Abortion - why not?

JustHalf · 14-03-2002 11:26AM

I didn't answer your question, MrEnvy, because the likelihood of me not noticing something was wrong in that scenario is pretty much zero.

Although it is possible someone could hide their pregnancy from someone, I was under the impression that rape had a massively detrimental effect on a person. If it could be so bad as to allow someone to kill their baby, surely it should be so bad as to mean I'd be able to see something was hurting my friend?

By the way, on the shades of grey bit... if abortion is killing a baby, it is black and white (unless you're an idiot who believes that not only is the unborn child a human being with a right to life but that the mothers right to kill it is more important*) you don't allow abortion**. If it's not killing a baby, then you can think up the scenarios under which abortion should and should not be allowed (the shades of gray).

* I've come across a person who believes that the unborn child is a person (just like you or me) -- not a "potential" person, but a person. Just to make it clear.

** Where it is not to save a life

MrPudding · 14-03-2002 11:40AM

Originally posted by bonkey

If you wish to make a case for suicidal rape victims being allowed to have abortions, then by all means do so, but please please address it in terms of when you feel the abortion should be allowable, and justify why you can tell any suicidal rape victim who falls outside your boundaries that they have no choice.

jc

I make no claim to know when a bunch of cells become life, I make no statements that abortion should be available up until x weeks or whatever. The reason I don’t make these statements is simply I don’t know the answers. If I don’t know something I will not make claims based on a lack of knowledge. People with an expertise in this field should make those decisions. If a raped woman knows that abortion is available she is more likely to ask for help, part of this help will be counseling and so maybe she will not have an abortion after all. It comes down to what JustHalf said, he like myself and probably most of the people reading this thread would do anything for their close friends and family, and that may be enough to get them through it but you have to know there is a problem. The woman will also know when the cut off point is so it becomes less likely that you will have to tell a woman that she can no longer have the abortion. If you look and my first and subsequent posts you will see that I am responding to a claim that abortion is not the only solution to a raped and suicidal pregnant woman. My point is that if a raped pregnant and suicidal woman knows that she cannot legally have an abortion in this country and decides to take matters into her own hands without a “cry for help” how do you help her after she has already taken her own life.

Originally posted by bonkey

Or....wait....what if it didnt manifest itself until *after* the birth.

What if the mother though all was well, and someday woke up, went into the baby room and suddenly it all came flooding back. This child will be a constant reminder of everything she has been trying to suppress, and she finally cant take it any more. Even were she to give the child up for adoption, she would *know* that the child was out there, and it would haunt her forever.

So, I guess she should have the right to kill the child in this scenario as well???

jc

This has nothing to do with a discussion on abortion. If a mother killed her child after birth it is a different matter completely and is dealt with in the courts. Mother’s who have had children in loving, non-rape relationships have been known to kill their children in fits of depression. A classic example is on the news at the moment, a mother who just decided one day that she was going to drown her 5 children in the bath. The whole *mad or bad* thing is a completely different subject and a thread on abortion is not the place for it.

MrPudding · 14-03-2002 11:52AM

Originally posted by JustHalf
I didn't answer your question, MrEnvy, because the likelihood of me not noticing something was wrong in that scenario is pretty much zero.

Although it is possible someone could hide their pregnancy from someone, I was under the impression that rape had a massively detrimental effect on a person. If it could be so bad as to allow someone to kill their baby, surely it should be so bad as to mean I'd be able to see something was hurting my friend?

I admire your self belief, but really you have to face up to reality. How many suicides take place in this country? Do you think these people's loved ones just ignored the signs. Ask the parent who comes home from work to find their child hanging from the banister because they couldn't take the bullying in school anymore. I know this is slightly off subject but do you not think that if a child could hide suicidal feelings from the people who raised them and know them better than anyone in the world that maybe a person could hide the same feelings from a friend, no matter how close. This happens every day and I have personal experience of it. If they don't want you to know you will not know.

JustHalf · 14-03-2002 12:16PM

Suicidal feelings come on slowly and over time as you sink into depression.

Rape isn't anywhere near as slow a process when it comes to hurting you, surely? I mean, if one of my friends was raped, I'd know something was wrong. There'd be a rapid and marked change in behaviour, for one thing.

Unless you think that someone can be happy one day, then be raped and be still just as happy; then sink slowly into depression.

