What should the penalty be for illegal abortions?

ntlbell · 22-01-2009 8:03pm

ebmma wrote: »

Are you serious?

I can see why a previous poster thought you might be trolling.

I don't think there's any reasoning with you.

well if a mental illness is good enough to end life before giving birth why would it change afterwards?

Sam Vimes · 22-01-2009 8:04pm

ebmma wrote: »

Are you serious?

I can see why a previous poster thought you might be trolling.

I don't think there's any reasoning with you.

he's trolling because he asked under what circumstances it's ok to kill a baby?

you realise that people who are against abortion see no distinction between a baby and a foetus right?

Terodil · 22-01-2009 8:16pm

*sigh* Read all 14 pages of posts and... /headdesk

1. All the pro-life guys in here... I doubt you can possibly imagine the pain an unwanted pregnancy can put a woman through, all your talk of mental health as if it's nothing is a clear testament to the total neglect of women beyond pure 'birth machines'.

2. I wonder where people get the audacity to want to 'graciously donate' their understanding of right and wrong to everybody else and to make it compulsory. Ok we get it, you think abortion is morally wrong. Others think differently. Both positions are founded on either of two premises ('clump of cells' vs 'life'). There's no fully convincing argument for either, so why should it be regulated as if one was true? What makes one possible premise 'true-er' than the other? Your very own personal belief? /golfclap

3. The psychological effects of an abortion are also totally neglected by the prolifers. It's not like spitting a chewing gum out; it has a very profound, and often traumatising, effect on the woman. Many bear the scars for the rest of their lives. So stop talking of it as if women needed any more deterrence. Punishments, according to our legal system, are only justified if they have two components: teaching (deterrence) and atonement. If the teaching aspect is void then there is no reason for having a punishment.

Sam Vimes · 22-01-2009 8:21pm

Terodil wrote: »

*sigh* Read all 14 pages of posts and... /headdesk

1. All the pro-life guys in here... I doubt you can possibly imagine the pain an unwanted 6 month old baby can put a woman through, all your talk of mental health as if it's nothing is a clear testament to the total neglect of women beyond pure 'birth machines'.

2. I wonder where people get the audacity to want to 'graciously donate' their understanding of right and wrong to everybody else and to make it compulsory. Ok we get it, you think murder is morally wrong. Others think differently. Both positions are founded on either of two premises ('clump of cells' vs 'life'). There's no fully convincing argument for either, so why should it be regulated as if one was true? What makes one possible premise 'true-er' than the other? Your very own personal belief? /golfclap

3. The psychological effects of a murder are also totally neglected by the prolifers. It's not like spitting a chewing gum out; it has a very profound, and often traumatising, effect on the woman. Many bear the scars for the rest of their lives. So stop talking of it as if women needed any more deterrence. Punishments, according to our legal system, are only justified if they have two components: teaching (deterrence) and atonement. If the teaching aspect is void then there is no reason for having a punishment.

read your post with the bolded words that i changed and tell me if it still makes sense

from my point of view you're effectively saying "ok you told us murder is wrong now stop forcing your opinion down our throats and let us go on murdering"

ntlbell · 22-01-2009 8:23pm

Terodil wrote: »

*sigh* Read all 14 pages of posts and... /headdesk

1. All the pro-life guys in here... I doubt you can possibly imagine the pain an unwanted pregnancy can put a woman through, all your talk of mental health as if it's nothing is a clear testament to the total neglect of women beyond pure 'birth machines'.

2. I wonder where people get the audacity to want to 'graciously donate' their understanding of right and wrong to everybody else and to make it compulsory. Ok we get it, you think abortion is morally wrong. Others think differently. Both positions are founded on either of two premises ('clump of cells' vs 'life'). There's no fully convincing argument for either, so why should it be regulated as if one was true? What makes one possible premise 'true-er' than the other? Your very own personal belief? /golfclap

3. The psychological effects of an abortion are also totally neglected by the prolifers. It's not like spitting a chewing gum out; it has a very profound, and often traumatising, effect on the woman. Many bear the scars for the rest of their lives. So stop talking of it as if women needed any more deterrence. Punishments, according to our legal system, are only justified if they have two components: teaching (deterrence) and atonement. If the teaching aspect is void then there is no reason for having a punishment.

