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

metrovelvet

The Corinthian wrote: »

I see.

In a fully developed and undamaged human.

Understood.

"At birth, the human brain is in a remarkably unfinished state. Most of its 100 billion neurons are not yet connected in networks. Forming and reinforcing these connections are the key tasks of early brain development. Connections among neurons are formed as the growing child experiences the surrounding world and forms attachments to parents, family members and other caregivers.

In the first decade of life, a child’s brain forms trillions of connections or synapses. Axons hook up with dendrites, and chemicals called neurotransmitters facilitate the passage of impulses across the resulting synapses. Each individual neuron may be connected to as many as 15,000 other neurons, forming a network of neural pathways that is immensely complex. This elaborate network is sometimes referred to as the brain’s “wiring” or “circuitry.” If they are not used repeatedly, or often enough, they are eliminated. In this way, experience plays a crucial role in “wiring” a young child’s brain."

Source: Shore, R. (1997). Rethinking the Brain: New Insights into Early Development. New York, NY: Families and Work Institute, pp. 16-17

Ah, well - I see your point. However, then I really do no see how humans are in any way special as pretty much all vertebrates have such neural pathways. What is your cut off point?

Just because you call or feel something so, does not make it actually so.

Eitther way, getting upset about humanising a human through language is weird. Its aready human. Its like getting upset over trying to humanise an adolescent by calling them young adults.

Zulu

drkpower wrote: »

a person's right to bodily integrity 'trumps' another's right to life.

No it doesn't.

You do not have the right to kill another person regardless of self-defence. Please provide evidence if I'm worng, but I think you'll be hard pushed.

My understanding (and I'm no legal eagle, so I'm open to correction) is that you are legally entitled to use reasonable force to protect yourself in the event that you are being attacked (ie: self defence).

This does NOT equate to you having the right to kill another person.

The Corinthian

metrovelvet wrote: »

Eitther way, getting upset about humanising a human through language is weird. Its aready human. Its like getting upset over trying to humanise an adolescent by calling them young adults.

I never suggested it was not human, just not a 'baby'.

The reason why it is wrong is that it misleads the listener into an emotive judgement based on false information. Young adults being tried for violent crimes regularly exaggerate their 'childish' status so as to gain sympathy from the court, for example.

drkpower

Zulu wrote: »

No it doesn't.
You do not have the right to kill another person regardless of self-defence. Please provide evidence if I'm worng, but I think you'll be hard pushed.

My understanding (and I'm no legal eagle, so I'm open to correction) is that you are legally entitled to use reasonable force to protect yourself in the event that you are being attacked (ie: self defence).

This does NOT equate to you having the right to kill another person.

Yes it does.
If lethal force is reasonable in the circumstances, it is entirely legal. Please dont tell me you dispute this. If you do, look in any criminal law text book.

Of course there are other examples where the right to life ranks below other rights. For instance, police can potentially kill a perpetrator in the commission of a crime to protect public security/the common good etc.

Therefore, as i said, the right to life is neither absolute nor sacrosant.

Zulu

drkpower wrote: »

If you do, look in any criminal law text book.

As opposed to telling me to look in any criminal law text book, why not just provide evidence that one has the right to kill another.

As I suggested before, legally afaik, you are entitled to defend yourself with reasonable force. If this leads to you killing someone, then the case is examined, and you may not be prosecuted. Or you may. The salient point though, is that you do not have the right to kill.

That said - this is all just a little moot: abortion isn't self-defence.

Nevyn

Zulu wrote: »

That said - this is all just a little moot: abortion isn't self-defence.

Really? even when continuing the pregnancy puts the mother's life a risk?

drkpower

Zulu wrote: »

As opposed to telling me to look in any criminal law text book, why not just provide evidence that one has the right to kill another.

As I suggested before, legally afaik, you are entitled to defend yourself with reasonable force. If this leads to you killing someone, then the case is examined, and you may not be prosecuted. Or you may. The salient point though, is that you do not have the right to kill..

You misunderstand again, but this time it is partly my fault.:P
The 'right' is the right to bodily integrity, health etc.... In order to vindicate that right, in certain 'self-defence' situations, one may be forced/permitted to kill. So, you might say there is an 'indirect' right to kill; as to vindicate one of you rights, it may be permissable to kill. It is semantics really. Whether there is officially 'a right to kill' or whether it is 'permissable to killl to vindicate a right' is the same thing really.

Zulu wrote: »

That said - this is all just a little moot: abortion isn't self-defence.

