Abortion (may contain details that some might find upsetting)

Pygmalion · 07-03-2010 11:14pm

phlegms wrote: »

While you may not agree with the ethical connotations of an abortion, surely you should at the very least respect someones right to choose to have one.

Aoibheann wrote: »

We can't judge a person for having one, we don't know the circumstances or the reasons behind it.

Again, for people who believe that abortion is murder those arguments don't apply, they would see it as respecting someone's right to choose to take a life.

Aoibheann · 07-03-2010 11:20pm

Pygmalion wrote: »

Again, for people who believe that abortion is murder those arguments don't apply, they would see it as respecting someone's right to choose to take a life.

And I can see that side of things too, though it's almost always argued poorly. Like I said, it's not something *I* could personally do because I don't feel we do have enough information or knowledge as to when life actually does start. For now, everyone has completely different definitions so I can see why some people cry murder and some don't think the foetus has any rights.

Right now, we don't have enough information IMO to make wild accusations towards either side.

phlegms · 07-03-2010 11:25pm

Boston wrote: »

Why? why do people have a right to choose in this matter when they've no such rights in other area, areas which only affect them?

Why wouldn't people be given the fundamental right to chose?

Boston · 07-03-2010 11:30pm

Why are rights of individuals ever restricted? For the social good.

Aoibheann · 07-03-2010 11:30pm

phlegms wrote: »

Why wouldn't people be given the fundamental right to chose?

[devils advocate]And right there, in kicks the argument about the right of a foetus to live. [/devils advocate]

Edit: Or what Boston said works!

phlegms · 07-03-2010 11:32pm

At this point I have now fully accepted the pointlessness of this thread and am going to abstain from further discussion until I have this History essay finished.

Davidius · 08-03-2010 12:08am

thebman wrote: »

Not really the state can easily take the position that it neither approves or disapproves and that it is the individuals choice and none of the states business. They can say that they are setting out standards for the health facilities same as any other health facilities in the state.

Just because the state says something is no longer illegal does not mean they are saying it is okay. This is not a nanny state. The state allows people to buy cigarettes while acknowledging they are not good for people. Same with alcohol.

The state may not claim that cigarettes or alcohol are beneficial but it does acknowledge that you should be allowed to do with yourself as you please so long as others are not affected. Hence if a foetus is considered to be human, abortion becomes something that directly affects another person and infringes upon their rights. The state can't simply ignore such occurences.

Boston · 08-03-2010 12:57am

phlegms wrote: »

At this point I have now fully accepted the pointlessness of this thread and am going to abstain from further discussion until I have this History essay finished.

Good call. I will say one think, be careful when you talk about rights and if you really agree with people having them. Fair enough if you believe someone should be able to do something, but having an absolute irrefutable right is a completely different ball game. Think about all the possible implication making something a right has.

A Neurotic · 08-03-2010 1:36am

I'm reluctant to wade into this, because I'm pretty anti-abortion but don't really have the wherewithal to back up my feelings.

One thing I'll never understand is people trying to justify abortions for the foetus/child/whateveryouwanttocalit's sake. "Sure it'll only grow up unwanted and stuff".

So we'll just kill it instead, in case it has a hard life. You never know like.

In religion class in school, we were given a scenario with a pregnant woman who already had several blind/deaf/otherwise disabled children. Many in the class were comfortable with justifying an abortion on the grounds that the next child would be likely to be born blind or deaf and therefore wouldn't have a life worth living anyway. Jesus Christ...

thebman · 08-03-2010 2:21am

esio trot wrote: »

Life may not be taken but it is being prevented.

There is potential for life to be created everytime someone has sex. Should people not be allowed to refuse to have sex as it is preventing the potential for life?

Potential to become life is very different to life.

Davidius wrote: »

The state may not claim that cigarettes or alcohol are beneficial but it does acknowledge that you should be allowed to do with yourself as you please so long as others are not affected. Hence if a foetus is considered to be human, abortion becomes something that directly affects another person and infringes upon their rights. The state can't simply ignore such occurences.

The states firstmost obligation is to protect its citizens. An unborn child be it a child or not is not a citizen and so in the eyes of the state, the rights of the citizen should come first. The state can just as easily state that it does not specify when an unborn baby becomes a living being but that it is up to the individual to decide but that it will ensure that every citizen has the right to choose in this very personal area which is the state has no business being involved in.

Pygmalion · 08-03-2010 2:27am

thebman wrote: »

An unborn child be it a child or not is not a citizen and so in the eyes of the state, the rights of the citizen should come first.

A tourist is not a citizen either, the state and the police force must still protect them against criminal acts, and it's still illegal to attack, steal from, or murder them.

So no, the foetus isn't being granted the rights of a citizen, merely the rights of a human.

thebman · 08-03-2010 2:36am

Pygmalion wrote: »

A tourist is not a citizen either, the state and the police force must still protect them against criminal acts, and it's still illegal to attack, steal from, or murder them.

So no, the foetus isn't being granted the rights of a citizen, merely the rights of a human.

No but they are citizens from recognised states with permission to be in the state. An unborn child has no such documentation.

