Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Abortion- Right or Wrong

Options
24567…19

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Publin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 288 ✭✭Publin


    Earthhorse wrote: »
    On the other hand legalising abortion takes the choice of whether to keep and raise a child entirely out of the man's hands.

    An excellent point, and one often forgotten/ignored in the heated debate that this topic often generates.
    Malari wrote: »
    I don't have to specify a cut-off point to have the view that abortion is suitable for some people.

    That's fair enough, but if we were to legalise it we'd need a cut-off point.

    For me, abortion is wrong. I do however, believe it will be legalised here, probably within a decade or two, and certainly within my lifetime.

    I know contraception doesn't work all the time etc. but if you're adult enough to be having sex you should be adult enough to accept the potential consequences if there is an "accident".


  • Options
    #33
    eveie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 307 ✭✭eveie


    "I disagree.

    The death of an unborn, unwanted child is of no consequence to society. And just because I take this position doesn't mean I advocate the killing of any other human ex utero.

    So therefore, the one situation where I would advocate the killing of a human being would be if it were unborn, as I don't see any inherent need to grant it any rights. " qoute form jc2k3

    if we so flipently dispose of the unborn we are attacking the most vunerable in our society, if we cannot look after the most vunerable who can we look after.
    would you say that a child 3 minds pre born has no rights?>>
    Today 12:27


  • Options
    #34
    Wibbs
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,075 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    Earthhorse wrote: »
    On the other hand legalising abortion takes the choice of whether to keep and raise a child entirely out of the man's hands.
    That's part of the issue I have with this. In the case of abortion, many pro choice will say it's entirely the woman's choice, her body etc and as a man I have no right to make a choice on this either way. Yet when she gives birth I then have to take responsibility in law and society in the supporting of that child. Even if I didn't want the child in the first place.

    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.



  • Options
    #35
    JC 2K3
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,794 ✭✭✭JC 2K3


    eveie wrote: »
    if we so flipently dispose of the unborn we are attacking the most vunerable in our society, if we cannot look after the most vunerable who can we look after.
    What does that even mean? That's just a load of meaningless rhetoric.

    To attempt to answer your question: em... the second most vulnerable group and up?

    Personally, I don't believe unborn children to be a part of society anyway.
    eveie wrote: »
    would you say that a child 3 minds pre born has no rights?
    What?


  • Options
    #36
    Zulu
    Registered Users Posts: 10,965 ✭✭✭✭Zulu


    Malari wrote: »
    Yes, this is true in some circumstances.
    Its true in all circumstances. Unless you care to believe that the immaculate conception is a more commonly occurring phenomenon.
    But a man's investment in reproduction is over at conception, whereas a woman needs to invest a lot more through pregnancy. So it's not exactly the same.
    It's nice the way a fathers role can so easily be downgraded to suit an argument. Does that logic also apply when supporting a single mother?
    "Well, I didn't really invest as much as you in the pregnancy, so I'm only going to pay you 15% maintainence!" :rolleyes:


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Zulu wrote: »
    Abortion as family planning is wrong.

    Why? Because I think it's wrong to kill another person, for the sake of convenience.

    Whats the right reason to kill another person?


  • Options
    #38
    Earthhorse
    Registered Users Posts: 14,715 ✭✭✭✭Earthhorse


    Malari wrote: »
    Yes, this is true in some circumstances. But a man's investment in reproduction is over at conception, whereas a woman needs to invest a lot more through pregnancy. So it's not exactly the same.

    Not exactly the same but still worth considering. We cannot make it otherwise unfortunately; right now, we're stuck with what biology gave us.
    Publin wrote: »
    For me, abortion is wrong. I do however, believe it will be legalised here, probably within a decade or two, and certainly within my lifetime.

    I agree, abortion will more than likely be legalised in this country in the next few decades.


  • Options
    #39
    JC 2K3
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,794 ✭✭✭JC 2K3


    Earthhorse wrote: »
    On the other hand legalising abortion takes the choice of whether to keep and raise a child entirely out of the man's hands.
    No it doesn't. Abortion laws based on the "it's the woman's choice" line of thinking does. There's no reason, however, that laws could not be brought in that are protective of the father's rights.


