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

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.

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

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?

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."

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.

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.

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.

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 ?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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..

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

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?

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: »

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: »

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.

The Corinthian

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

nozzferrahhtoo

The Corinthian wrote: »

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.

Actually I do not think the users argument is bad at all, but just badly phrased which led you quite rightly to question it as above. However maybe I can work to clarify it some?

The difference is that the faculty of consciousness is present in these people despite the fact it is not operating within normal parameters. This is not so with the Fetus and the difference here is very distinct.

At certain points in development that faculty just has not developed. No "person" has formed. You can not "dehumanise" it therefore.

In my view our rights come from us. There appears to be no other source for them, despite some inventing an external one without evidence sometimes. It is our human consciousness these rights come from, that decides what they will be, who will get them and how to enforce them. I do not find it a leap therefore to say it is TO human consciousness we assign them too.

This leads me to the view that once this faculty forms the person receives those rights and keeps them until death do they part. This is regardless of handicap, coma etc and is why the users argument does not lead to the conclusion you believed it did.

Of course the hardest part is to find out the exact cut off point when consciousness forms first. "Where do you draw the line".

Just like gravity most people do not know where it is, where it comes from, where it starts and ends. However like gravity if it is entirely absent it is more than apparent. The necessary components form at different points. To take one example of many I have read while scouring peer reviewed paper after paper before forming my opinions on abortion.

K.J.S. Anand, a researcher of newborns, and P.R. Hickey, published in NEJM say "intermittent electroencephalographic bursts in both cerebral hemispheres are first seen at 20 weeks gestation; they become sustained at 22 weeks and bilaterally synchronous at 26 to 27 weeks.

Most components of human consciousness do not START to form before 20 weeks let alone reach completion and even if you build in a grossly exaggerated 20% safety margin because some develop faster than others you reach a very safe Pro-choice cut off point of 16 weeks which does not fall into any of the pitfalls you are astute enough to direct at the previous user.

Of course this argument does not address the issues of those who think we are messing with god's plan or that the soul enters the zygote at the moment of conception etc. or that rights come from such an external source.

If such an god entity were shown to exist my entire argument above would fail entirely as the source, origin and starting point of morality and rights would be entirely different from where I have assumed it to be and I would have to re-think my position entirely. However thus far in 19 years of asking, not one person has shown me a single shred of a scrap of evidence for said entity and since we can not assume data we do not have I am feeling pretty secure at this time.

My full essay on this subject you can read here if interested:
http://www.atheist.ie/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=1554&start=0

philologos

This assumes that human consciousness is the standard for life. This is disagreeable with many, as biological life exists in the foetus much sooner than 20 weeks. Biological life including growth and development.

nozzferrahhtoo

Not at all. It assumes that human conciousness is the standard for MORALITY and RIGHTS. Not for Life. Many things are "alive" but we do not assign them rights. So this is not really the claim I am making sorry. However maybe I can be a little clearer to help out...

If you read the linked essay you see that I mention the biological view of when "Life" starts is too problematic to use in this discussion. I will quote the relevant part:

Take someone who says life begins at conception. However the cells that go into creating a human being are "alive" also. The contradiction is if life BEGINS at conception then if the cells that go into creating a human are alive what has BEGUN here? For something to BEGIN something has to either start that was not there before, or has to restart after being stopped. This is what BEGIN means. However this clearly hasn't happened.

In fact considering the sperm AND the egg were biologically "alive" before conception and after conception only the zygote is alive, if you want to play with arithmetic then DEATH actually occours at conception not LIFE as 2 living things became 1 living thing. Further...

There is a little known to the general Joe but very common occurrence in the zygote that hammers a hole right into the "at conception" argument. Imagine the cell is a "new life" for a moment.

Often the cell splits into twins. More often than you think. What has happened here? Has a new life popped up AFTER conception? This kills the "all life is at conception" idea. Or has the life of the one become two halves? I would love to see you tell twins they are only half-alive!

Why are there not more twins then if this happens so often? Well because often, for no reason we know yet, one twin REABSORBS the other. What happened here? Did half alive twins become one? Did one murder the other? Is one life suddenly dead, or if you are religious cast into eternal limbo as an un-baptised soul?

No it is not "Life" we assign human rights to. It is, like I said, assigned to the same part that thinks it up in the first place.

philologos

Is it though? I think that is disagreeable in itself. I personally would consider peoples right to live to be inalienable indistinguishable of whether or not their brain has fully formed yet.

You're only saying the following: Killing is entitled because this child is less developed than you are. There's something I find fundamentally uneasy about that.