Your first two points I don't really understand what you're trying to say? no ones right or wrong lets all just get a long? or did i miss something?

On your 3rd I understand perfectly that some women who will be psychologically scared for life, some will not. but as I stated all ready anyone who takes anyones life regardless of the circumstances have to carry that on their shoulders for the rest of their life

I get this. the point is it doesn't make it right or wrong it's just something that comes part of murdering someone for some it's a life long struggle to get over it others organise a shopping trip with the girls go over have an abortion and are drinking cocktails in a london club shortly after...

Sam Vimes · 22-01-2009 8:27pm

tell me Terodil, if a significant number of people came out and said they they don't think rape is morally wrong and told you to stop forcing your opinion down their throat and trying to prevent them raping people would you feel the same way?

metrovelvet · 22-01-2009 8:27pm

ebmma wrote: »

If it sufficiently far along "abortion" doesn't make any sense.

38-week abortion?

It is going to be either C-section or induced labour anyway. A baby at that number of weeks is perfectly capable of surviving outside mother.

It is a baby born slightly premature. It is not an enviable foetus.

It just makes no sense.

Really. It can feed, bathe itself and pay rent?

karen3212 · 22-01-2009 8:27pm

ntlbell wrote: »

what if the mother with a debilitating mental illness murdered they''re kid after they were born ? would that be ok?

I think that would be very sad. I also think it would be very sad if the fear and stress of a pregnancy ruined a woman's mental health.

ntlbell · 22-01-2009 8:30pm

karen3212 wrote: »

I think that would be very sad. I also think it would be very sad if the fear and stress of a pregnancy ruined a woman's mental health.

and you think a woman should murder her unborn to protect her mental health? instead of maybe having the maybe and getting help afterwards?

Terodil · 22-01-2009 8:32pm

I never mentioned anything about 6 months. In fact I said nothing about time at all, but by using this time you (prima facie) cleverly underline your assumption that the clump of cells is actually a valid object of 'murder'. That, however, is the bone of contention.

You still haven't explained *why* your premise that *any* clump of cells (from the zygote onwards) *is* a human being in need of legal protection is more valid than the 'clump' premise. However I dare you do that before you 'shove laws down my throat', yes. Or do you think that a proper reasoning is too much to ask?

ntlbell · 22-01-2009 8:37pm

huh?

who are you talking to?

Terodil · 22-01-2009 8:40pm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

tell me Terodil, if a significant number of people came out and said they they don't think rape is morally wrong and told you to stop forcing your opinion down their throat and trying to prevent them raping people would you feel the same way?

Well that's equivalent to your first reponse where you replaced certain words to suggest murder.

However you miss the most important point: We have to weigh the highly probable and substantial impact of an unwanted pregnancy on the woman vs. the terminal effect on 'something-that-we-know-is-there-but-about-what-nature-it-is-we-cannot-reach-a-consensus'.

You haven't explained yet why the pro-life premise is more true than the pro-choice premise. I'm waiting.

And if you can't, why it should still take legal precendence.

Edit @ntlbell: The pro-choicers in this thread claiming that abortion should be outlawed 'because it's murder'.

The Corinthian · 22-01-2009 8:45pm

Terodil wrote: »

1. All the pro-life guys in here... I doubt you can possibly imagine the pain an unwanted pregnancy can put a woman through, all your talk of mental health as if it's nothing is a clear testament to the total neglect of women beyond pure 'birth machines'.

I would not say I am one of the pro-life guys in here, as I have tried as best as I can to argue both sides. However, while no one would wish the pain an unwanted pregnancy on anyone, neither should that give one a carte blance to do as they please to avoid it.

Of course, that does not mean that morally they are not justified, only that the pain of an unwanted pregnancy or any other misfortune in life does not automatically justify any action to remedy it.

2. I wonder where people get the audacity to want to 'graciously donate' their understanding of right and wrong to everybody else and to make it compulsory.

That's called civilization. The majority morality is imposed upon the minority so that we can co-exist. If you convince enough people that this is unjust, then you change it - for good or ill. Deny that right to "graciously donate their understanding of right and wrong" and you deny that possibility for change.