  • Options
    #40
    eveie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 307 ✭✭eveie


    "The death of an unborn, unwanted child is of no consequence to society."
    "So therefore, the one situation where I would advocate the killing of a human being would be if it were unborn, as I don't see any inherent need to grant it any rights." this is what you stated jc2k3 so in other words only born children have rights? what i asked was does a child who is 3 minutes away from being born have rights?


  • Options
    #41
    Earthhorse
    Registered Users Posts: 14,715 ✭✭✭✭Earthhorse


    Wicknight wrote: »
    Whats the right reason to kill another person?

    Self defense?
    JC 2K3 wrote: »
    No it doesn't. Abortion laws based on the "it's the woman's choice" line of thinking does. There's no reason, however, that laws could not be brought in that are protective of the father's rights.

    How would such a law work?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    JC 2K3
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,794 ✭✭✭JC 2K3


    eveie wrote: »
    "The death of an unborn, unwanted child is of no consequence to society."
    "So therefore, the one situation where I would advocate the killing of a human being would be if it were unborn, as I don't see any inherent need to grant it any rights." this is what you stated jc2k3 so in other words only born children have rights?
    In my opinion, yes.
    eveie wrote: »
    what i asked was does a child who is 3 minutes away from being born have rights?
    In my opinion, no.


  • Options
    #43
    Publin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 288 ✭✭Publin


    JC 2K3 wrote: »
    No it doesn't. Abortion laws based on the "it's the woman's choice" line of thinking does. There's no reason, however, that laws could not be brought in that are protective of the father's rights.

    So if the woman goes for the abortion and tells the medical staff that "oh well, I'm not sure who the father is", even though she knows and hasn't consulted him?... I think it'd be just about impossible to have a law like that which would work in practice. Nice in theory though.


  • Options
    #44
    AngryBadger
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,251 ✭✭✭AngryBadger


    JC 2K3 wrote: »
    No it doesn't. Abortion laws based on the "it's the woman's choice" line of thinking does. There's no reason, however, that laws could not be brought in that are protective of the father's rights.

    I'm not really interested in this side of the debate, however there's no such thing as an abortion law that doesn't function along the lines of "It's the womans choice". Like it or not possession is nine tenths of the law, and since it's the womans body, no man is ever going to get an equal say in what happens to the foetus/embryo/baby she's carrying.


  • Options
    #45
    Malari
    Registered Users Posts: 18,150 ✭✭✭✭Malari


    Zulu wrote: »
    Its true in all circumstances. Unless you care to believe that the immaculate conception is a more commonly occurring phenomenon.
    It's nice the way a fathers role can so easily be downgraded to suit an argument. Does that logic also apply when supporting a single mother?
    "Well, I didn't really invest as much as you in the pregnancy, so I'm only going to pay you 15% maintainence!" :rolleyes:


    OK, well you said, "On the other hand legalising abortion takes the choice of whether to keep and raise a child entirely out of the man's hands." and I think this is only in the case where it is not a decision of the couple, just the woman on her own.

    And as one poster adds above, this is not to say fathers will not be granted protection laws too.

    As for investment, I am talking about the biological reproductive process. It's an often used term in biology to describe parental involvement. I am not commenting on the father's input in a child.


  • Options
    #46
    Wibbs
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,075 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    Zulu wrote: »
    It's nice the way a fathers role can so easily be downgraded to suit an argument. Does that logic also apply when supporting a single mother?
    "Well, I didn't really invest as much as you in the pregnancy, so I'm only going to pay you 15% maintainence!" :rolleyes:
    Not too far wrong. Yes the woman goes through the pregnancy and it is her body, but it all too often seems like it's a convenient thing to hang mens rights or lack of them on the debate. We could extend this the other way, if a woman has more to lose by carrying a baby and it's entirely her choice whether to carry to full term then why do we say for example that contraception should be equally shared?

    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.



