Legalise abortion

StealthRolex wrote: »

How about we see how we could prevent abortions.

I wholly agree with this!! There is nothing wrong with this statement at all.

However I do not agree we should talk about one subject at the expense of another. Clearly we want to avoid having to have ANY medical procedure in life, but this does not mean we have to avoid ALLOWING that procedure.

I for one think everyone should have access to medical treatment for obesity or broken legs.

Clearly however a conversation on how to reduce obesity and broken legs is ALSO worth having.

But at no point should we suggest that because the latter conversation is interesting, that we should stop the former conversation or preclude people from such procedures.

In short: You are right, it is a conversation worth having. But it is worth having TOO.

It is worth noting however that many, but not all, people who are against abortion are ALSO against some things that may actually reduce the need for them (Such as, for example, the Vaticans teachings against both abortion and contraception).

However your suggestion for how to go about actually implementing this... aside from my agreement with you that we need more education on sex and contractive methods etc.... is one I am afraid I cant really join you on. It did.... make me smile though, ta

Hugo Drax wrote: »

God doesn't come into it.

It's a simple question of the law and morality.

It's morally wrong to kill a human being, ergo it is wrong to kill a human being at embryonic level.

It is also illegal for precisely that reason.

You are correct, it is a simple matter of the science and biology of human reproduction.

I think Nozz is having a problem differentiating bovine embryos from human if you read his post.

Hugo Drax wrote: »

Why else would you be a doctor if not to uphold and preserve life??

Actually to add to my own list that I already gave you, I should have mentioned Euthanasia doctors. Clearly their motivation is not to protect life, but to end it in what they see as a correct and dignified way. Although many disagree with the action, we must at least acknowledge the purity of their motivation, misguided as SOME may think it is.

Suffice to say however, it is clear their motivation in their doctoring is NOT to uphold the longevity of the life under their care.

Hugo Drax wrote: »

I don 't think there motivations are particularly pure, particularly as some of them argue for the right to enforce euthanasia without the patients consent!!

Indeed, there clearly are different classes of such doctors. I am for the practice, but not for the enforced practice myself.

Hugo Drax wrote: »

Rather like what the Nazis used to do!!

I actually thought for awhile there that this thread was going to defy Godwin's law

Shame on your for ruining it.

You may have missed this one, Nozz - Ill give you another go.

Nozz wrote:

I think that termination of one of two equal being should only be done when there is no other choice. Literally no other choice.?

drkpower wrote: »

Really? Do you?

A pregnant woman has endometrial cancer; without treatment, her own chances of survival following delivery are 20%. With treatment (which will kill the child), her chances of survival are 60%.

Do you advocate termination in order to institute treatment?

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Not at all. I am having trouble seeing on what basis YOU distinguish them in a moral context only.

I know the difference biologically, and I know what my opinion on the difference between them morally is.

I am just curious to know what, and why, are the opinions on the latter of those two things.

Biologically the difference between cow sperm, embryos and adults, and human sperm embryoes and adults could not be much clearer.

The difference I am enquiring of from you is not biological however. It is your opinion on the moral difference.

Nozz, I take it you are in favour of abortion.

Lets say you go to a restaurant and you are presented with the most delicious meat you have ever tasted in a blind menu tasting.

You call the chef to ask what it was and how it was prepared.

The chef tells you that he sends the vet down to the farm to extract bovine fetuses of a certain age, kill them - if they were not killed by the procedure - and bring them as fresh as possible to the kitchen for preparation.

As for the preparation- steamed, boiled, fried or grilled is not really relevant to this discussion.

Would you eat in that restaurant again?

StealthRolex wrote: »

There is evidence to support an increase in suicide rates following an abortion when compared to suicide rates following delivery.

[edit] it should also be noted that birth results are the lowest and abortion the highest of all categories - no pregnancy, birth, miscarriage, induced abortion

Based on this the threat of suicide, genuine or not, is no basis to support legalized abortion, and could be used as a reason to restrict abortion further. If you let a suicidal patient have an abortion you are four times more likely to have a successful suicide.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2352979/pdf/bmj00571-0021.pdf

That is correct. But evidence that suicide is more likely in those who have had an abortion does not alter the reality of being faced with a pregnant woman who is at risk of suicide now. On this issue, I am in favour of assessing each individual on their merits and acting accordingly; if the professional assessment is that abortion will substantially reduce their risk of suicide (and there is no other reasonable way of so doing), I would be in favour of it - if not, or if the assessment is that she is likely to be at an increased risk of suicide post-abortion, I would not be in favour.

drkpower wrote: »

That is correct. But evidence that suicide is more likely in those who have had an abortion does not alter the reality of being faced with a pregnant woman who is at risk of suicide now. On this issue, I am in favour of assessing each individual on their merits and acting accordingly; if the professional assessment is that abortion will substantially reduce their risk of suicide (and there is no other reasonable way of so doing), I would be in favour of it - if not, or if the assessment is that she is likely to be at an increased risk of suicide post-abortion, I would not be in favour.

The problem here is trying to predict the future state of mind of the patient.
The best evidence suggests that if the patient is already suicidal then the trauma of an abortion will increase the risk of her completing a suicide later.

Patients who present with suicidal thoughts are already clinically depressed and as it is known that there are long term depressive tendencies post abortion we would do well to review this more careful before we seek to base it in law. By this I mean that while the Constitution says what it says the legislation does not.

http://www.afterabortion.org/news/depressionbmj.html

sparkling sea wrote: »

In certain sectors of society it is deemed to be prefectly acceptable and an awful lot of defacto laws exist in Ireland purley because of the way the law is or is not implemented here

Although some may think two other parties may be involved - I would say the only other party involved is the man. And for me although a man many have an opinion on this, thats all he is entitled to have.

Why is equality such a problem for some women?

StealthRolex wrote: »

Why is equality such a problem for some women?

Don't know - I am all for equality

The Corinthian wrote: »

Which is why I consider your opinion to be little more than a feminist cliche. An offensive one at that.

The majority of men don't give up or even cut down on their alcohol intake for the 9 months until their baby is born. A study further found that a majority of those who smoke continue to do so for this period. The vast majority of pregnant women stop smoking and drinking.Of the minority who do not over 80% modify their behaviour.

Passive smoke causes problems as does lack of support. If men refuse to be equal with regard to responsibility where they have control, why are they entitled to an equal say on what a women decides is best for her mind and body

Maybe you could give it a little more consideration :rolleyes:

The Corinthian wrote: »

That is one of the most moronic arguments I have heard in a while.

Even if you do not accept that there are three parties involved in a pregnancy, you at least seem to acknowledge that there are two, and the consequences of that pregnancy last long after the nine months and yet you seem content with a man being afforded no more than an opinion even though he is likely to have to pay part of the price (be it emotional, financial or both) of that choice, while a woman may choose not to pay that price.

Thank you for your perspective on equality :rolleyes:

My pleasure

The Corinthian wrote: »

That would be the having your cake and eat it.

As you appear to be the expert on having your cake and eating it and given that you wouldn't present inaccurate information as fact, I'll have to take your word on this.:D