3. The psychological effects of an abortion are also totally neglected by the prolifers. It's not like spitting a chewing gum out; it has a very profound, and often traumatising, effect on the woman.

Not in all cases. Different women are affected in different ways by it and to suggest that this is always "very profound, and often traumatising, effect" is simply untrue.

ntlbell · 22-01-2009 8:45pm

Terodil wrote: »

Edit @ntlbell: The pro-choicers in this thread claiming that abortion should be outlawed 'because it's murder'.

Why don't you tell us all when life becomes life?

when a human becomes human?

what defines a "you"

at what stage of pregnancy are you happy for someone to abort a pregnancy?

when does a featus in your opinion become a human life?

ebmma · 22-01-2009 8:45pm

metrovelvet wrote: »

Really. It can feed, bathe itself and pay rent?

What on Earth are you talking about?

If you cannot talk reasonably, so be it.

Sam Vimes · 22-01-2009 8:47pm

Terodil wrote: »

I never mentioned anything about 6 months. In fact I said nothing about time at all, but by using this time you (prima facie) cleverly underline your assumption that the clump of cells is actually a valid object of 'murder'. That, however, is the bone of contention.

You still haven't explained *why* your premise that *any* clump of cells (from the zygote onwards) *is* a human being in need of legal protection is more valid than the 'clump' premise. However I dare you do that before you 'shove laws down my throat', yes. Or do you think that a proper reasoning is too much to ask?

no not clevery, it's the fundamental difference between pro and anti abortionists. your post only makes sense if you assume the foetus is a clump of cells and my post only make sense if you assume it isn't.

therefore your entire post is irrelevant. the only issue we should be arguing is if it is a human or not. your post is based on an assumption that i don't accept so we have to first agree on the assumption

and i have explained why it's a human being in need of protection many many many many many many many times in multiple threads on the issue. a zygote is a human life. that is not up for debate, that is a fact. pro abortionists don't think that it's a "person" until the brain is formed and therefore it's ok to kill it, i point that that they're called human rights, not person rights

Terodil wrote: »

Well that's equivalent to your first reponse where you replaced certain words to suggest murder.

However you miss the most important point: We have to weigh the highly probable and substantial impact of an unwanted pregnancy on the woman vs. the terminal effect on 'something-that-we-know-is-there-but-about-what-nature-it-is-we-cannot-reach-a-consensus'.

but you see the fact that we can't reach a consensus doesn't make it ok to kill babies.

take a look at this organisation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAMBLA

they say that young boys are sexual beings and there's nothing wrong with having sex with them. they lobby to legalise paedophilia. so a consensus can't be reached there either. should we therefore allow them to rape children?

ebmma · 22-01-2009 8:49pm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

he's trolling because he asked under what circumstances it's ok to kill a baby?

you realise that people who are against abortion see no distinction between a baby and a foetus right?

A newborn, 6-months old, etc baby can DEFINITELY suffer and feel pain and is definitely there.

metrovelvet · 22-01-2009 8:49pm

^ YOu said a baby can survive outside the mother's body without the mother. News to me. Surely it would die within a few days or a week at most.

ALso - I guess you havent heard of partial birth abortions?

22-01-2009 8:51pm

Sam Vimes wrote:

therefore your entire post is irrelevant. the only issue we should be arguing is if it is a human or not

well nobody is arguing it's a penguin, so that's easy enough to resolve

i point that that they're called human rights, not person rights

If it's solely on human then it should apply to all human cells e.g. toenails otherwise it IS person rights

22-01-2009 8:51pm

metrovelvet wrote: »

^ YOu said a baby can survive outside the mother's body without the mother. News to me. Surely it would die within a few days or a week at most.

ALso - I guess you havent heard of partial birth abortions?

D&X is non-elective and done to save a woman's life only

p.s. the first part of your post makes no sense, of course babies can survive without their mothers

ntlbell · 22-01-2009 8:52pm

ebmma wrote: »

A newborn, 6-months old, etc baby can DEFINITELY suffer and feel pain and is definitely there.

there's many ways we could kill a 6mtnh old baby it would feel no pain and would have no idea what was happening.

what has that got to do with it?

it's not murder because it's painful.....

murph226 · 22-01-2009 8:52pm

The-Rigger wrote: »

Abortions for all.

