Abortion- Right or Wrong

jim o doom · 02-09-2008 03:54PM

tallaght01 wrote: »

So, what's the link between abortion and mums who booze/take drugs?

Should they have forced abortions? Or should we take them as having a mental illness which should disallow them from making such an important call?

What are these women doing in this thread?

I'm lost :P

It's fairly obvious; the pro-life/anti-abortion crowd love to throw out the whole "ABORTION IS WRONG in every instance"
I never stated they should be forced to have an abortion, I stated they should not be forced to have a child, if they did not want it.
Clearly a woman who drinks and smokes during pregnancy is not only an unfit mother, but also unfit as a living incubator which could simply dispense the child to the adoption services upon birth.. as the baby could well be damaged by the mothers actions during pregnancy.
explain clearly why this woman should be forced to have a child and be disallowed an abortion?
and don't give me the whole "it's a baby" thing because I've heard that thrown against so many reasonable arguments thus far that it's becoming pointless to argue our side of the story..

Zulu · 02-09-2008 03:56PM

jim o doom wrote: »

Well done.. the issue is resolved by you and your mighty all encompassing book of "definitions".. abortion is WRONG - the dictionary says a fetus really is a child! we are going to hell!

No Jim, I'm merely pointing out how wrong your point about using the word "child" incorrectly was used as a tactic. And I provided evidence to back that up.
You subsequent posting are inane drivel really. I never mentioned anything about anyone going to hell.

I'll tell you what, when you want to re-engage with the adults in a rational conversation, do so. And try to provide some sliver of credence to your points.

tallaght01 · 02-09-2008 03:57PM

jim o doom wrote: »

It's fairly obvious; the pro-life/anti-abortion crowd love to throw out the whole "ABORTION IS WRONG in every instance"
I never stated they should be forced to have an abortion, I stated they should not be forced to have a child, if they did not want it.
Clearly a woman who drinks and smokes during pregnancy is not only an unfit mother, but also unfit as a living incubator which could simply dispense the child to the adoption services upon birth.. as the baby could well be damaged by the mothers actions during pregnancy.
explain clearly why this woman should be forced to have a child and be disallowed an abortion?
and don't give me the whole "it's a baby" thing because I've heard that thrown against so many reasonable arguments thus far that it's becoming pointless to argue our side of the story..

But the vast majority of babies born to, say, junkies, don't have any structural abnormalities. They very often withdraw from the drug for a few days, which is horrific to watch. But most of them come to no long term harm.

jim o doom · 02-09-2008 04:10PM

Zulu wrote: »

The dictionary gives us the meaning of the word. You attempted to suggest that I was using the word inappropriately as a tactic to argue my point. I'm just, clearly proving that that particular point of yours in horseshit. I'm just pointing out that I am using the word correctly for what it describes.
I describe a child as a child, and I provided the english dictionary reference to back that definition up. If you want to claim that my definition is incorrect, feel free to provide evidence to back up your incorrect assertion.

Very good! So what you are saying is: if a word actually means something in language, then it gets into the dictionary. You are clutching at straws.

Yes, mine, and the authors of the English dictionary, which is the actual meaning of the word. Just because you don't believe it doesn't make you right. It in fact makes you wrong. But of course you can challenge this assertion by providing proof, like I did.

Right so are you telling me that slang word, in use by relatively small numbers of the population, doesn't make it in to the dictionary?
the meaning of a word or definition of a word does not make you right nevertheless. The people who are for pro-choice generally feel that up to a point a fetus is not a child... a simple dictionary definition does not make you correct, sir

If only it did, this whole debate would be simple, but it is not.. and calling my argument bulls/t is fairly childish really to be blunt..

Zulu wrote: »

I never said they didn't exist. We don't create law for the minority, we create it for the majority. Ruling a society by the minority is incredibly foolish and short sighted.

I never stated that you said "the don't exist" (although I may have implied it) - I implied it, because you took me to task for bring these individuals up, stating that not everyone is like these people..
And we don't rule for the minority, we legislate to allow for them to do their thing as well.. laws are not so black and white (as they are always open to challenge) that a minority is left out. Thats why there are laws protecting minorites, social or otherwise.