Slutmonkey57b · 14-03-2002 12:20PM

I've posted elsewhere about the referendum topic (see the trimble thread in politics) so I won't repeat that here except to say that had the referendum gone through, justhalf might have been faced with the prospect of 12 years in jail if the friend he was supporting asked him for a loan of some money so she could go to england - even if it he had no idea what the money was for, he would have been assisting her in procuring an abortion.

(incidentally, would your support for a friend override whatever personal opinions you might have on the subject justhalf? From reading your posts I conclude it would, but I may be mistaken.)

Abortion is an inherently divisive issue. All sides of the argument (there are more than two) can make persuasive legal, ethical and scientific arguments to support their case. The two lives in question, existing and potential, are unfortunantly not seperable until the late stages of pregnancy. The difference is that one life is dependant on the other.

David Norris said it most succinctly when he said (in the evening herald of all places) that regardless of your moral opinion on the matter, the constitution is not the place to wage the war.

I don't think the argument about abortion is ever going to go away. The question is should people be allowed to choose for themselves, or should society's opinions be imposed? I would argue that society's opinions should be imposed on the individual only where the other members of society are directly affected by that individual's descisions : eg heroin should be illegal because it leads to crime, which affects people other than the one that made the descision to take the drug.

Does a woman's descision to have an abortion affect those who are unaware of her (or her baby's) existance? I would say not. Some would argue that that descision affects everyone morally regardless of whether they know the individual or not. Does this mean that their potential discomfort should be allowed to override the discomfort of the persons involved? Can the same argument be made of murder of a separate individual? I would say not - the individual being murdered has an existance entirely separate from the murderer (even if they are related) - a foetus and mother do not have the same relationship. People other than the two involved in a murder will always be directly affected by the murder. The same cannot necessarily be said of an abortion.

Does the foetus exist as an individual (even a symbiotic one?) Again a divisive issue. A foetus can be fully technically formed to be shaped and structured like an individual human - but may not be capable of sustaining its own life. Was it ever alive, despite the fact that it grew? Are human rights defined for those that are shaped and structured like humans, or those who show human levels of interaction with their environment, or a combination thereof? Perhaps when artificial intelligence is sufficiently advanced we will have another counterpoint to the argument, no?

More spurious debate, I know, but then in many ways its a spurious and inherently irreconcilable topic. Which is unfortunate.

Lemming · 14-03-2002 01:08PM

Originally posted by JustHalf
Rape isn't anywhere near as slow a process when it comes to hurting you, surely? I mean, if one of my friends was raped, I'd know something was wrong. There'd be a rapid and marked change in behaviour, for one thing.

Agreed justhalf. But still though, you will only know that something is seriously wrong, but not to what extent, unless that person is willing to tell you the most intimate details of what's going on in their mind.

As I've said before, an ordeal like that will do things that nhot even you or I, or possibly even the victim themselves, can ever realise. Ultimately all we can do is OFFER to be there should they need us. We can't help them unless they actually WANT to take our help. The reality is even though you will be there for that person, you're not

neuro-praxis · 14-03-2002 05:09PM

Well JustHalf, as my old buddy, I'm rather pleased to hear that you'll be solid as a rock if I ever get up the pole.

And just a note on people hiding their pregnancies, my best friend while I was living in Sligo managed to hide her pregnancy (from absolutely everyone!) until the day she gave birth. She looked like she was simply putting on a bit of weight (not even much weight, really). She went to Dublin, alone, on the train, booked herself into the Rotunda, and hey presto. And then she rang me up and said, "Eh, Claire, I had a baby two days ago." I was like, "Yeah, whatever." :rolleyes: But, shock, it was true!

I'm pleased to report that both baby and mother are wonderfully happy and healthy at present.

bonkey · 15-03-2002 10:32AM

Originally posted by MrEnvy
If a raped woman knows that abortion is available she is more likely to ask for help, part of this help will be counseling and so maybe she will not have an abortion after all.

My point is that if a raped pregnant and suicidal woman knows that she cannot legally have an abortion in this country and decides to take matters into her own hands without a “cry for help” how do you help her after she has already taken her own life.

Oh - I'm sorry. I didnt realise you were an expert on the psychology of rape victims.

This is absolute rot. You are implying that there is a significant argument to say that rape victims not seek professional counselling unless abortion were available in this country.