+1

ebmma · 22-01-2009 8:53pm

I'm pretty tired of this.

I tried my best to explain where I stand.

Sam Vimes · 22-01-2009 8:56pm

ebmma wrote: »

A newborn, 6-months old, etc baby can DEFINITELY suffer and feel pain and is definitely there.

what do you mean it's "there"? it's not some metaphysical glowing orb. of course it's there

and whether or not it can suffer or feel pain is irrelevant, it's still a human being and it's not ok to kill it. if i was to anaesthetise you so that you wouldn't suffer or feel pain would it then be ok to kill you?

bluewolf wrote: »

If it's solely on human then it should apply to all human cells e.g. toenails otherwise it IS person rights

no, it shouldn't. it's not based on being human, it's based on being a human, as in one self contained entity. a foetus needs food from it's mother and a friendly environment. given those two it will grow into a full baby with eyes and ears and toe nails. no matter how much you feed a toenail it will simply decompose. it will never become a baby because, while it contains human dna, it is not a human being

metrovelvet · 22-01-2009 8:56pm

bluewolf wrote: »

well nobody is arguing it's a penguin, so that's easy enough to resolve

If it's solely on human then it should apply to all human cells e.g. toenails otherwise it IS person rights

Your toenail doesnt have a human heartbeat. And it grows back once you snip it.

22-01-2009 8:58pm

metrovelvet wrote: »

Your toenail doesnt have a human heartbeat.

whats the difference between a human heartbeat and any other that makes it so special?

Sam Vimes · 22-01-2009 8:59pm

bluewolf wrote: »

p.s. the first part of your post makes no sense, of course babies can survive without their mothers

let's do an experiment. leave a baby in an apartment for three weeks. see how well it survives

22-01-2009 8:59pm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

no, it shouldn't. it's not based on being human, it's based on being a human, as in one self contained entity. a foetus needs food from it's mother and a friendly environment. given those two it will grow into a full baby with eyes and ears and toe nails. no matter how much you feed a toenail it will simply decompose. it will never become a baby because, while it contains human dna, it is not a human being

And under certain conditions so will a sperm.
The whole thing is potential + conditions ?

Sam Vimes · 22-01-2009 9:00pm

bluewolf wrote: »

And under certain conditions so will a sperm.
The whole thing is potential + conditions ?

what? no it won't. what are you talking about?

22-01-2009 9:00pm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

let's do an experiment. leave a baby in an apartment for three weeks. see how well it survives

I have an even better one, leave a baby in an incubator in a hospital surrounded by care without its mother and see how well it survives

which was exactly ebmma's original meaning , if i'm not mistaken, and got turned into metro to "so can it do chores" ...

Sam Vimes · 22-01-2009 9:02pm

bluewolf wrote: »

I have an even better one, leave a baby in an incubator in a hospital surrounded by care without its mother and see how well it survives

which would be equivalent to leaving the foetus in the "incubator" that is the womb. a baby needs food and a friendly environment to survive, just like a foetus. it would be technically possible to invent an artificial womb and bring a zygote all the way to birth. the mother doesn't necessarily have to be involved anywhere. we just don't have the technology yet just like we didn't have incubators 100 years ago

metrovelvet · 22-01-2009 9:02pm

bluewolf wrote: »

D&X is non-elective and done to save a woman's life only

p.s. the first part of your post makes no sense, of course babies can survive without their mothers

Are you sure about that globally?

Nevyn · 22-01-2009 9:03pm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

what about a woman who can't handle her 6 month old child and drowns it? should her mental health be considered in that case?