  • Options
    #47
    Nevyn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 43,045 ✭✭✭✭Nevyn


    Believe it or not that is one of the many range of choices included in a person being pro choice.
    AngryBadger wrote: »
    What about the choice to not get pregnant? Not having a dig at you incidentally gcgirl, you just happened to say "pro-choice" which made for a handy quote :D


  • Options
    #48
    eveie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 307 ✭✭eveie


    ok jc2k3 so basically what your saying is that i child 3 minutes away frombeingborn isnt human? so being born makes us human? becuase all humans have rights so by saying a child has no rights when its 3 miunutes away from being bron is saing its not human?
    imagine some day your wife/partner is in labour and something goes wrong, now your wife/partner will be fine but the babies life is a risk what would you do if the surgeon stopped what he was doing and he said game over, sure its not a human yet


  • Options
    #49
    AngryBadger
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,251 ✭✭✭AngryBadger


    Thaedydal wrote: »
    Believe it or not that is one of the many range of choices included in a person being pro choice.

    Point taken.

    I just usually find that when people proclaim themselves as "pro-choice" they really mean "I'm pro-choice about abortion and that's it".


  • Options
    #50
    JC 2K3
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,794 ✭✭✭JC 2K3


    Earthhorse wrote: »
    How would such a law work?
    Well there are essentially two situations where a father could have his rights infringed/be exploited - if he doesn't want the child yet the mother refuses to have an abortion and he's forced to pay child support or if he wants the child and the mother wants an abortion.

    I think in the first scenario, if in court it could be proven that the father and mother never agreed that they wanted children together, then he should not have to pay anything, and in the second scenario, if the same could be disproven then the abortion could be vetoed, perhaps with custody of the child going straight to the father after birth.

    I haven't thought it through, but it's just an example as to how something like that might work.


  • Options
    #51
    Nevyn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 43,045 ✭✭✭✭Nevyn


    AngryBadger wrote: »
    I'm not really interested in this side of the debate, however there's no such thing as an abortion law that doesn't function along the lines of "It's the womans choice". Like it or not possession is nine tenths of the law, and since it's the womans body, no man is ever going to get an equal say in what happens to the foetus/embryo/baby she's carrying.

    Yes possession is 9/10s and women posses a womb men don't.

    It's mine I own it, I get to say what goes in it, I also get to say what I do not want in it.
    I certainly would not go around telling men what do to with their testicles.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    JC 2K3
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,794 ✭✭✭JC 2K3


    eveie wrote: »
    becuase all humans have rights
    I have to stop you there.

    This isn't a scientific fact, all humans having rights is simply an ideology. I don't believe we have to grant these rights to the unborn.


  • Options
    #53
    Zulu
    Registered Users Posts: 10,965 ✭✭✭✭Zulu


    Malari wrote: »
    OK, well you said, "On the other hand legalising abortion takes the choice of whether to keep and raise a child entirely out of the man's hands." and I think this is only in the case where it is not a decision of the couple, just the woman on her own.
    Perhaps you are right. But wheither or not it was a joint decision doesn't matter. When push comes to shove, the mother makes/has the choice. She can change her mind and the father has no choice.
    And as one poster adds above, this is not to say fathers will not be granted protection laws too.
    Of course they won't. They haven't to date and it would be impossible to implement.
    As for investment, I am talking about the biological reproductive process. It's an often used term in biology to describe parental involvement. I am not commenting on the father's input in a child.
    You are though. Once you determine that a mother has more say due to the fact that she's supporting the unborn child, you lessen the fathers say.


  • Options
    #54
    Nevyn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 43,045 ✭✭✭✭Nevyn


    What are these rights ?
    Where are they listed ?
    Who confers them ?


  • Options
    #55
    Zulu
    Registered Users Posts: 10,965 ✭✭✭✭Zulu


    Thaedydal wrote: »
    Yes possession is 9/10s and women posses a womb men don't.

    It's mine I own it, I get to say what goes in it, I also get to say what I do not want in it.
    I own a house. I get to say what goes on in it. I also get to say what I don't want in it.

    Can I kill the tenant I no longer want? It'd be a lot easier than waiting for the lease to expire.