Zulu wrote: »

I know what you are trying to get across, but it's not a ridiculous position. You shouldn't compromise your moral conscience to suit a minority.

compromise my moral concience? I don't really care if the unborn really is a child, and I don't care if people are aborting for a really damn good reason like a rape baby (rare I know) or because having a child right now doesn't suit them, because I don't really care about the unborn, so I wouldn't be violating any moral compass, I am just trying to put forth reasonable arguments why abortion is not totally wrong in all cases.
me I don't are, abort for what ever reason u want.

jim o doom · 02-09-2008 04:13PM

Zulu wrote: »

No Jim, I'm merely pointing out how wrong your point about using the word "child" incorrectly was used as a tactic. And I provided evidence to back that up.
You subsequent posting are inane drivel really. I never mentioned anything about anyone going to hell.

I'll tell you what, when you want to re-engage with the adults in a rational conversation, do so. And try to provide some sliver of credence to your points.

Using the world "CHILD" or "Unborn BABY" is a tactic, regardless of what definition the dictionary provides.. it is used by the pro-lifers to try and emote within those who are on the fence that it is a baby being killed.
I don't feel it is a baby, but thats fine the dictionary says I am wrong, regardless it still is a tactic, and it may be being used unconsiously by the person in question, because thats how they feel about it, but regardless a tactic it remains.

whoa adults in the conversation.. nice.

jim o doom · 02-09-2008 04:15PM

tallaght01 wrote: »

But the vast majority of babies born to, say, junkies, don't have any structural abnormalities. They very often withdraw from the drug for a few days, which is horrific to watch. But most of them come to no long term harm.

I never mentioned junkies.. just women who sit outside hospitals drinking and smoking... my girlfriend has a lot of health problems because her mother acted in such a fashion (obviously im not saying she should have been aborted here) its just first hand info that it does affect the child.
What im trying to say is why should a woman, who will not give up the child when born and quite possibly bring it up as an unwanted child in a broken home, and easily cause health problems for the child through substance abuse (not heroin or coke simple things like booze and smoke)..
if that woman wanted an abortion, why stop her?

Dragan · 02-09-2008 04:17PM

CDfm wrote: »

I was talking about me not having any aghenda- anyway am new to boards and thought a moderator was like a guru or a spirit guide - you know like the fox in the Simpsons or the grandfather in Soupy Norman:rolleyes:

In that case i suggest you familiarise yourself with boards a bit more.

tallaght01 · 02-09-2008 04:20PM

jim o doom wrote: »

I never mentioned junkies.. just women who sit outside hospitals drinking and smoking... my girlfriend has a lot of health problems because her mother acted in such a fashion (obviously im not saying she should have been aborted here) its just first hand info that it does affect the child.
What im trying to say is why should a woman, who will not give up the child when born and quite possibly bring it up as an unwanted child in a broken home, and easily cause health problems for the child through substance abuse (not heroin or coke simple things like booze and smoke)..
if that woman wanted an abortion, why stop her?

Most women who drink and smoke during pregnancy don't have babies with any particular structural abnormality either. Though many do.

The adoption issue is, however, available to them of they really didn't want the baby. That's where I'm not sure where a group of women who abuse their bodies during pregnancy really come into the equation. They either want the baby or they don't. If the do, they won't get an abortion anyway. If they don't want it, they can put it up for adoption. This subgroup of women should have little effect ont he overall point of this debate.

jim o doom · 02-09-2008 04:31PM

tallaght01 wrote: »

Most women who drink and smoke during pregnancy don't have babies with any particular structural abnormality either. Though many do.

The adoption issue is, however, available to them of they really didn't want the baby. That's where I'm not sure where a group of women who abuse their bodies during pregnancy really come into the equation. They either want the baby or they don't. If the do, they won't get an abortion anyway. If they don't want it, they can put it up for adoption. This subgroup of women should have little effect ont he overall point of this debate.

That's a fair enough point.. I'm still pro-choice though

I was just trying to give examples of where abortion might not be totally wrong.. anyway I'm clearly not swaying anybody here with my crappy arguments, so I'll leave yez be

Way I feel about it, abortion should be pretty much allowed for any reason as long as it's up to whatever point medicine has for a cut-off.. there's no real point in continuing the argument for me, because I am not going to change my view, and I would be utterly amazed if any of the pro-life people did.. pretty interesting thread though, sure gets the emotions going!