It is that why it is called infanticide and the first year of tending to an infant is considered to be extremely stressful and the mental and emotional stresses are taken in to consideration.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infanticide

In the United Kingdom, the Infanticide Act defines "infanticide" as a specific crime equivalent to manslaughter that can only be committed by the mother intentionally killing her own baby during the first twelve months of its life outside the womb.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/plweb-cgi/fastweb?state_id=1232654658&view=ag-view&numhitsfound=1&query_rule=(($query3)):legtitle&query3=Infanticide&docid=19482&docdb=Acts&dbname=Acts&dbname=SIs&sorting=none&operator=and&TemplateName=predoc.tmpl&setCookie=1

No. 16/1949:

INFANTICIDE ACT, 1949

1.—(1) On the preliminary investigation by the District Court of a charge against a woman for the murder of her child, being a child under the age of twelve months, the Justice may, if he thinks proper, alter the charge to one of infanticide and send her forward for trial on that charge.
[GA]

(2) Where, upon the trial of a woman for the murder of her child, being a child under the age of twelve months, the jury are satisfied that she is guilty of infanticide, they shall return a verdict of infanticide.
[GA]

(3) A woman shall be guilty of felony, namely, infanticide if—

( a ) by any wilful act or omission she causes the death of her child, being a child under the age of twelve months, and

( b ) the circumstances are such that, but for this section, the act or omission would have amounted to murder, and

( c ) at the time of the act or omission the balance of her mind was disturbed by reason of her not having fully recovered from the effect of giving birth to the child or by reason of the effect of lactation consequent upon the birth of the child

and may for that offence be tried and punished as for manslaughter.

(4) Section 60 of the Offences Against the Person Act, 1861, shall have effect as if the reference therein to the murder of any child included a reference to infanticide.

metrovelvet · 22-01-2009 9:05pm

bluewolf wrote: »

I have an even better one, leave a baby in an incubator in a hospital surrounded by care without its mother and see how well it survives

which was exactly ebmma's original meaning , if i'm not mistaken, and got turned into metro to "so can it do chores" ...

No it certainly did not.

Sam Vimes · 22-01-2009 9:05pm

Thaedydal wrote: »

It is that why it is called infanticide and the first year of tending to an infant is considered to be extremely stressful and the mental and emotional stresses are taken in to consideration.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infanticide

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/plweb-cgi/fastweb?state_id=1232654658&view=ag-view&numhitsfound=1&query_rule=(($query3)):legtitle&query3=Infanticide&docid=19482&docdb=Acts&dbname=Acts&dbname=SIs&sorting=none&operator=and&TemplateName=predoc.tmpl&setCookie=1

yeah i know that if a woman kills her baby in the first few months she is treated lightly by the law because of her mental state, but no one would ever say "sure it was just a clump of cells. no moral problems here" as they do with abortion

22-01-2009 9:05pm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

which would be equivalent to leaving the foetus in the "incubator" that is the womb. a baby needs food and a friendly environment to survive, just like a foetus. it would be technically possible to invent an artificial womb and bring a zygote all the way to birth. the mother doesn't necessarily have to be involved either. we just don't have the technology yet just like we didn't have incubators 100 years ago

Omfg.

em said there was a certain point at which feti could survive outside the womb. Metro says this is impossible.
I quote:

Really. It can feed, bathe itself and pay rent?

YOu said a baby can survive outside the mother's body without the mother. News to me. Surely it would die within a few days or a week at most

edit: Metro, what are you disputing here, this is what you wrote

I say ofc it's possible. You come in with "what if we leave it on its own in an apartment without its mother", presumably implying it needs a mother. Now, you have made it all the way back to the beginning to AGREEING with the ORIGINAL point that it can survive in a hospital without its mother.

... this is getting stupid, seriously.

what? no it won't. what are you talking about?

Oh right, so you're allowed to argue potential and I'm not... ?

I'm out of here, I give up.

Nevyn · 22-01-2009 9:08pm

As for the mental and emotional trauma in countries which do not have the same stigma surrounding abortion or such a pro life culture women are not as traumatised by having an abortion unless they do want to continue the pregnancy but can't due to medical or other reasons.

metrovelvet · 22-01-2009 9:09pm

Thaedydal-

Yes it is and should be taken into consideration but it is still a crime and she is either punished for it or sectioned for mental health reasons.