  • Options
    #56
    Earthhorse
    Registered Users Posts: 14,715 ✭✭✭✭Earthhorse


    Malari wrote: »
    OK, well you said, "On the other hand legalising abortion takes the choice of whether to keep and raise a child entirely out of the man's hands." and I think this is only in the case where it is not a decision of the couple, just the woman on her own.

    Actually, I said that, though Zulu thanked it so we can assume he agrees. Why do you think that's the only part of the decision that the woman should get to make on her own?
    Malari wrote: »
    And as one poster adds above, this is not to say fathers will not be granted protection laws too.

    To the best of my knowledge there are no laws in existence in any country where abortion is legalised that allow father's to have a say in whether the abortion takes place.
    JC 2K3 wrote: »
    I think in the first scenario, if in court it could be proven that the father and mother never agreed that they wanted children together, then he should not have to pay anything...

    That's virtually impossible to prove without some written contract that the couple intended to have children together. Everything else presented will be essentially be hearsay.
    JC 2K3 wrote: »
    ...and in the second scenario, if the same could be disproven then the abortion could be vetoed, perhaps with custody of the child going straight to the father after birth.

    Knowing our court system (indeed, any western court system) you could probably delay until the due date to get the result you wanted. This also comes up against the same problem when it comes to hearsay.
    JC 2K3 wrote: »
    I haven't thought it through, but it's just an example as to how something like that might work.

    I think that if you think it through you'll find it wouldn't work at all.


  • Options
    #57
    Nevyn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 43,045 ✭✭✭✭Nevyn


    Zulu wrote: »
    I own a house. I get to say what goes on in it. I also get to say what I don't want in it.

    Can I kill the tenant I no longer want? It'd be a lot easier than waiting for the lease to expire.

    You can evict them.


  • Options
    #58
    all the stars
    Registered Users Posts: 1,058 ✭✭✭all the stars


    Zulu wrote: »
    And what of the fathers choice?
    Or the childs choice?

    ..or do these two people not count?


    I

    they do count.. however, i actually know of someone, who was in a long-term relationship, her O/H wanted kids. She felt she wasn't ready and didn't want to...
    However, he kinda talked her around and after a while they planned for a baby toghether.

    She was about 4/5 months expecting when he left and said he wanted nothing to do with them.

    While of course, the mans' say is important, ultimatly he can fairly head off whenever he wants to become a weekend daddy (if even) ...
    generally, the woman is left with baby ( well, not "left"- that sounds bad but i dont mean it in a bad way- just cant find the correct way to explain)


  • Options
    #59
    JC 2K3
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,794 ✭✭✭JC 2K3


    Thaedydal wrote: »
    Yes possession is 9/10s and women posses a womb men don't.

    It's mine I own it, I get to say what goes in it, I also get to say what I do not want in it.
    Thaedydal wrote: »
    You can evict them.
    It's comments like these that make me wonder what the abortion debate will be like if/when artificial, external wombs are created. Could a father claim that a mother has no right to kill his unborn child, but instead request that she have it extracted and placed into one of these accordingly?


  • Options
    #60
    AngryBadger
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,251 ✭✭✭AngryBadger


    Thaedydal wrote: »
    Yes possession is 9/10s and women posses a womb men don't.

    It's mine I own it, I get to say what goes in it, I also get to say what I do not want in it.
    I certainly would not go around telling men what do to with their testicles.

    I'm maybe missing something here, but I'm neither going to wake up with a zygote growing in my scrotum, or with a woman telling me she's pregnant with my child in any circumstance other than a planned one. I'm not alone in this, innumerable people/couples have managed to have children within the confines of a stable relationship, I simply don't understand why we talk about unplanned pregnancies as if they happen by magic, and how this somehow justifies abortion as a way to deal with that problem?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    Publin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 288 ✭✭Publin


    Thaedydal wrote: »
    Yes possession is 9/10s and women posses a womb men don't.

    It's mine I own it, I get to say what goes in it, I also get to say what I do not want in it.
    I certainly would not go around telling men what do to with their testicles.

    Yes you have a womb and you own it, but do you alone "own" the baby growing inside in your opinion?


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement