Legalise abortion

The Corinthian wrote: »

LOL. The irony is that if abortion was available in Ireland, women would almost certainly be more likely to go abroad for both greater anonymity and better health care.

Pre fetal stage or before the 11th week medical supervision may be need but hospitalisation is not about 55% of abortions take place before the 9th week with 90% taking place before the 12th week
Anonymity is fairly easily protected if this was a worry, although I doubt that it would be. The better health care arguement could be applied to any procedure and as the majority of people use the health care here your argument is absurd.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Please, regardless of one's position on abortion, that is a terrible argument. Essentially you are arguing for 'mercy killings'.

No just elective cell removal

The Corinthian wrote: »

By that logic we probably should euthanize any such children to spare them any further anguish.

I would say that to leap to this conclusion and claim that logic has been involved in your decision making process is curious

The Corinthian wrote: »

But that is not how law works - society decides what is right and wrong and then imposes it on everyone.

Maybe its not the way the law is supposed to work. Society does not make law the legislator does usually with little or no consultation with society. Further its the wishes of the majority with due regard to the rights of the minority - to say there is clarity surrounding abortion legislation in Ireland is farcical

The Corinthian wrote: »

That all comes down to the status and rights assigned to the fetus. As a society we do no give license to people to peruse 'a happy life' at the expense of another.

Really - it may be in a covert manner - as a society thats exactly what we do, whether its to travel for an abortion, drink yourself into a stupor, or neglect and or abuse your children, etc.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Your post is fine (except for the 'better off dead' bit, which really was appalling) as long as we all agree what terms a fetus has rights under (and that those rights protect it from termination or not). But unless you are preaching to the converted, you really have to rationally define these, and this is what this thread has been about.

If I have offended your sensibilites I apologise, appalling it may be but then reality is not as rosie as we would like it to be. I along with the thousands of women ( many of whom are supported by their familes) do not recognise the fetus as having any rights
Despite the fact that people think they can dictate or legislate against abortion, in reality we can't - ignoring this just means that Irish women cannot get the services they need at home and thats all it means it doesn't mean Irish women do not have abortions.

Zulu wrote: »

No. It's you who are blind to the point I'm making.

I acknowledge your point, I just don't agree, and it has been covered again and again on this thread.

Have you read the entire thread?

do i look like some one who has nothing to do with their time than to read over thos 800+ posts lol?

sparkling sea wrote: »

The right of any woman to have an abortion should she so choose should not come down to finances -which it does. No women should have to go to a money lender to get the money to travel, she should be able to avail of the service here.

Again I feel this is an argument that I would recommend avoiding when arguing for abortion like you and I both do.

If you were to extend that argument to everything, rather than just selectively apply it where it suits, it would become dangerous.

For example: I should not have to go to a money lender to get the money it costs to take a hit out on someone I want murdered. I should be able to avail of murdering them myself.

Finances should have nothing to do with it. What we must focus on is whether the act of abortion to a certain point is morally defensible or not. It either is, or it is not, it can not be both. What it costs to the person who wishes to avail of it is totally independent to whether the act itself should be considered morally “right” or “wrong”.

StealthRolex wrote: »

We should treat all human beings with the same respect. As all human beings start life as a zygote we should set that as the border.

Again this is WHOLLY dependant on your definitions of “start” and “human”. I can just as easily argue that all humans “start” life as a sperm and egg. Or that all humans “start” life at the rise of consciousness when they become a human person.

You are declaring positions by fiat without exploring any of the definitions they rest on.

Georgina012 wrote: »

Im not sure where i stand with this topic... I think rape victims should have the option to terminate the baby etc

This is another pro-choice argument I would never use despite being pro-choice myself but I understand the reason people make it.

My own feeling is that the act of abortion is either to be considered morally right or not. The foetus either has a “right to life” or not.

The “right to life” of an individual is not dependent on the atrocities that have been perpetrated against another separate individual. Just become one woman was raped does not mean that an innocent unrelated individual must forfeit their “right to life”.

The reason I am pro-choice is that I see no argument of use being presented that a foetus up to a certain stage in development even HAS a right to life, so nothing is forfeit regardless.

As for people being "stupid" I would worry about this too. Extend that argument to everything and see how it applies. If I break my leg in an accident maybe I deserve treatment but if I am "stupid" and I play an intense sport such as rugby, should I be denied that treatment since I was not careful enough?

Should we even prioritise treatments to those who do not deserve the ailments, over those who's actions brought the ailment on themselves (such as sport)???

No the action of abortion should be considered either right or wrong. The reasons WHY people want said abortion should be independent of the morality of offering them that choice.

Hugo Drax wrote: »

In this context, what is morally right or wrong is what the democratic majority decide it is.

This I agree with of course! I am just espousing what I think the democratic majority should consider, and why. When considering it, I really do not think the cost of abortion should be part of what they consider when thinking of whether to call it a morally acceptable action or not. I think the two should be independent.

Were it made legally, the cost of it should be considered when thinking of if and how the medical insurance companies, and our government, should themselves be offering the service and financing it, but that’s much further down the road.

All I can do is espouse what I think and why, and cast my own vote, and hope the democratic majority side with me. Thankfully I do not share your pessimism that this is a law that is unlikely to change. Should it ever come to vote again, I will see you down the voting booths on voting day!