If Asylum Seekers come to Ireland, we deport them or request they apply for refugee status and in many cases even if they are claiming they are in fear of their lifes, we deport them.

Icarian · 08-03-2010 2:43am

If someone accidentally ends up pregnant through consentual sex, then I disagree with anything except the morning after pill.

If you don't want the kid, then at least give it up for adoption, killing an unborn baby is disgustingly inhumane when theres plenty of people who'd lova a kid, but can't have one.

adoption means the kid won't ruin your life, and still gets a chance at life, and with that as an option, abortion is just sick. imo, it's murder

TEMPLAR KNIGHT · 08-03-2010 2:48am

i dont know which is worse killing a child in the womb, or letting that child grow up and feel unwanted its whole life....tough call

Pygmalion · 08-03-2010 3:03am

thebman wrote: »

If Asylum Seekers come to Ireland, we deport them or request they apply for refugee status and in many cases even if they are claiming they are in fear of their lifes, we deport them.

I don't see how this is relevant at all?

Murder doesn't have anything to do with the nationality or citizenship of the victim*.
I responded to your previous post only to make it clear that the right to life was a human right, not one granted to citizens (either citizens of Ireland or citizens of other countries with permission to be here), so the issue of nationality and asylum seekers doesn't really apply.
The only issue is the point at which the unborn can be considered human.

*I wish I could find a modern source for that, most modern legislation I can find related to murder is an English act from 1861 which lists the punishment as death so clearly it must've been amended since then :P

thebman · 08-03-2010 3:18am

Pygmalion wrote: »

I don't see how this is relevant at all?

Murder doesn't have anything to do with the nationality or citizenship of the victim*.
I responded to your previous post only to make it clear that the right to life was a human right, not one granted to citizens (either citizens of Ireland or citizens of other countries with permission to be here), so the issue of nationality and asylum seekers doesn't really apply.
The only issue is the point at which the unborn can be considered human.

*I wish I could find a modern source for that, most modern legislation I can find related to murder is an English act from 1861 which lists the punishment as death so clearly it must've been amended since then :P

A fetus doesn't have human rights or every country allows abortions would be violating those rights too. It isn't recognised as violating a living beings rights. Some people may argue it should but it isn't currently the case AFAIK.

Pygmalion · 08-03-2010 3:34am

thebman wrote: »

A fetus doesn't have human rights or every country allows abortions would be violating those rights too.

True, in fact looking at it now Irish law doesn't actually specifically call it "human" from what I see.
Although there are many people who would consider it to be, which is very relevant to this discussion, but meaningless in a court :P.

It isn't recognised as violating a living beings rights. Some people may argue it should but it isn't currently the case AFAIK.

3° The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right.

It says that the unborn have the right to life and it must be defended by law, does this not classify abortion as "violating a living beings rights"?

This isn't internationally recognised of course, but very few things past the incredibly clear-cut are, and even then it's up to individual countries to enforce them (or even if they wish to).

Slow Show · 08-03-2010 9:23am

OK, I'll add my two cents on this.
I'm probably not nearly informed enough to start a proper discussion, but I'm pro-choice. I don't agree with abortion, and I don't think I could ever go through with it, but in the end surely everyone has the right to decide what they want to do with their body. Call it murder or whatever, it's not up to us to decide. Although I think you have to draw the line where a baby could be brought up in a perfectly stable environment, but doesn't because the parents don't want a/another kid or something.
But everyone is entitled to their opinion.

thebman · 08-03-2010 11:23am

Pygmalion wrote: »

True, in fact looking at it now Irish law doesn't actually specifically call it "human" from what I see.
Although there are many people who would consider it to be, which is very relevant to this discussion, but meaningless in a court :P.

It says that the unborn have the right to life and it must be defended by law, does this not classify abortion as "violating a living beings rights"?

This isn't internationally recognised of course, but very few things past the incredibly clear-cut are, and even then it's up to individual countries to enforce them (or even if they wish to).

I don't think Irish law is relevant on the issue since we are questioning its merit TBH or at least I am

Kind of like defining a word and using the word your trying to define in its definition.

I'd love to see the reasoning behind this being the stance for Ireland other sure the nuns wouldn't approve if we let that go on.

philologos · 08-03-2010 12:23pm

Insect Overlord wrote: »

In light of post #19, I'm going to edit the thread title slightly.
Some of those details are extremely graphic. Upsettingly so, it might be said.

The ins and outs of abortion itself are extremely graphic in all due fairness. Perhaps it is a reflection on the gravity of the practice and how seriously it should be regarded.

vladglenin · 08-03-2010 12:36pm

"Abortions for some, minature american flags for others!"

Pygmalion · 08-03-2010 12:37pm

thebman wrote: »

I don't think Irish law is relevant on the issue since we are questioning its merit TBH or at least I am

Kind of like defining a word and using the word your trying to define in its definition.

Hey, you're the guy who brought citizenship into this and then posted about asylum seekers >.>

Although I agree that the current law on it isn't that relevant to the discussion at hand

KnifeWRENCH · 08-03-2010 2:25pm

Davidius wrote: »

By the same token some would argue as to why it shouldn't be given human rights if it's 'human', although one that is yet to be born.