It is about the balancing of rights.
The legal permissability of killling in self defence relies on a balancing of rights. If you can accept that the right to bodily integrity/privacy etc can allow a person to kill another in the sphere of self-defence, then there is no particular ethical reason that you cannot allow such rights to trump the foetal right to life. We already allow the maternal right to health to trump the foetal right to life so this idea is not new....:rolleyes:

Zulu

So what you are saying is your right to life superseeds all other rights, no?
Wouldn't that then make the right to life sacrosant?

drkpower

Zulu wrote: »

So what you are saying is your right to life superseeds all other rights, no?
Wouldn't that then make the right to life sacrosant?

I am saying pretty much the opposite....!

The right to life can be superceded by many other rights in many different circumstances. It is neither absolute nor sacrosant, nor is any other right.

Zulu

But you are telling me that the right to life is superceded in cases where the right to life is under threat.

ie: you can kill me (my right to life is superceded by...) in cases of self defence (...your right to life).

...but I hasten to stress, again, that this is all a bit moot. The concept of abortion being discussed is not self-defence.

drkpower

Zulu wrote: »

But you are telling me that the right to life is superceded in cases where the right to life is under threat.

ie: you can kill me (my right to life is superceded by...) in cases of self defence (...your right to life)..

Nope; killing in self-defence can be permissable where someone is attempting to kill you...or do you physical harm (ie. invade your right to health/bodily integrity) .... or do someone else harm........and in recently enacted (? soon to be enacted) law, killing will be permissable to protect property rights.

Zulu wrote: »

...but I hasten to stress, again, that this is all a bit moot. The concept of abortion being discussed is not self-defence.

And I hasten to stress that the principle is the same. The foetus may breach various maternal rights, including privacy, bodily integrity, health and life. The principle of balancing the rights is the same in principle, it just involves a different set of factual circumstances.

If we accept that the right to life can be subservient to other rights (which we do), the consequences of that has obvious application to the abortion debate.

Hagar

I'd love to see a detailed breakdown on the true reasons for abortion.

Tragic circumstances such as rape, mother's life in danger, horribly deformed foetus are always trotted out as a justification for abortion but how many abortions are for reasons such as those and how many are just an extreme form of contraception?

I can see medical reasons why an abortion might be justified but in the absence of a life threatening medical reason I can't see it as anything other than heartless murder of innocent human beings.

Zombrex

69 wrote: »

I'd love to see a detailed breakdown on the true reasons for abortion.

Tragic circumstances such as rape, mother's life in danger, horribly deformed foetus are always trotted out as a justification for abortion but how many abortions are for reasons such as those and how many are just an extreme form of contraception?

I can see medical reasons why an abortion might be justified but in the absence of a life threatening medical reason I can't see it as anything other than heartless murder of innocent human beings.

Isn't it still heartless murder of innocent human beings if you have a medical reason for abortion?

Hagar

Yes. I'm just asking the pro-choice lobby to justify the non-medical cases. The medical cases I would see as a different debate.

Nevyn

Do you think that all medical reasons a physical?

dvpower

69 wrote: »

Yes. I'm just asking the pro-choice lobby to justify the non-medical cases. The medical cases I would see as a different debate.

You'd have to define what you mean by the 'non medical' cases. Would you consider, say, the X case to be a non medical case?

Hagar

Thaedydal wrote: »

Do you think that all medical reasons a physical?

Certainly not. But neither am I naive enough to believe that some people won't fake a psychological condition to justify their actions.

dvpower wrote: »

You'd have to define what you mean by the 'non medical' cases. Would you consider, say, the X case to be a non medical case?

TBH there was so much hype about the X Case I can't seperate the truth from newspaper selling.

dvpower

69 wrote:

I can see medical reasons why an abortion might be justified but in the absence of a life threatening medical reason I can't see it as anything other than heartless murder of innocent human beings.

69 wrote: »

TBH there was so much hype about the X Case I can't seperate the truth from newspaper selling.

So, what do you mean by 'non medical' cases?

Zulu

I would have thought that

69 wrote: »

...just an extreme form of contraception?

summed it up, no?

dvpower

Zulu wrote: »

I would have thought that

...just an extreme form of contraception?

summed it up, no?

69 makes a number of distinctions.

1. Life threatening medical reasons where an abortion might be justified. I'm not clear exactly what falls into this category e.g. threat of suicide, like the X case?
2. Extreme forms of contraception where, I'm guessing, abortion is not justified, and
3 - x. Tragic circumstances. I'm not clear where 69 stands on abortion in these cases.

The Corinthian

dvpower wrote: »

1. Life threatening medical reasons where an abortion might be justified.

I think there are very, very few who object to this scenario for abortion.

2. Extreme forms of contraception where, I'm guessing, abortion is not justified, and

If it is not a 'person' then this is perfectly acceptable.