Malari · 02-09-2008 04:38PM

jim o doom wrote: »

Using the world "CHILD" or "Unborn BABY" is a tactic, regardless of what definition the dictionary provides.. it is used by the pro-lifers to try and emote within those who are on the fence that it is a baby being killed.
I don't feel it is a baby, but thats fine the dictionary says I am wrong, regardless it still is a tactic, and it may be being used unconsiously by the person in question, because thats how they feel about it, but regardless a tactic it remains.

whoa adults in the conversation.. nice.

It depends on the dictionary as well, doesn't it? Mine says: "a boy or girl from the time of birth until he or she is an adult"

Also foetus in the dictionary says: "a young human being or animal before birth, after the organs have started to develop"

tallaght01 · 02-09-2008 04:56PM

Malari wrote: »

It depends on the dictionary as well, doesn't it? Mine says: "a boy or girl from the time of birth until he or she is an adult"

Also foetus in the dictionary says: "a young human being or animal before birth, after the organs have started to develop"

I think that's an important point.

No-one should claim that a dictionary manufacturer has the answers to a question that has stumped experts in the field for so long.

But Zulu was accused of using an inappropriate term. he was just showing that some dictionary makers use the same definition. So, it really wasn't an outrageous statement for him to call the unborn child a child.

But one of the main sticking points in the whole abortion argument is when does a child become a child.

Which is why I'd again like to invite anyone to offer up their thoughts on what's an acceptable cut off point for abortions, in terms of gestational age.

Dragan · 02-09-2008 05:20PM

tallaght01 wrote: »

Which is why I'd again like to invite anyone to offer up their thoughts on what's an acceptable cut off point for abortions, in terms of gestational age.

Personally i would say before the development of the CNS, which is about the 12 to 15 week mark i believe?

tallaght01 · 02-09-2008 05:28PM

Dragan wrote: »

Personally i would say before the development of the CNS, which is about the 12 to 15 week mark i believe?

Well, they develop brain tissue anytime from about week 4, and the CNS isn't even fully developed at birth. This is partially where that line of reasoning has fallen down in the past.

Not that I have any better suggestion, though!

carlybabe1 · 02-09-2008 07:23PM

Heres an idea, what about a cut off point of 24 wks, as there is a 4 in 10 chance that the fetus can survive outside the womb in intensive care..... No takers? this is no longer a debate about abortion, its become a venue for pro-life ers to bash pro choicers, and yeah yeah yeah zulu, phrase it what way you like, you lost all sense of reason when you posted the baby killer post! Heres the way the law lies in regards to a woman having a miscarriage at the hands of an assault, the perp will only be done for assault because " the feotus needs an independent existence to qualify as a person under common law". Abortion has been going on for centuries, whether it was a mixture of herbs given to induce a miscarriage, or a filthy back alley, at least in this day and age there are proper facilities to accomodate women. As for women who drink/smoke/ take drugs, how can you say that it little or no affect on the feotus??? thats rediculous, for **** sake, we wouldnt be told not to if it had no affect...What about premature babies that have to be weaned off smack in intensive care, that cant stop cryin because they are goin through withdrawls that thier adult parents couldnt stick or they wouldnt be born addicted.... not to mention Feotal Alcohol Syndrome.... and although there is tissue developed, the CNS isnt developed enough to transmit signals.

Heres what I REALLY think, in the words of a famous friend " NO UTERUS, NO OPINION" :p:p:p:p:p
Put that in your smoke and pipe it

JC 2K3 · 02-09-2008 07:28PM

tallaght01 wrote: »

So, I'm curious to know how LATE we should offer abortions at?

Anyone got any strong opinions on this part of the argument?

Anytime before birth, for the reasons I've outlined earlier in the thread.

Now sometimes the thought of it makes me shudder, and I don't find it extremely easy to look at pictures.

However, it's not about feelings of unease, it's about rationally deciding upon a philosophical and ethical framework that's workable.

tallaght01 wrote: »

So, a 23 weeker who's lying in an incubator in a neonatal unit is a child. But he's not if he's still in the womb?

Why does his/her place of residence affect his status like that?