Can you supply a single shred of evidence to back this up, or are you just supposing that you understand the mindset of the rape victim well enough to make this claim. Please remember that at the same time you are arguing that people cannot know their mindset well enough in order to be able to offer help because they mightnt know anything was wrong.

You understand their mindset in order to make these claims - so why is it so tough for others to be as good as you? Or are you just making unfounded claims?

This has nothing to do with a discussion on abortion. If a mother killed her child after birth it is a different matter completely and is dealt with in the courts.

Here we go again. If a mother killed her child before birth, but after the law of the land has determined it to be human, then it is the exact same scenario.

If a woman aborts before the point where the law of the land has determined that it is human, then there is no issue, regardless of whether or not the woman is suicidal, in which case the whole "suicidal rape victim" angle is not relevant, because we're talking about something which isnt a life.

In short, the entire argument about suicidal rape victims is a complete piece of smoke and mirrors. The question still remains in each and every scenario you present of "how long has the term progressed" - a question which you shy away from answering while still arguing that abortion (and information about it) should be available.

Its not that simple. If the law decided that abortion was legal for everyone, subject to counselling, up to 6 weeks, would you be up in arms about the 7-week pregnant suicidal rape victim?

If not, then you must acknowledge that the question today is not just about suicidal rape victims, but about the term of the pregnancy.

On the other hand, if you would argue in favour of the 7-week case, then justify why you wont draw a line in the sand as to when it is legal, but would not accept someone elses line once drawn.

Ultimately, its simple. Rightly or wrongly, a line has been drawn in this country, and you are arguing that you disagree with the position of this line. It is set at conception, and you think that there are situations where this should not be the case.

Well - fine - you have the right to disagree with the current line.

But explain why then, at the top of your post, you decided that you wouldnt answer the question of where the line should be drawn, because :

make no claim to know when a bunch of cells become life, I make no statements that abortion should be available up until x weeks or whatever. The reason I don’t make these statements is simply I don’t know the answers. If I don’t know something I will not make claims based on a lack of knowledge

So - let me get this straight :

You are not making claims when you disagree with the current legal definition in this country of when life begins - at conception, or at least that this should not apply in suicidal rape cases, whatever about other cases.

Despite this, you refuse to say up to which point abortion should be allowed, because you wont comment when youre not informed ?

Be a bit more honest. Either youre making informed claims or your not. You cant argue against the current definition of when life begins and then say that you will leave it to others to decide/define when it begins because you dont know. You obviously know enough to disagree with the current legal decision in Ireland.

Also, I would ask why suicidal rape victims would have any special dispensation. If we are not dealing with a life, all women should have equal rights to an abortion. If we are dealing with a life, but make a specal case for suicide rape cases, then I go back to my argument about when we stop drawing the line for suicidal rape victims to be allowed kill what the law classifies as a seperate life - the argument you claim is completely seperate to the issue.

jc

JustHalf · 17-03-2002 06:22PM

Originally posted by Slutmonkey57b
(incidentally, would your support for a friend override whatever personal opinions you might have on the subject justhalf? From reading your posts I conclude it would, but I may be mistaken.)

You are.

I protect my friends from doing themselves harm, too. And I fail to see how having an abortion will help them more than the other alternatives.

Also, I don't want my friends committing an act worse than rape because they were raped.

androphobic · 19-03-2002 02:20AM

Unless you have an abortion, you will never, ever know...

You can spout scientific or religious views all you like, but you'll never know what it's like to be in that situation.

Scenario #1: Your friend has tonsilitis. You tell them you hope they get well soon and you know how they're feeling (cos you had tonsilitis before too).

Scenario #2: Your friend's dad dies. You tell them you're there for them and you're thinking about them, but you can't really imagine how they're feeling. Your grandad died last year, so you've some idea what it's like to be bereaved but of course not on the same level.

Scenario #3: Your friend decides to have an abortion. You have no idea how they're feeling.. what has brought them to this decision, none whatsoever, and you probably never, ever will.

Until you stand in someone's shoes...

neuro-praxis · 19-03-2002 02:21PM

Oh, of course you're right. Unless you've HAD an abortion, you can't say whether it's right or wrong. It's just like murder; unless you've actually been in the situation where a person was an inconvenience to you and you had to murder them, you can't say whether it's right or wrong.

Yes, let's never rationalise anything. Let's just decide everything by our emotions. :rolleyes: Ah, relativism, the great evil.

I can tell you for absolute certain - if I get pregnant tomorrow, I will have the child. The thought of murdering it would sicken and disgust and terrify me. The thought of raising it might be scary, but it would be my BABY and not some dirty little inconvenience! : :mad:

Slutmonkey57b · 23-03-2002 09:46AM

Originally posted by JustHalf
I protect my friends from doing themselves harm, too. And I fail to see how having an abortion will help them more than the other alternatives.

Also, I don't want my friends committing an act worse than rape because they were raped.

This may mean that you could be faced with a situation where a friend who has had an abortion may look to you for emotional support - personally i'd admire anyone's courage who could reconcile the tow positions but there you go.

The victim of a rape has to continue living with the consequences of that crime. The victim of a murder or abortion does not. In both cases those close to the victim are affected but in many ways the consequences of rape and sexual crime are unjustly underestimated in the country. I would be very strongly of the opinion that there are very few worse crimes in the world than those that leave a scarred victim behind.

The question of allowing a suicidal woman access to abortion boils down to another problem:
Can society justify the sacrifice of one life (or potential life dependng on the state of gestation) to save another? If the mother commits suicide both lives are lost. If an abortion is performed one is lost (or not allowed to develop if you take that view). Can society accept that in some cases a proscription on abortion will result in abortion through the loss of both lives?

JustHalf · 23-03-2002 12:12PM

Originally posted by Slutmonkey57b
This may mean that you could be faced with a situation where a friend who has had an abortion may look to you for emotional support - personally i'd admire anyone's courage who could reconcile the tow positions but there you go.

That is after the abortion. I can't stop someone from doing something they've already done.

Originally posted by Slutmonkey57b
The victim of a rape has to continue living with the consequences of that crime. The victim of a murder or abortion does not.

Unless you'll also justify murdering any person by this point, it's not really much of a point. If I go out and kill someone, they don't need to live with the consequences of that crime; because they're dead.

Originally posted by Slutmonkey57b
In both cases those close to the victim are affected but in many ways the consequences of rape and sexual crime are unjustly underestimated in the country.

Support your point.

Originally posted by Slutmonkey57b
I would be very strongly of the opinion that there are very few worse crimes in the world than those that leave a scarred victim behind.

I'd say killing people is worse, like.

Originally posted by Slutmonkey57b
The question of allowing a suicidal woman access to abortion boils down to another problem:
Can society justify the sacrifice of one life (or potential life dependng on the state of gestation) to save another? If the mother commits suicide both lives are lost. If an abortion is performed one is lost (or not allowed to develop if you take that view). Can society accept that in some cases a proscription on abortion will result in abortion through the loss of both lives?

Explain why abortion is the best and only option available to stop suicidal pregnant women from committing suicide.

Slutmonkey57b · 24-03-2002 11:33AM

The lack of attention paid to the consequences of sexual assault can easily be seen in relation to the court's judgements. Look at the case of the 77 year old paedophile priest who had 3 separate convictions suspended on the basis that he had "admitted his guilt at the earliest opportunity", ie a mere 33 years after the event. One of the few occassions where a string of sexual crimes was handed an appropriate sentace was hijacked on the basis that the judge did not find that continued incarceration of the offender served any purpose - provided he leave the country! So that's all right then - at least he'd be somewhere else potentially abusing kids. Or the perpetrator of an extremely violent drunken attack on a woman who had his one year sentance suspended and was told "good luck" on his way out by the judge. Or the man in the X case who after committing one of the most notorious crimes in the history of the state was released early on the basis that he "probably" wouldn't re-offend, despite not having attended any treatment courses in prison, only to famously re-offend, attempt to blame the crime on a neighbour's son, and have his sentance again reduced by the court to a mere 3 years. Pick up a paper, it's usually on the front page.

The victim of a rape has to continue living with the consequences of that crime. The victim of a murder or abortion does not.

Unless you'll also justify murdering any person by this point, it's not really much of a point. If I go out and kill someone, they don't need to live with the consequences of that crime; because they're dead.