If it is, then the question becomes more complex. It's not as simple as question of a right to life for the unborn person, because ultimately none of us actually have an absolute right to life - if I need a lung transplant, my right to life cannot force another person to sacrifice one of theirs, for example. At the same time, you cannot put a person to death simply because it would cure your suicidal thoughts.

3 - x. Tragic circumstances. I'm not clear where 69 stands on abortion in these cases.

Tragic cases cause people to think with their hearts and not their heads. If tomorrow it was discovered that an abortion clinic was selling aborted foetal parts to the cosmetic industry in Ireland, you'd likely get a similar swing in the opposite direction.

Sulmac

To mark International Women's Day, the Irish Family Planning Organisation have released a poll on the issue of abortion.

Here are the results:

Abortion is acceptable whenever... Agree
Woman's life threatened. 87%
Woman's health threatened. 79%
Pregnancy results from sexual abuse, rape or incest. 78%
There is a profound foetal abnormality. 62%
The woman believes it is in her (or her family's) best interest. 41%
Abortion is never acceptable. 3%

Zombrex

Sulmac wrote: »

To mark International Women's Day, the Irish Family Planning Organisation have released a poll on the issue of abortion.

Here are the results:

Abortion is acceptable whenever... Agree
Woman's life threatened. 87%
Woman's health threatened. 79%
Pregnancy results from sexual abuse, rape or incest. 78%
There is a profound foetal abnormality. 62%
The woman believes it is in her (or her family's) best interest. 41%
Abortion is never acceptable. 3%

I never understood the argument that it is acceptable if it results from sexual abuse or rape?

That argument seems to be very emotional in nature

metrovelvet

Wicknight wrote: »

I never understood the argument that it is acceptable if it results from sexual abuse or rape?

That argument seems to be very emotional in nature

It doesnt make any sense. The only woman I know of whom got pregnant by a rape was one who kept the child. Everyone I know who had abortions wanted to finish a degree. The other reasons were, wasnt sure if it was her husbandsthe second abortion, same woman firdt abortion was to finish a masters, and the others fell into 1. wanted to finish a degree 2. Not sure if the husbands 3. wanted to be a star 3. planned on leaving the husband - baby gets in the way of get away plans. Another woman I know had a late second term abortion to finish her HS diploma - wrote an essay about it and got into Yale, god bless the affirmative action years, and then had another abortion at Yale.

Zulu

So effectively, a minority of 41% agree that abortion should be freely* available? Good.

*unless there are exceptional circumstances.

dvpower

Wicknight wrote: »

I never understood the argument that it is acceptable if it results from sexual abuse or rape?

That argument seems to be very emotional in nature

I'm surprised that these debates on abortion tend to get bogged down in logical arguements about when life begins, what a human person is, at what point could a fetus survive outside the womb etc...

I can imagine that when women make the decision to have an abortion, emotional factors are often at the forefront.

dvpower

Zulu wrote: »

So effectively, a minority of 41% agree that abortion should be freely* available? Good.

*unless there are exceptional circumstances.

Do you get that figure from this?

Over four out of 10 respondents (41%) agreed that termination of pregnancy should be permitted if the woman believes it is in her and / or her family's best interest

I don't think you can realistically read that as 41% agree that abortion should be available only in exceptional circumstances.

Still, I would say that these findings were surprisingly liberal e.g. only 3% opposed to abortion in any circumstances. Mind you, the poll was commissioned by Marie Stopes, so it comes with that health warning.

Zulu

dvpower wrote: »

Do you get that figure from this?

yup.

I don't think you can realistically read that as 41% agree that abortion should be available only in exceptional circumstances.

Why not, the other options were all exceptional circumstances. That was, pretty much the only option that wasn't exceptional.

it comes with that health warning.

Well, I wouldn't put much weight behind any poll on abortion tbh..

The Corinthian

dvpower wrote: »

Still, I would say that these findings were surprisingly liberal e.g. only 3% opposed to abortion in any circumstances. Mind you, the poll was commissioned by Marie Stopes, so it comes with that health warning.

Indeed, it's like reading a health report commissioned by Philip Morris.

Additionally it was carried out by some group called YouGov, and from what I can see this is a UK and not Irish organization. You have to be careful with such reports as often they end up as press releases and you really have no idea how large the sample was, where it was taken (were the responses collected in the waiting rooms of abortion clinics?), what was the methodology or anything else.

The Corinthian

Wicknight wrote: »

I never understood the argument that it is acceptable if it results from sexual abuse or rape?

That argument seems to be very emotional in nature

Abortion being argued through emotional rather than rational argument?

Who's have thought :eek:

Seriously, I think you get emotional claptrap on both sides. Nature of the beast.