Legalise abortion

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

No because I am talking solely about actions which WILL lead to the death of the child.

Pathetic; another answer dodged. Despicable stuff.

Are you suggesting drug & alcohol abuse doesnt kill foetuses; it certainly does. But your ignorance on medicine is not surprising given your ignorance on law, ethics and science.

Your cowardice in failing to answer questions truthfully and honestly is apalling. Cheerio.

nozzferrahhtoo

drkpower wrote: »

Unbelievable ; you cant give a straight answer to any question. Nozz, Ive wasted enough time on you already - if you dont have the moral courage to answer questions in a straightforward manner you shouldn't be discussing these topics. Good luck.

drkpower wrote: »

Pathetic; another answer dodged. Despicable stuff.

Yet again I point out that you not liking the answer someone gives does not equate to that answer being wrong or non existent. If you want to use it as an out to (yet again) say you are not going to talk to me any further (even though clearly you still are since the last time) then so be it. Something tells me you wont stay true to it this time either....

Oh wait post #1022 just appeared, that didnt take long.

drkpower wrote: »

Are you suggesting drug & alcohol abuse doesnt kill foetuses; it certainly does.

If I was intending to suggest that, I would have said that. Given that I did not say that it should be a clue that I am not saying that.

drkpower wrote: »

Cheerio.

Forgive me if I do not give you my farewell in return, given I know you are much more likely than not about to come right back. I will give it a week maybe and say goodbye then.

drkpower wrote: »

Your cowardice in failing to answer questions truthfully and honestly is apalling. Cheerio.

Don't go drkpower - if you keep on pressing him, he'll eventually invent some moral pretext to ignore you

The Corinthian wrote: »

Don't go drkpower - if you keep on pressing him, he'll eventually invent some moral pretext to ignore you

No; I'll stick around. But I will press him no more; its clear to anyone giving the matter due consideration that he has no intention in engaging in honest discussion, nor does he bring anything to the table of particular worth. Im afraid I dont have your patience!

For those who are interested a baby lived for two days following a legal abortion in Italy

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/7646540/Baby-boy-survives-for-nearly-two-days-after-abortion.html

Reported on other newswires too but his one contains the following

"In 2005 a baby boy in Manchester was born alive at 24 weeks after surviving three attempts to abort him. He is now a five-year-old schoolboy."

StealthRolex wrote: »

Factually incorrect. Implantation occurs six days after ovulation if fertilization has occurred.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/275660/human-embryology/63779/Implantation-and-placentation

neither is it an extension of the womans body as it is genetically different. That it is inside the womans body is because that is how human reproduction works.

My point was about implantation into a woman through the process of IVF or surrogacy - not implantation per se.

I think it is an extension of a womens body - your point does not negate mine

nozzferrahhtoo

drkpower wrote: »

No; I'll stick around. But I will press him no more; its clear to anyone giving the matter due consideration that he has no intention in engaging in honest discussion, nor does he bring anything to the table of particular worth. Im afraid I dont have your patience!

If you want to run away from conversation because you do not like my answers to your questions then so be it, but do not be under the impression that therefore the fault lies with me.

If you want people to only give the answers you want to the questions you ask then I suggest either not asking anything, or talking to yourself, as they are the only 2 ways to ensure success. Having a flounce will therefore not be required.

sparkling sea wrote: »

My point was about implantation into a woman through the process of IVF or surrogacy - not implantation per se.

I would therefore suggest you research the procedure as you are still factually incorrect. The transfer to the uterus is carried out at the latest 5 days after fertilization. and implantation is almost immediate.

sparkling sea wrote: »

I think it is an extension of a womens body - your point does not negate mine

What you think is factually and scientifically incorrect so my point stands.

sparkling sea wrote: »

My point was about implantation into a woman through the process of IVF or surrogacy - not implantation per se.

I think it is an extension of a womens body - your point does not negate mine

You said this in response to my own post, but it failed to rebut my point on a fetus behind dependent on the correct environment, rather than being 'an extension' of anyone else.

I would also be interested in your response to my the latter part of this rebuttal.

drkpower wrote: »

And you are right re: pre-eclampsia, medical treatment is first line; but if that fails, or appears to be failing, there comes a point at which the safest treatment is abortion.

drkpower wrote: »

The management of cervical and endometrial cancer includes a surgical option. That surgical option involves removal of the uterus. That involves termination of a pregnancy. Did you need me to tell you that?

if you are arguing at only women who need medical intervention to save their lives should receive abortions then I accept that it is your position but I contend that your understanding of medicine is in error.