Exactly my point - murder has more deletrious consequences in that the victim is dead, but it does not leave the victim with continued suffering. You're dead, you're dead, no more harm can come to you - once raped however, you're raped for the rest of your life. Murder is certainly a heinous crime, but is it more horrifying? Most of us would probably agree that torturing someone for weeks then slowly killing them is worse than walking up behind them and shooting them in the head - because more pain and terror is inflicted on the victim. Ditto with rape.
Murder is considered to be the most serious crime not for the effect it had on the victim - who is beyond caring - but because the crime shows that the perpetrator has crossed the final taboo and considers other humans to be expendable if they impede him in some manner.

Can society accept that in some cases a proscription on abortion will result in abortion through the loss of both lives?

Explain why abortion is the best and only option available to stop suicidal pregnant women from committing suicide.

I didn't say that it was either the best or the only - read the question again. What I posed was that we have to accept that pregnant women have committed suicide in the past, and that some of those women might not have done had they had an abortion. Also, some of those might not have if they had had counselling. It's a purely theoretical point, but it's not one that can merely be ignored. So - can society accept the possibility of the loss of both lives if it outlaws abortion? Could we look someone's family in the face and say "yes, I know your daughter killed herself and her baby but at least she didn't have an abortion. That would have been wrong. The result in this case is worse but there you go." Does society have that right? Is that a decision that really makes sense? It may make sense from an "I think abortion is wrong" point of view but it's not necessarily the most useful real-world sense.

JustHalf · 25-03-2002 11:12AM

Originally posted by Slutmonkey57b
The lack of attention paid to the consequences of sexual assault can easily be seen in relation to the court's judgements. Look at the case of the 77 year old paedophile priest who had 3 separate convictions suspended on the basis that he had "admitted his guilt at the earliest opportunity", ie a mere 33 years after the event. One of the few occassions where a string of sexual crimes was handed an appropriate sentace was hijacked on the basis that the judge did not find that continued incarceration of the offender served any purpose - provided he leave the country! So that's all right then - at least he'd be somewhere else potentially abusing kids. Or the perpetrator of an extremely violent drunken attack on a woman who had his one year sentance suspended and was told "good luck" on his way out by the judge. Or the man in the X case who after committing one of the most notorious crimes in the history of the state was released early on the basis that he "probably" wouldn't re-offend, despite not having attended any treatment courses in prison, only to famously re-offend, attempt to blame the crime on a neighbour's son, and have his sentance again reduced by the court to a mere 3 years. Pick up a paper, it's usually on the front page.

So you don't mean in general, you mean specifically the judicial system, right?

Originally posted by Slutmonkey57b
Exactly my point - murder has more deletrious consequences in that the victim is dead, but it does not leave the victim with continued suffering. You're dead, you're dead, no more harm can come to you - once raped however, you're raped for the rest of your life. Murder is certainly a heinous crime, but is it more horrifying? Most of us would probably agree that torturing someone for weeks then slowly killing them is worse than walking up behind them and shooting them in the head - because more pain and terror is inflicted on the victim. Ditto with rape.

There's a big difference between slowly torturing someone to death and torturing someone (ie. rape with no murder). You end up dead in the first one, not in the second. At least the rape victim lives. At least they'll get a chance to experience joy again.

Originally posted by Slutmonkey57b
Murder is considered to be the most serious crime not for the effect it had on the victim - who is beyond caring - but because the crime shows that the perpetrator has crossed the final taboo and considers other humans to be expendable if they impede him in some manner.

I think it is down to the effect on the victim. They can no longer feel any pain, but they can no longer feel any joy again. You don't take that away from someone without very powerful justification.

Originally posted by Slutmonkey57b
I didn't say that it was either the best or the only - read the question again. What I posed was that we have to accept that pregnant women have committed suicide in the past, and that some of those women might not have done had they had an abortion. Also, some of those might not have if they had had counselling. It's a purely theoretical point, but it's not one that can merely be ignored. So - can society accept the possibility of the loss of both lives if it outlaws abortion? Could we look someone's family in the face and say "yes, I know your daughter killed herself and her baby but at least she didn't have an abortion. That would have been wrong. The result in this case is worse but there you go." Does society have that right? Is that a decision that really makes sense? It may make sense from an "I think abortion is wrong" point of view but it's not necessarily the most useful real-world sense.

You should probably read most of my posts again re suicide.

Abortion - why not?

Comments