and always painted as oppressing women. To paint all pro-life supporters this way is wrong. I see women are equals and should in all cases be treated equally. But I also see a fetus as a growing person. Where a woman's needs, mentally or physically would require an abortion I would be fine with that. But if its just a want then I do believe the need of the fetus does outweigh that of the mother. To suggest I see women as inferior is way off the mark, I value the life of the fetus...you don't. I think for you to degrade the life of the fetus to a mere clump of cells is, how should I put it, sick as you put it. Where's your compassion and sympathy for the fetus, if the child isn't wanted when born then he/she can be given up for adoption. How come the pro abortion side use such emotive language...it comes across as if your argument is so wafer thin you have to lower yourself to insults. We can agree to disagree, the tipping point for me is do you believe if the fetus has any rights to it's need, a womb for 7 to 9 months. Well I do, but they should be seen as less important to the mothers needs, so in certain circumstances, yes abortion is needed. I don't believe abortion should be a free for all.
WhiteRoses wrote: » Sorry but I refuse to engage in a line-by-line multiquote nitpicking battle with you. It does nothing but turns these threads into echo chambers. I refute everything you have said and stand by my post. Whether JC intends it or not, this is how his attitude is coming across. You simply cannot tell me that my perception is wrong.
WhiteRoses wrote: » Its already been explained multiple times across numerous threads that Ireland does not have domestic adoption. This is why the minute amount of Irish people who are looking to adopt do so internationally from India, Russia, Vietnam, etc. Surrendering a child to a fate of a life in the foster care system is simply not good enough. It isn't in the best interests of the child for them to be brought into this world, and left at the mercy of the social care system. It isn't in the best interests of the child to be born to a woman forced into motherhood. It isn't in the best interests of the child to be born into a life of poverty, neglect, or to parents who cannot cope. So I have a lot of compassion and sympathy. More so for the woman, because as we know, she is the one who is actually alive, is carrying the pregnancy and will be responsible for this baby when it is born. So my support is with her. But at the same time, I do care about the unborn. I don't think anyone should be brought into this world unwanted and unloved.
pilly wrote: » I wish everyone would take the same attitude and just stop feeding it.
smacl wrote: » At some point, you have to decide what are the essential attributes that are unique and necessary for a person to exist. To my mind, as an atheist, this includes a minimal threshold level of measurable brain activity. I don't find early stage abortion morally reprehensible for a pregnant woman any more than I would an immediate relative of someone in a permanent vegetative state taking them off life support. Sad and unfortunate maybe, but not immoral.
recedite wrote: » There are a number of misunderstandings in the above post, which I can point out individually... 1. Brain activity per se does not confer human rights. A person with 50% brain damage, or a person in a coma does not have their rights reduced to only 50% of what they were before.
2. In your example, if you killed that person in the permanent vegetative state, it would be a homicide. It would be totally illegal. Taking them off life support is a different thing. Its not killing them. Its just not forcing them to stay alive beyond their natural lifespan. Abortion is killing.
3. In your example, the person is in a permanent vegetative state. The "unborn" are growing rapidly all the time, with brain activity constantly increasing. Your example compares maybe to a case of FFA, where it has been already diagnosed that the foetus is doomed. But not to the vast majority of abortions.
smacl wrote: » Being a first trimester foetus doesn't confer personhood and attendant human rights either, nor does being a freshly fertilised ovum, nor a newly implanted embryo. At some point you have to state what attributes make a person a person. Religiously inclined people might consider a soul and the point of ensoulment, non-religious people might consider a mind, others on this thread are apparently very taken with fingers, toes and given the appearance of being sufficiently baby-like. Again, this is a matter of opinion. The pregnant woman is the life support for a foetus, no more nor less than the life support system for person in a PVS. Remove either and the probability of survival is zero. One is exactly as comparable to killing as the other, though the life support system for the PVS person isn't a person in their own right going through significant hardship to keep going. My example was simply to illustrate that we consider having a mind that functions at some level an essential part of being a person. No more, no less.
end of the road wrote: » being a first trimester foetus does confer human rights in this country though
smacl wrote: » At some point you have to state what attributes make a person a person.