Presumably, if it's in the incubator, the parents want it.

Jakkass wrote: »

I personally don't subscribe to the nitpicking that goes on to try and delegitimize a human foetus as a developing human being. Yes, it is less developed than we are, however none the less it remains a developing human being.

So why is it ok to kill sperm or ova?

Now you might just dismiss such an argument as nitpicking, but it's simply your belief that life starts at conception. That's your world view.

I like to think that of all the sperm and ova that exist in the world, you can pick any pair and call it a potential human being. I don't see it as being of any great consequence if they happen to merge, they're just one step further along the development process and if I were to oppose killing a zygote I couldn't legitimise killing a sperm or ova, and since sperm and ova die naturally in their millions, such a position would be preposterous.

So then I'm left in the position where I could choose some point in its development, but that's far too arbitrary for me, which is why I've decided that it's about something more metaphysical and philosophical than a physical stage of development, and hence birth makes the most sense to me.

CDfm · 02-09-2008 07:32PM

I take Malawis point .

But like some of the terms and semantics used made it difficult for me to follow.Forced to me it implies rape.

On pregnancy on some of the posts I am surprised that people are leaving sexual intercourse out of the equation.Babies just dont come from kissing!

If you put a ram in a field with sheep at the right time you get lambs.Farmers do this all the time.No doubt that you need a ram and a sheep to get a lamb. Thats where lambs come from.

When a man and woman have sex the woman can get pregnant.

What do people need T-shirts with a Government warning saying "This penis may contain sperm and when in inserted in a vagina may cause pregnancy"?
or Little Miss Pregnant T-Shirts showing an unhappy ovum.

Im a dad and had that chat with my teenage daughter and told her straight out that as part of life etc that a boys job and mission is to get into her pants. That boys will lie and cheat swear eternal love and tell all their friends if they get lucky. I have a son too and he knows where the condoms are.Thats reality.

I do not mean to be condescending but babies do not just happen. Im not against a healthy sex life. But thats where babies come from if contraception is not used and to me abortion is not a form of contraception.

CDfm · 02-09-2008 07:45PM

Hi Carlybabe1 - nice to see you back hope yor famous friend wasnt the Biting Beaver:D

Earthhorse · 02-09-2008 07:59PM

carlybabe1 wrote: »

Heres an idea, what about a cut off point of 24 wks, as there is a 4 in 10 chance that the fetus can survive outside the womb in intensive care..... No takers?

Why 4 in 10?

carlybabe1 wrote: »

this is no longer a debate about abortion, its become a venue for pro-life ers to bash pro choicers

What a total load of crap. Most posts on this thread have been completely reasonable. If you don't like a vigorous debate then Humanities is not the place for you.

carlybabe1 wrote: »

As for women who drink/smoke/ take drugs, how can you say that it little or no affect on the feotus??? thats rediculous, for **** sake, we wouldnt be told not to if it had no affect...

Nobody said it had little or no effect on the feotus.

carlybabe1 wrote: »

What about premature babies that have to be weaned off smack in intensive care, that cant stop cryin because they are goin through withdrawls that thier adult parents couldnt stick or they wouldnt be born addicted.... not to mention Feotal Alcohol Syndrome....

What about them? You think their lives aren't worthwhile?

carlybabe1 wrote: »

and although there is tissue developed, the CNS isnt developed enough to transmit signals.

That wasn't Dragan's criteria as far as we can tell from his post.

JC 2K3 wrote: »

However, it's not about feelings of unease, it's about rationally deciding upon a philosophical and ethical framework that's workable.

Other cut off points are decided upon in the same way. Really, I don't think your suggestion of abortion until birth is actually workable. I think even most pro-choicers would have problems with it.

JC 2K3 wrote: »

Presumably, if it's in the incubator, the parents want it.

That's avoiding the question frankly. It doesn't matter why the baby is in the incubator, what matters is that it is there. This leads us to the question as to why its life is valuable outside the womb and not inside when the same amount of development has taken place or the same time period has elapsed.

JC 2K3 wrote: »

I don't see it as being of any great consequence if they happen to merge, they're just one step further along the development process and if I were to oppose killing a zygote I couldn't legitimise killing a sperm or ova, and since sperm and ova die naturally in their millions, such a position would be preposterous.

