nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Legalise abortion

SLUSK

Abortions should be legalised in Ireland. In the long run it will help bring crime down because potential criminals will not be born. It is a well known fact that poor people commit more crimes, they also have more kids out of wedlock and so on. If these women can have abortions instead it would be good for all of us.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

The Corinthian

I'd imagine it would be begrudgery only to those who believe that inequality is merited.

metrovelvet

Jakkass wrote: »

I would say a very very small some. Most people who would be pro-life are concerned with the right to life.

I agree. It was just one example of many odd statements on this thread.

philologos

metrovelvet wrote: »

Its not about respecting life for some [note some]. Its about equality, so that if a man cant abort his child then a woman shouldnt be able to either.

I would say a very very small some. Most people who would be pro-life are concerned with the right to life.

metrovelvet

Jakkass wrote: »

How is it begrudgery to want people to respect life?

Its not about respecting life for some [note some]. Its about equality, so that if a man cant abort his child then a woman shouldnt be able to either.

philologos

metrovelvet wrote: »

Then you have pro lifers who are pro life out of begrudgery that only a woman can end a pregnancy so they want no body to be able to end a pregnany.

How is it begrudgery to want people to respect life?

asdasd

Honestly, no one will ever ever find an answer to this.

You were wrong.

In came Fred83 and now we have an answer.

/thread

97i9y3941

look we not a holy ireland anymore and the holy marys can feck off,people have been travelling abroad for years for abortion so i coundnt care if they did legalise it,its their own choice,im sure they are aware of the psychologial aftermath and they are adults to do their own choice,end of..

metrovelvet

Ive skimmed through the epic pages of this thread and its nearly, well it is really comical.

You have pro choice people who want to kill of future criminals but cant define a criminal, and yet many would consider abortion a crime so in effect they would have had themselves aborted.

Then you have people saying the right to life is not absolute, but they dont quite come out and say that if you can end a pregnancy then theres no reason why you shouldnt be able to take the life of your child as it is a life but its life isnt guaranteed.

Then you have pro lifers who are pro life out of begrudgery that only a woman can end a pregnancy so they want no body to be able to end a pregnany.

Then you have a number of people still arguing the toss of when it becomes a life when you may as well be asking how many angels are on the head of a pin,life is a continuum.

Honestly, no one will ever ever find an answer to this.

The Corinthian

TanD wrote: »

I don't agree that by legalising abortion you are getting rid of potential criminals

The OP was proposing a rather ham-fisted approach at eugenics, based upon sociological considerations. Abortion would not be very viable as a means of doing this.

Encouraging sterilization within potentially anti-social demographics (e.g. a council flat if you get the snip) while making it less attractive for them to breed would be more efficient.

The Corinthian

MackDeToaster wrote: »

The foetus is a part of the woman's body, it is not independent. You might as well say the life of a finger, the body of a nail.

That's is not technically correct. A foetus is biologically independent of a woman, however it requires an environment to survive that at present only a human uterus can provide, just as if you were to eject an adult human to the vacuum of space, he/she would not survive very long.

But of course the difference is that the foetus has the potential to be self-aware, and from what I understand that potential becomes emergent from about the 22nd week or so.

Sorry, but such criteria are very dangerous. To begin with you have effectively dehumanized anyone who is not self-aware; from the severely mentally handicapped through to comatose patients. Of course, you could start introducing multiple exceptions to your rule, but I would think the need to do that simply demonstrates that you don't have a very cogent argument to begin with. Also dehumanization is just a self-serving device for those who don't have the stomach of their convictions, IMO.

In my mind the only valid argument I've ever come across for abortion is that ultimately it is morally wrong to coerce one person to put themselves in harms way to aid another. Otherwise we would consider it acceptable to harvest organs from doners without their consent, as long as it didn't kill them.

So, it is an independent human being; only in need of the right environment to survive. However, the right to life does not necessarily supersede all other rights, so abortion certainly could be morally permissible.

However, as I've grown older, I've come to the conclusion that I really don't support abortion on the basis of this whole "woman's right to choose" malarky. Why? Because, even if abortion is moral, men don't get the same option but still have to suffer the consequences that women can shirk, long after the umbilical cord is cut. And I'd prefer not to support such hypocrisy.

TanD

I don't agree that by legalising abortion you are getting rid of potential criminals, all people have the potential to kill within themselves, I do believe that a woman should be entitled to have an abortion if she wants to, the morning after pill is given away in Ireland and to me, that is killing a potential baby.

994

monellia wrote: »

A foetus has just as much “life” as a cancerous tumour. They both metabolise and they both have unique DNA. I guess we shouldn’t remove tumours either, eh?.

Tumours do not have unique DNA; they may have a tiny mutation in a few bases but not comparable to a fetus.

Choosing to have sex means you accept the possibility of impregnation, you don’t accept impregnation. When you get into a car, you accept the possibility of dying, you don’t accept your death. Having sex shouldn’t force you into a contract to have a child.