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

At length. Maybe you should re-read the text from me that YOU quoted and find in it that I said the words „ that wholly depends on the persons defintiion of life, it is not something I think myself.“before you go around questioning my credentials.

As I said it wholly depends on your definition of „life“ and „alive“. Clearly you have a definition of it that makes a sperm 0.5 of a life. I do not know what that definition is or if it has any use as you have not presented it.

Everything is “alive”. They all have a life cycle to follow. Clearly the life cycle of a sperm is massively different to the life cycle of a human, but that does not mean it is not “alive”.

Clearly then just labelling something as “alive” is not enough of a basis to assign it this “right to life” that we are all so keen to assign somewhere.

I wasn't questioning your credentials I was suggesting you educate yourself on the facts because you posted factually incorrect material which of itself makes your entire argument questionable.

A sperm is alive, however it is not a life. An egg is alive however it is not a life. A zygote is both alive and a life and uniquely different to the parents who generated the sperm and the egg that created the zygote.

If you have studied biology even at secondary level this should be obvious.

We are keen that the right to life should be assigned to human life.

Hugo Drax wrote: »

In this context, what is morally right or wrong is what the democratic majority decide it is.
That is to say that a majority of people in Ireland have decided against "abortion" and this is codified in Bunreacht na hEireann and remains the legal position.
When a majority of people in Ireland feel it is an acceptable practice and vote for the law to be changed accordingly to permit it, then we can say that it is by defintion moral.
At the moment, as it remains illegal it is by definition, immoral.

First, the suggestion illegal always equals immoral is at least a little dubious. But that's a whole other can of worms.

On this issue, you might want to look at what our law says about abortion/the unborn. Amongst other things, it says the following:

1. Pre-implantation embryos have no protection.
2. The 'threat' of suicide is valid and legal grounds for abortion, up until birth.

The only reason the latter has not been acted upon yet is because of the medical professions ethical guidelines and their innate conservatism. But if a clinic opened up tomorrow offering abortions for women at 38 weeks gestation where there was a 'threat of suicide', it would be entirely legal under current Irish law.

Does that make it permissable or acceptable?
Does that make it moral?

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

So what definitions of “alive” and “a life” are you going by that differentiates from this?

To what end do you wish an answer to this? You know exactly what the poster meant when using them terms.

What distinguishes one group not just apart from, but above the others?

Society, as a whole, holds humans above all other life. But, again, you know this, so to what end do you pursue this questioning?

Do you wish to deal with the actual topic:
1) Abortion is murder or 2) abortion is merely destroying cells existing in the womb

Or do you wish to drag the topic down a rabbit hole of semantics in the vain hope that you'll get "one-over" on the opposition? (when in fact all you'll do is totally avoid the salient points without achieving anything)

Snide comments about how I read or sarcastic comments about invoices will not help anyone Stealth. This is meant to be a discussion, not some random one up manship over each other. You let yourself and discourse itself down in this. We can do this without any of that school yard self-congratulatory posturing.

Great however, you just gave a definition of “life”. One I agree with much of in this context, it distinguishes inorganic matter from active organisims. So in this context everything is “life” from amoeba, to sperm, to humans, to trees, to cattle. This we agree on. And as you said even that definition is lacking because it leaves out whole sections such as “living cell”.

But what makes one “life” more important than another in your eyes?

I still do not see how this distinguishes “life” and “alive”. Sperm is a living cell. It has a life cycle. It is a very obviously different life cycle to ours but it still is a life cycle. And not all life can reproduce itself either. Take viruses for example. Many class viruses as “life” but viruses can not reproduce themselves. (Though many resist that classification also I grant) They in fact use, for example, us to reproduce them. They are reproduced rather than self reproducing, yet they are still “life” in some peoples eyes. They certainly are not inorganic matter.

In fact left alone to their own devices humans can not reproduce themselves either. They need a partner. If your definition of life requires that something can reproduce itself, then life either only comes in pairs, or life stopped as soon as it started reproducing sexually rather than asexually. If all humans except one died tomorrow, or all humans of one sex died tomorrow, they would no longer fit your definition of "life". Would they then be dead?

So again I am not seeing what is so special about the human zygote. It is merely another cell (or collection of cells) with a life cycle. Why is it so special compared to a sperm or virus and its life cycle? Why is it so special compared to a fully developed, living walking cow? At most you are being species-ist it would appear to me.

The sperm is an organism, it is alive, and it does have a life cycle. At most people can go around and start adding caveats that a life cycle must include “growing” or some such throw away addition, but it is all still “life”. People adding those caveats are just defining "life" as "anything that is alive, and also has a life cycle similar to the one I have".

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

This is meant to be a discussion...

A discussion can only be productive when both sides listen.

Having your fingers buried in your ears while harping the same flawed logic again and again doesn't constitute a discussion.

Zulu wrote: »

Having your fingers buried in your ears while harping the same flawed logic again and again doesn't constitute a discussion.

Nor does calling something flawed over and over again without being able to say why it is. I say yet again: Calling something nonsense or flawed does not magically make it take on that attribute, no matter how much you want it to.