A new baby is so crazy making for I would say most women, that the abort because a new baby will be bad for her mental health just seems ridiculous. Then we would all be justified in both abortion and infanticide if it were about the right to good mental health. [And perhaps we would be justified in all sorts of other killings if it were about mental health - no doubt someone would have killed me by now.:pac:]

Sam Vimes · 22-01-2009 9:11pm

bluewolf wrote: »

Omfg.

em said there was a certain point at which feti could survive outside the womb. Metro says this is impossible.
I quote:

oh right i think i missed that bit :P

bluewolf wrote: »

Oh right, so you're allowed to argue potential and I'm not... ?

I'm out of here, I give up.

no love i'm not arguing potential. when a zygote is formed there's no more potential in terms of creating life, it has just been created. now all it needs is food and a friendly environment and it will grow into a baby.

a foetus is a potential baby. but a baby is a potential child and a child is a potential teenager and a teenager is a potential adult. but at all points in all that potential it is a human being. a zygote is a human being, albeit a less developed one just like a baby is a less developed adult. a sperm is not a human being

edit:in short, a zygote is not a "potential" human like a sperm is (if combined with an egg), it is a developing human, just like a baby

willy wonka · 22-01-2009 9:14pm

I havent read the entire thread so apologies if the following points have been raised before but it is a subject which I feel strongly about. [Also despite my user name, I am a woman]

I would consider myself a fairly liberal person (legalisation of drugs, prostitution, gay marriages, gay adoptions, etc) but I cannot be liberal about abortion.

Every single person on Boards.ie, in Ireland, in the World, every single person was once a clump of cells. No we werent half an egg or half a sperm, we came into existence when these two entities fused and developed into this clump of cells, the very clump of cells that have caused so much contention and animosity today. You can say that it isn't life, it has no brain activity, doesn't look like anything, but ALL of us started out as a clump of cells.

the removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy.
any of various surgical methods for terminating a pregnancy, esp. during the first six months.

These are just two definitions of abortion. I think if everybody is presented with the cold hard facts, not what one wishes to see as fact, then most rational person would say an abortion is fundamentally wrong.
Someone mentioned earlier that women who have abortions go through their own type of hell (and I dont doubt that for a second), therefore one would have to agree that some kind of traumatic event preceded this.

I hate the term but I suppose I would be a feminist. BUT I dont know when or where the whole abortion argument became a woman's right to choose. I dont know how this monumental act was thrust into a woman's hands and trivialised, like choosing which shoes to wear. (The way some of my friends talk about abortion is with complete disregard really, almost like choosing to have plastic surgery done - yes you are changing a part of yourself, yes it costs a lot of money but it's so commonplace now, it's not a big deal.) I believe women should have choices; choose your career, whether you marry or not, choose to live where you want; but choose to terminate a life, come on, has the world gone mad? Apparently it has.

OK that is my opinion on the matter. The penalty for illegal abortions? I don't know.
I think people need to be properly educated on the matter.
It is unfortunate that people have to carry placards in order to "educate" people and are vilified for this - it is completely the wrong way to go about this. Education should really happen in schools along with sex eduacation. Abortion is a huge, philosophical, moral, medical, scientific matter and should be treated as such. People should be shown and told what happens in an abortion procedure. Maybe you don't agree with this, but I don't think a matter like this can be glossed over anymore.

Sam Vimes · 22-01-2009 9:22pm

willy wonka wrote: »

Someone mentioned earlier that women who have abortions go through their own type of hell (and I dont doubt that for a second), therefore one would have to agree that some kind of traumatic event preceded this.

on that point, pro abortionists say that the foetus is just a clump of cells, it's not a person so it's ok to kill it. if they really believe this, why is an abortion a traumatic event? why is it not like getting an ingrown toenail removed?

i think it's because deep down they know what they're doing is wrong but they put those thoughts out of their heads and convince themselves it's ok because they don't like the alternative.

The Corinthian · 22-01-2009 9:24pm

ntlbell wrote: »

when does a featus in your opinion become a human life?

I think this definition is irrelevant.

That it is alive is irrelevant. Sperm and ova are alive. So are bacteria.

That it is human individual is also irrelevant. Once fertilized, the zygote is genetically a separate human individual. It's DNA does not differ to an adult and given the right environment it will grow into a mature adult, in theory without any further assistance from the biological mother - which is actually what happens in the case of egg donated fertility treatments.