To die naturally and to be killed are not the same thing.

JC 2K3 wrote: »

So then I'm left in the position where I could choose some point in its development, but that's far too arbitrary for me, which is why I've decided that it's about something more metaphysical and philosophical than a physical stage of development, and hence birth makes the most sense to me.

The point you've picked is really just as arbitrary as everyone elses, you've just given a different weighting to different criteria. Most people recognise that this debate isn't just about a physical stage of development; the problem has always been coming up with a defintion of what it is to be a human being, and thus a point at which we can identify that you have become one, that is satisfactory to all parties.

philologos · 02-09-2008 09:10PM

JC 2K3 wrote: »

1) Now sometimes the thought of it makes me shudder, and I don't find it extremely easy to look at pictures.

2) Presumably, if it's in the incubator, the parents want it.

3) So why is it ok to kill sperm or ova?

1) If it makes you shudder, the sheer principle of it should make you shudder as well surely? It's either entirely repulsive or it's not in my view anyway.

2) So wanting something to live or not is at the behest of people? It's a right to live and has been internationally accepted as a right since 1948. I don't think that right is subject to want.

3) Sperm and ova are not fused to make a zygote. They are not a human being, and they cannot ever form to be a human being on their own. That's the key difference.

Bottle_of_Smoke · 02-09-2008 09:20PM

Jakkass wrote: »

1)

3) Sperm and ova are not fused to make a zygote. They are not a human being, and they cannot ever form to be a human being on their own. That's the key difference.

Zygote can't feel pain, zygote can't think, unless you believe in a soul that's meaningless.

LovelyHurling · 02-09-2008 09:38PM

JC 2K3 wrote: »

Anytime before birth, for the reasons I've outlined earlier in the thread.

You know the difference in a newborn's cns development one hour after it exits the birth canal?
It's one hour.

What you suggest here is a ridiculous theory that deems the termination of a severely under-developed 24 week old foetus outside of the womb illegal, but means that the termination of a relatively very very well developed 41 week old about to make its way down the birth canal, with the CNS of a regular newborn, completely legal!

it's about rationally deciding upon a philosophical and ethical framework that's workable.

What you have put forward is not rational. Lets get back to the difference in development between an unborn infant and one that has left the uterus an hour ago. Why exactly, in your opinion, is this one hour so terribly critical? why can't the newborns life be terminated?

Presumably, if it's in the incubator, the parents want it.

Surely that's completely irrelevant. For one thing, they may not want it. it may have been a very premature birth. Furthermore, they are entitled to change their minds. What if they want to terminate the newborn?

I don't pretend to have the answer, and I do believe in allowing abortions, pretty liberally in fact. I'm just not fond of this theory that purports to be logical yet would turn the cut off point into some bizarre stage that revolves solely around, as somebody else has said, where the baby happens to be situated in the world.

JC 2K3 · 02-09-2008 09:55PM

LovelyHurling wrote: »

You know the difference in a newborn's cns development one hour after it exits the birth canal?
It's one hour.

What you suggest here is a ridiculous theory that deems the termination of a severely under-developed 24 week old foetus outside of the womb illegal, but means that the termination of a relatively very very well developed 41 week old about to make its way down the birth canal, with the CNS of a regular newborn, completely legal!

What you have put forward is not rational. Lets get back to the difference in development between an unborn infant and one that has left the uterus an hour ago. Why exactly, in your opinion, is this one hour so terribly critical? why can't the newborns life be terminated?

Surely that's completely irrelevant. For one thing, they may not want it. it may have been a very premature birth. Furthermore, they are entitled to change their minds. What if they want to terminate the newborn?

I don't pretend to have the answer, and I do believe in allowing abortions, pretty liberally in fact. I'm just not fond of this theory that purports to be logical yet would turn the cut off point into some bizarre stage that revolves solely around, as somebody else has said, where the baby happens to be situated in the world.

So what makes the 4th dimension more important than the 3rd dimension?

I don't believe location is as unimportant as you make it out to be.

philologos · 02-09-2008 09:59PM

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Zygote can't feel pain, zygote can't think, unless you believe in a soul that's meaningless.