Virtually all women who have abortions are not doing so because they wish to avoid the vagaries of pregnancy and labour; it's because they don't want to have to have and raise a child.

Refusing to let someone use your body to live is not the same as murder.

Wait, so a few sentences ago a fetus had as much life as a cancerous tumour; now it's a "someone"?

MackDeToaster wrote: »

The foetus is a part of the woman's body, it is not independent. You might as well say the life of a finger, the body of a nail.

It's actually quite separate, and lives more like a parasite than an organ.

But of course the difference is that the foetus has the potential to be self-aware, and from what I understand that potential becomes emergent from about the 22nd week or so.

It's hard to know what "self-awareness" even means. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_brain_development_timeline has brain structures appearing in week 5; I would not oppose abortion prior to this.

However, prior to that, I give would give the foetus no more consideration than I would a group of any other cells. Perhaps in the past when humanity wasn't so successful, there might have been a greater imperative to save every cell and potential 'life', but in todays overpopulated world I don't think so, and when science is approaching the point where even a single cell has the potential to become life, then even less so. Are we going to have to try to save ever skin cell, every hair, for fear that it is loss of life ? Where will the line be drawn ?

The line will be drawn at brain development, it's the only logical place. As for "in the past when humanity wasn't so successful", infanticide was very common, because the weak couldn't be tolerated.

drkpower

monellia wrote: »

A foetus has just as much “life” as a cancerous tumour. They both metabolise and they both have unique DNA. I guess we shouldn’t remove tumours either, eh?
.

So on that basis, presumably you have no difficulty with terminating a foetus at 39 weeks or during the first stage of labour, yes?

monellia

994 wrote: »

And the foetus' body? The foetus' life

A foetus has just as much “life” as a cancerous tumour. They both metabolise and they both have unique DNA. I guess we shouldn’t remove tumours either, eh?

Yes, and for a man, that choice is to have sex or not; they have no getout clause afterwards.

Choosing to have sex means you accept the possibility of impregnation, you don’t accept impregnation. When you get into a car, you accept the possibility of dying, you don’t accept your death. Having sex shouldn’t force you into a contract to have a child.

Murder should be legalised in Ireland and if you don't agree with it- then don't commit murder: simple.

Refusing to let someone use your body to live is not the same as murder.

Bunch of cellular tissue, gtfo out of my body.

MackDeToaster

994 wrote: »

And the foetus' body? The foetus' life

The foetus is a part of the woman's body, it is not independent. You might as well say the life of a finger, the body of a nail.

But of course the difference is that the foetus has the potential to be self-aware, and from what I understand that potential becomes emergent from about the 22nd week or so. After that point, I would have serious doubts regarding abortion, with the caveats of the mothers health in mind, both physical and mental.

However, prior to that, I give would give the foetus no more consideration than I would a group of any other cells. Perhaps in the past when humanity wasn't so successful, there might have been a greater imperative to save every cell and potential 'life', but in todays overpopulated world I don't think so, and when science is approaching the point where even a single cell has the potential to become life, then even less so. Are we going to have to try to save ever skin cell, every hair, for fear that it is loss of life ? Where will the line be drawn ?

drkpower

994 wrote: »

"Murder should be legalised in Ireland and if you don't agree with it- then don't commit murder: simple."

That analogy is and never has been helpful. Perhaps you are just trying to highlight the poinltessness of RABTMOUSE's 'if you dont like it, dont have one' statement, but for so many reasons, the murder analogy is fallacious.

drkpower

Valmont wrote: »

Do you think that being a woman entitles you to a better insight on the subject?

While I hate that prefix often used by women when 'telling' men what the law should be, i think that, given the abortion issue affects women disproportionatley to men (to say the least!), they actually do have a better insight into certain aspects of the issue.

However, it does not mean that their substantive veiw as to whether it should be permissable, and if so, then when, carries any more value than a man's veiw.

Nevyn

Can we legistlate for the terms of abortion which are legal in this country so there are then offical proceedures and those women do not have to travel or endure a stillbirth.

994

RABTMOUSE wrote: »

Abortions should be legalised in Ireland!!!!
Come on people- how dare anyone tell anyone else what they can and cannot do with their bodies/their lives.

And the foetus' body? The foetus' life

It is a FACT that thousands of Irish women travel abroad every year to have a termination.

So? Lots of Irish men travel abroad to have sex with Thai teenagers every year, just because people do something doesn't mean it should be allowed.

it is each individuals choice if they want to become a parent or not.

Yes, and for a man, that choice is to have sex or not; they have no getout clause afterwards.

Abortion should be legalised in Ireland and if you don't agree with it- then don't have an abortion: simple.

"Murder should be legalised in Ireland and if you don't agree with it- then don't commit murder: simple."