Well yes....that's where the whole crux of the argument lies.

Well they can't really convince that it's wrong if you have a definite stance on the basis of their argument (i.e. you believe embryos aren't entitled to human rights).

I have a definite stance now; that doesn't mean it won't change if a very convincing pro-life argument is put before me (I vcery much doubt the odds of that ever happening though.)

On the note of late term abortions, do you believe that it is OK to kill a baby that was born long before it was due yet managed to survive? Would it not be considered similar to aborting a foetus at the same stage?

I don't believe it's right to kill a baby that has actually been born, no. I wouldn't consider it that similar to aborting a foetus at the same stage, the vital difference being one is out of the womb, the other is still in the womb.

Basically, I believe that as long as it's still in the womb, the rights of the mother should take precedence over the rights of the foetus. It's not a popular opinion among either pro-life OR pro-choice people, but it's just the way I feel personally. I don't expect everyone to agree.

Bigdeadlydave wrote: »

I think its sick that people maintain that fetuses aren't actually babies/alive/human or whatever.

I think it's science. But sick, science = potato, po-tah-to. :rolleyes:

Pro-choice? What a joke. People shouldn't be allowed to decide for themselves whats best in some circumstances. Thats why there are laws. If everyone could make up their own minds about everything we would have anarchy. Basically what these people want is the option of weather to blend up their unborn baby or not. Sick. Lets have a referendum on murder too. I would also like the choice of robbing my local bank and hitting biffo a box with no repercussions please!

Yeah, because every pro-choicer believes in anarchy and murder! :rolleyes: If you people to listen to and respect your point of view, perhaps argue rationally and unemotively as opposed to making ridiculous comparisons and generalisations.

philologos · 08-03-2010 4:49pm

KnifeWRENCH wrote: »

I think it's science. But sick, science = potato, po-tah-to. :rolleyes:

There isn't any science that says that a foetus isn't a living human being. I have a feeling there will be a lot of such attempts to pass off certain opinions as science in this thread.

KnifeWRENCH · 08-03-2010 5:00pm

Jakkass wrote: »

There isn't any science that says that a foetus isn't a living human being.

Fair enough, a scientific definition of when human life begins is pretty much
impossible to pin down. The only thing one can do is look at what is known and make a judgement based on this.
That comment was meant to be sarcastic/facetious btw (hence the :rolleyes:) It was a response to being labelled "sick" by the person I was replying to.

I have a feeling there will be a lot of such attempts to pass off certain opinions as science in this thread.

And any such attempts will come from both sides of the debate, not just the pro-choice side.

thatone! · 08-03-2010 9:47pm

I'd consider myself pro-choice but I could never imagine myself being able to go through with having an abortion. But then again I wouldn't judge anyone who makes the decision to have it, I don't think a judgement can be made without being in that situation. I've known women that have gotten abortions for various reasons so I think it should definitely be left up to the individual themselves to make the decision.
Well anyway there's my opinion :P

Ginja Ninja · 08-03-2010 10:26pm

vladglenin wrote: »

"Abortions for some, minature american flags for others!"

I'm all for a cheap laugh and lifting the tone of a thread,but less of that thanks.This is a topic that could effect people who post here.

Pigwidgeon · 09-03-2010 4:38pm

I'm pro-choice. Although I doubt I would ever be able to have an abortion myself, but in saying that, I honestly don't know what my decision would be if I was in the situation. I don't know how I'd feel about giving a child up for adoption, knowing they were out there and I didn't know how they were doing, if I wasn't ready (which I am nowhere near now) it is possible I would have one. Like I said, I wouldn't know until it was decision time.

While abortion is not for me, I don't think anyone should be able to have the power to influence my decision, except the father, it's ridiculous that fathers have so little say in their child's life in this country, but that's a topic for another day. It isn't fair that the state should decide whether a woman must keep a child or not, as has been mentioned, if she wants an abortion she will get one. If the government did what they are supposed to and cared about the well being of the citizens of this country, they would want these procedures to be done properly.

I am totally against late-term abortions. That is wrong. I think the fact it can be done in the UK as late as 24 weeks (6 months) unless it is due to serious health consequences, if you have let your pregnancy get that far you shouldn't have an abortion, as I think at that stage, it is most definitely alive, considering there have been babies born at 21 weeks that have gone on to survive. Honestly, I don't believe abortions should be carried out later than 9 weeks.

I realise, that my views on this are very mixed up, but basically, I think everyone should have the option to choose whether or not they have a child.

hitlersson666 · 09-03-2010 5:27pm

You can get a abortion at 20 weeks!! Babies have been born at 20 weeks and survived!!1 This shows that there more than a bunch of cells but a living person!!
Imo its fuked up and sick!! 4 weeks is one thing but to practially kill your unborn child who can see and hear is just wrong!

deisedude · 09-03-2010 9:43pm

What about abortions for some, miniature American flags for others?

Abortion (may contain details that some might find upsetting)

Comments