N.B Citing your own essay can't be considered by any means authoritative in a discussion. You're also bringing in notions from Catholicism into the discussion. Even when I have reasoned on this subject with Christians I do not argue from the perspective of the soul but rather on inalienable human rights.

nozzferrahhtoo

I undertand what you mean and am far from unsympathetic to it. To be a little tounge in cheeck however I find chewing gum and chewing with ones mouth open disagreeable. However personal feelings of unease are not exactly killer arguments in a debate on any issue are they? Although difficult for most people to do it is worth drawing a line between what is distasteful to YOU and what should be legally enforced on the masses.

There appears to be no other source or rights other than the faculty of human conciousness. We have found no other source, are aware of no other source and have no evidence for any other source. Without the human mind and conciousness therefore this concept of "rights" would not even exist.

Why it is, therefore, a leap to suggest that it is TO this faculty we assign those rights, I am a little unclear on. The inalienable right you refer to would appear to be wholly assumed as a consequence of this and although I think RABTMOUSE had a terribly bad GENERAL argument when he said:

If you don't agree with it- then don't have an abortion: simple.

It is a good argument in SPECIFIC cases and I would think this is one of those cases. If there appears to be nothing wrong with something except for PERSONAL distaste, then simply do not partake of that something and I would defend to the death your right to do so / not do so.

Jakkass wrote: »

N.B Citing your own essay can't be considered by any means authoritative in a discussion.

Nor am I aware of claiming it was. I merely did so as a short cut to re-writing the entire thing again.

philologos

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

However personal feelings of unease are not exactly killer arguments in a debate on any issue are they?

If they involve death, it's a bit more serious than chewing gum. I would have thought that you would have enough intelligence to discern that much given what I have seen of you before.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Although difficult for most people to do it is worth drawing a line between what is distasteful to YOU and what should be legally enforced on the masses.

I don't subscribe to moral relativism, it's flawed, and it will lead to a world which is worse than the one which we currently live in. I consider abortion by demand to be something barbaric, and should be rejected in a reasonable age which respects reasonable rights.

Morals to me are universal, I will need better than "whatever floats your boat" particularly when it involves death.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

There appears to be no other source or rights other than the faculty of human conciousness. We have found no other source, are aware of no other source and have no evidence for any other source. Without the human mind and conciousness therefore this concept of "rights" would not even exist.

In a secular sense, the community who is governing affairs is the one who gives the rights. This is what the utilitarian Bentham would have argued. It isn't that one has to have a consciousness to be given rights, rather it is us as a legislature who grants rights. Hence why in Ireland abortion by demand is firmly illegal. We have chosen to endow the right to life as a community to it. However, I don't really believe that we give or take rights at all. They are truly inalienable to me.

In a Judeo-Christian sense, it is God Himself who would offer these rights. The US Declaration of Independence is roughly summing up what we are speaking of here:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

It is a good argument in SPECIFIC cases and I would think this is one of those cases. If there appears to be nothing wrong with something except for PERSONAL distaste, then simply do not partake of that something and I would defend to the death your right to do so / not do so.

No it isn't. If it denies other peoples human rights it isn't that easy, and if one does not subscribe to moral relativism it's even more difficult. I find it appalling to take ones liberty away from them before they are even born.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Nor am I aware of claiming it was. I merely did so as a short cut to re-writing the entire thing again.

We haven't dealt with the concept of the soul yet, therefore the essay isn't all that relevant. If we wanted to discuss the soul we could be here all night. We have the works of the Greeks, the Hebrews, the Muslims, and so on. I regard the soul as something mysterious to us. The concept of human rights is far more tangible.

nozzferrahhtoo

Jakkass, do not reduce this conversation like others to commenting on each others intelligence. I stated perfectly clearly that I was being tongue in cheek with my example. If you choose to ignore that part of the paragraph and attack the rest than the problem does not lie with me. The point I am making is clear. Personal distaste is not an argument against something for everyone else. If you want to ignore the point and attack the example instead then I am not sure where to go from there.

As far as I can see there is no other source of human morals or rights other than US. You can call them universal or “inalienable” or (“unalienable” as you did in your quote) if you like, but this does not make it so. Find them. Are they under the rocks? In the sea? Up a tree? Find another source for them other than us and I will instantly re-evaluate my entire position.

They may be “inalienable“ to YOU as you say, but they are not to me and this appears to be wholly assumed on your part. The “human rights” come from us. We decide them and grant them and I do not find it a leap to suggest we assign them TO the part that they come FROM.

So when you say things like “I find it appalling to take ones liberty away from them before they are even born.“ you entirely miss my position. I am not taking anything away from anyone because a) they don’t have it yet and you can not take what someone does not have b) there isn’t even a someone to have them yet in the first place.

philologos

Unless we can have the same understanding of rights, this discussion is futile. I think rights exist as ideals irrespective of whether or not Governments give them out. Not respecting rights makes it a bad government.

Even if I take your assumption, we have decided to keep abortion on demand illegal in this country. That is what the people have decided in the past and no doubt even in the present. Even if people resented this right, it still doesn't mean the right to life doesn't exist.