Valmont

louisa200 wrote: »

I , as a woman

Do you think that being a woman entitles you to a better insight on the subject?

louisa200 wrote: »

and up to nine months, whereby the life of the embryo and or the life of the human carrying it, is unviable, should be allowed abortion.

I don't understand this part at all. What do you mean?

louisa200

I , as a woman, think the cells of an embyro up to four months, do not consitiute life, and up to nine months, whereby the life of the embryo and or the life of the human carrying it, is unviable, should be allowed abortion. All cases outwith this should be taken on a case to case basis..

Valmont

Excellent post Eliot. I feel the same way re the irreconcilable viewpoints in that there is no right answer and there probably never will be. I would be among the few to err on the side of caution and I would consider myself pro-life, in that I value liberty and, personally, I find denying someone their liberty before they can assert it themselves to be unfair. To be honest I tend to avoid thinking about this topic because I am always questioning myself and never seem to make my mind up completely.

Eliot Rosewater

monellia wrote: »

If you are consistent in your beliefs as a pro-lifer (i.e. if you value the life of another over the damage this does to my body), it should follow that you believe the state should have the right to take a kidney from me so that the life of another can be preserved.

Erm, not really. The issue all hinges on liberty. The pro-choicers say the foetus has no personal liberty, the pro-lifers say it does. It all really comes down to those two irreconcilable viewpoints. It has to do with the right to life, and to whom it is applied, not the health preference given to the welfare of the mother and the child.

In Mathematics one has situations where something cant be proved, and sometimes it has been proven that this something cant be proved. The abortion topic is as close an example of this in the real world as far as I can gauge. Although I used to take a side on this issue I don't really anymore. I think there is no answer.

The solution then is whether to err on the side of safety (be pro-life) or allow people to decide the issue themselves (pro-choice). Once again I just fundamentally believe there is no "right" answer here.

monellia

We can assume that pro-lifers value the preservation of the foetus’ life more than the damage that childbirth does to the mother’s body, as well as the effect this has on her life.

Pro-lifers need to ask themselves:

- Should people have a lawful obligation to donate their organs to people who need them in order to preserve life?

- Should the state have the right to take a kidney from me so that the life of another can be preserved?

If you are consistent in your beliefs as a pro-lifer (i.e. if you value the life of another over the damage this does to my body), it should follow that you believe the state should have the right to take a kidney from me so that the life of another can be preserved.

No one has the right to life at the expense of another person’s body, soz.

drkpower

RABTMOUSE wrote: »

Abortion should be legalised in Ireland and if you don't agree with it- then don't have an abortion: simple.

Is it really that simple?

Do you believe that the State has absolutely no interest in protecting the foetus in any way whatsoever, at any stage of development?

drkpower

allabouteve wrote: »

Its killing, or it isn't.

Do you really believe it is that simple?

So presumably you do not believe that abortion is permisssable where a woman's health is at risk on foot of the pregnancy? Or where she has a very low risk of death if she carries the foetus to term? Because killing a foetus would be a worse outcome than preserving the woman's health or in providing her with the best chance of survival?

[Deleted User]

freedom of info wrote: »

however abortion should be legalised in cases such as rape

why? is the fetus any different?

RABTMOUSE

Abortions should be legalised in Ireland!!!!
Come on people- how dare anyone tell anyone else what they can and cannot do with their bodies/their lives.
It is a FACT that thousands of Irish women travel abroad every year to have a termination. Not all of these women were irresponsible with contraception, statistics show that alot of these women used contraception and it failed. But to be honest- that's neither here nor there- it is each individuals choice if they want to become a parent or not. There are alot of factors to this, circumstance; relationship/financial/ or the age of a person or simply not wanting to become a parent.

Abortion should be legalised in Ireland and if you don't agree with it- then don't have an abortion: simple.

allabouteve

freedom of info wrote: »

what im saying is everyone should be entitled to make their own mind up, nobody should pass judgment on anyone else,

And that is not acceptable for those who feel that abortion is equal to killing a human person.

To people of that opinion, its legalised murder, something which no reasonable person would consider a matter for the individual conscience.

For those who believe abortion is the taking of a human life, its the equivalent of saying you can murder who you like, if you've a bloody good reason for it.

Not something a civilized society would condone.

That is why the abortion debate is so huge and important, there are no half-measures in it.

Its killing, or it isn't.

freedom of info

allabouteve wrote: »

Source? Link?

Who gets to decide that? And how do you legislate for it?

I'm an atheist, but everyone is entitled to have and express an opinion.
So should abortion be legalised for economic reasons as well as for ''being detrimental''?

what im saying is everyone should be entitled to make their own mind up, nobody should pass judgment on anyone else, after all we all have a brain, i am also an atheist, i rejected religion in my early 20's after having religion rammed down my throat from early childhood, up until recent times i was condemmed for expressing my opinions.

at what point does the line have to be drawn? remember the early 80's, you couldnt buy a rubber in this country.