Again that's just delegitimizing it as a human life though. It's just a developing human being, less developed than us. That zygote is certainly going to form into a newborn child, it just has stages in growth in it's human life before it gets there.

Bottle_of_Smoke · 02-09-2008 10:06PM

Jakkass wrote: »

Again that's just delegitimizing it as a human life though. It's just a developing human being, less developed than us. That zygote is certainly going to form into a newborn child, it just has stages in growth in it's human life before it gets there.

Well dehumanizing it from what? Why exactly is that important at the zygote stage?
Unless you're religious it's irrelevent. Most zygotes don't make it into a child anyway.

Are you one of these "people" who consider IVF treatment murder unless all created zygotes are used?

Just for the record I think this is completely nuts

JK 2K3 wrote:

Anytime before birth, for the reasons I've outlined earlier in the thread.

I'm pro abortion up to 15 weeeks, pro-life after that. It would be 18 weeks but use the 3 weeks as a buffer as you obviously can't draw a line in the sand for every case.

JC 2K3 · 02-09-2008 10:08PM

Jakkass wrote: »

1) If it makes you shudder, the sheer principle of it should make you shudder as well surely? It's either entirely repulsive or it's not in my view anyway.

Well, a high definition CGI movie of a dead baby would make me shudder too. And I'd say most people would shudder if they saw an animal being killed, yet they happily eat meat.

Jakkass wrote: »

2) So wanting something to live or not is at the behest of people?

Pretty much. The fact that the majority of the world are not vegetarians shows that most people accept this.

Jakkass wrote: »

3) Sperm and ova are not fused to make a zygote. They are not a human being, and they cannot ever form to be a human being on their own. That's the key difference.

But why is singularity important? Why aren't they human beings at an earlier stage of development? Why can't you say that if they are killed that they are denied the chance to fuse with a sperm or ova and grow into a person?

LovelyHurling · 02-09-2008 10:10PM

JC 2K3 wrote: »

I don't believe location is as unimportant as you make it out to be.

Why don't you elaborate on what you seem to perceive as the importance of location, in this case.

Earthhorse · 02-09-2008 10:21PM

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

I'm pro abortion up to 15 weeeks, pro-life after that. It would be 18 weeks but use the 3 weeks as a buffer as you obviously can't draw a line in the sand for every case.

What happens after 18 weeks? Not a trick question or anything, genuinely interested.

Zulu · 02-09-2008 10:23PM

carlybabe1 wrote: »

this is no longer a debate about abortion, its become a venue for pro-life ers to bash pro choicers,

horseshit

and yeah yeah yeah zulu, phrase it what way you like, you lost all sense of reason when you posted the baby killer post!

which post was that?

Heres what I REALLY think, in the words of a famous friend " NO UTERUS, NO OPINION" :p:p:p:p:p
Put that in your smoke and pipe it

Wow, really mature argument there. So because of a persons gender they can't make a decision on the society they are a part of?

I had rather hoped our society had progressed past that level of ignorance.

Bottle_of_Smoke · 02-09-2008 10:32PM

Earthhorse wrote: »

What happens after 18 weeks? Not a trick question or anything, genuinely interested.

Nervous system develops 18-27 weeks

philologos · 02-09-2008 10:37PM

JC 2K3 wrote: »

1)Well, a high definition CGI movie of a dead baby would make me shudder too. And I'd say most people would shudder if they saw an animal being killed, yet they happily eat meat.

2)Pretty much. The fact that the majority of the world are not vegetarians shows that most people accept this.

3)But why is singularity important? Why aren't they human beings at an earlier stage of development? Why can't you say that if they are killed that they are denied the chance to fuse with a sperm or ova and grow into a person?

1) So you recognise that an aborted baby is just that a baby? Which would mean that it is indeed human life.

2) There is a difference between the sanctity of human life and that of animal life in the UN Declaration of Human Rights. See it's human rights not mammal rights.

3) There is no earlier stage of development from human life. It starts at conception.

Battle_of_Smoke wrote:

Well dehumanizing it from what? Why exactly is that important at the zygote stage?
Unless you're religious it's irrelevent. Most zygotes don't make it into a child anyway.

You got me there considering I am a Christian. I wouldn't consider it irrelevant from the light of current human rights declarations though.

Abortion- Right or Wrong

Comments