That it is 'viable' is irrelevant. None of us are 'viable' outside of the right environment. As we become more mature, the environment we can endure becomes wider, but ultimately we all have our limits in this regard.

The rest of the 'criteria' are irrelevant to the point of absurdity. Nervous system, sentience or whatever it may be will tend to be picked as a compromise solution to allow a redefinition of what is a person and what is not.

The whole "is it a person" question is a complete cop-out, simply because no one likes the idea of killing a cute little baby. As a result pro-choice advocates dehumanize the foetus and pro-life advocates promote the opposite. I would be equally critical of both groups, because ultimately the whole thing tends to boil down to one group seeking to justify an action for their self-interest and another group attempting to prevent another's action that does not interfere with their self-interest (or worse still, they project their self-interest on another).

In my mind, it's an individual human being. The only absolute proof is genetic and it fits the bill on that front. However, even if it is, this does not automatically mean it has rights, especially if those rights adversely affect the rights of another person. My right to life does not mean that another person should automatically suffer for it. This is why the 'personhood' debate is ultimately irrelevant.

If I need a lung transplant, that does not mean that a compatible doner should be forced to donate it - of course, the abortion debate is not the same as that example and there are also other examples where a right to life does supersede the rights of another.

But I'm not seeking to suggest either, only that rights are not absolute in all cases and it is this where the debate lies. Not in some endless and frankly pointless attempt by both sides to define the debate in terms of a baby or ball of cells because it'll make us feel better about being pro-choice or pro-life.

ntlbell · 22-01-2009 9:26pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

I think this definition is irrelevant.

That it is alive is irrelevant. Sperm and ova are alive. So are bacteria.

That it is human individual is also irrelevant..

I'm interested to know what people think themselves what a human is, where life begins etc out of curiosity

I'm not asking it so i can get a definitive answer and put the argument to bed how they think is relevant to me...

Sam Vimes · 22-01-2009 9:26pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

and another group attempting to prevent another's action that does not interfere with their self-interest (or worse still, they project their self-interest on another).

while i agree with most of your post i disagree there. my objection to abortion is the same as my objection to rape and murder. i don't see it as forcing my beliefs on others because "murder is wrong" is a fundamental belief of everyone on the planet. there is no debate to it as far as i'm concerned

johnnyskeleton · 22-01-2009 9:37pm

This is the busiest day for a humanities thread ever. 201 posts.

Sam Vimes · 22-01-2009 9:38pm

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

This is the busiest day for a humanities thread ever. 201 posts.

since the last abortion thread :P

willy wonka · 22-01-2009 9:49pm

I am slowly reading through the thread and came across the cut off point for abortions being 24 weeks maximum.

So it is ok to terminate this?

[Disclaimer: Link is not an abortion, but what a 24 week old foetus/baby would look like]

Sam Vimes · 22-01-2009 9:53pm

willy wonka wrote: »

I am slowly reading through the thread and came across the cut off point for abortions being 24 weeks maximum.

So it is ok to terminate this?

[Disclaimer: Link is not an abortion, but what a 24 week old foetus/baby would look like]

apparently so. there have been cases of babies being born prematurely at 24 weeks and surviving:
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Can_a_baby_survive_being_born_at_24_weeks

willy wonka · 22-01-2009 10:03pm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

apparently so. there have been cases of babies being born prematurely at 24 weeks and surviving:
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Can_a_baby_survive_being_born_at_24_weeks

I have seen interviews of people who have been the results of abortions and the mind boggles. Seriously, have a look at the 24 week old foetus/baby, people. How can people justify this?

Sam Vimes · 22-01-2009 10:07pm

willy wonka wrote: »

I have seen interviews of people who have been the results of abortions and the mind boggles. Seriously, have a look at the 24 week old foetus/baby, people. How can people justify this?

imo the same way people justify anything when they can't use logic. they really really want what they believe to be true so they just believe it. and when people try to explain to them that they're wrong they stick their fingers in their ears and say "la la la la la"

What should the penalty be for illegal abortions?

Comments