Carrying out a treatment for cancer that results in the end of a pregnancy is completely different to carrying out an abortion and doing nothing else.

Carrying out an abortion so you can proceed with a different procedure is not best medical practice and is probably a good case for mal-practice.

Carrying out an abortion for any pregnancy related complication and doing nothing else does not improve the patients condition.

Pre-eclampsia: earliest onset 20 wks. Treatment with antihypertensive drugs until safe delivery can be achieved.

HELLP: third trimester complication. Treatment - delivery of baby and treatment of mother.

Reproductive tract cancer: Treatment as appropriate but usually the removal of the diseased organs usually hysterectomy involving part of all of the vagina depending on stage and aggression. Abortion prior to treatment does not improve the patients condition and may be detrimental

Use of cancer to justify abortion: Hysterectomy is a valid procedure hence if a woman wants an abortion she can go for elective hysterectomy

Therefore and for example, in the interests of equality (given that women are able to avoid the financial responsibilities of parenthood), you would support a 'male abortion'?[/QUOTE]
It not a rebuttal - you give a mistaken definition of double effect - there is nothing to rebutt.

Wikipedia is not a valid source of information - be real. But if you choose to use it you shouldn’t just cherry pick the bits you like Melanie McCulley's male abortion concept aims to equalize the legal status of unwed men and unwed women by giving the unwed man by law the ability to 'abort' his rights in and obligations to the child. If a woman decides to keep the child the father may choose not to by severing all ties legally.

Given that I do not recognise an embryo as having any rights, and I full advocate abortion in the first nine week - please do no compare one with the other in your counter arguement - because it won't be valid.
Firstly the needs of the childs need should be paramount not the needs of the parents - its one thing to abort a potential child - completely different when it is an actual child.
Many fathers in Ireland abort their rights and obligations - I don't I agree with it because I think once a child is a person in its own right it needs both parents.If a person chooses to have a baby they need to remember it is not a "thing" its a person - its needs, in my opinion must come first - children need both their parents. I dont agree that a woman has the right to stop a father seeing a child either

Not only do I think the Government needs to pass legislation giving fathers legal rights of access to their children, I also think fathers should have equal rights to mothers. For example if a woman has a baby joint custody should be an automatic right for a father. I also think fathers should have paternal leave to get to know a new baby.

Although family court is in camera ( a student at WIT was allowed access for the purpose of research) a study in the SE of Ireland found that not one single man was refused access to their child when they sought it through the courts.

Women avoid the financial responsibility of parenthood in what world, quite alot of women are bringing up children on their own without any financial support from the father. Futher 53% of the Irish work force is made up of women.

Why are you confusing issues - two wrongs don't make a right - its not necessary to knock legimate problems to highlight others.

StealthRolex wrote: »

What you think is factually and scientifically incorrect so my point stands.

This is a very simplistic veiw of things given - that this whole discussion now appears to be based on peoples own opinion as oppossed to fact.

StealthRolex wrote: »

I would therefore suggest you research the procedure as you are still factually incorrect. The transfer to the uterus is carried out at the latest 5 days after fertilization. and implantation is almost immediate.
What you think is factually and scientifically incorrect so my point stands.

I would suggest you go back and read the full posts - a fetus is not transferred into a womens uterus at the ninth week but way before this, that was the point.

StealthRolex wrote: »

Pre-eclampsia: earliest onset 20 wks. Treatment with antihypertensive drugs until safe delivery can be achieved.

Medical treatment may be instituted first, sure, but if it fails, termination of pregnancy is indicated. Simple.

StealthRolex wrote: »

HELLP: third trimester complication. Treatment - delivery of baby and treatment of mother..

Yawn.... it is not exclusively a 3rd trimester complication, although incidences below 23 weeks are very rare; in any case, if it does occur, you are right, 'delivery' is indicated - and in the vast majority of cases of 'delivery' in or around 23 weeks, delivery = death - just because you call it 'delivery' doesnt mean its not an abortion. Unless you come at it from a :DCatholic perspective....

StealthRolex wrote: »

Reproductive tract cancer: Treatment as appropriate but usually the removal of the diseased organs usually hysterectomy involving part of all of the vagina depending on stage and aggression. Abortion prior to treatment does not improve the patients condition and may be detrimental

Again; removal of a uterus in a pregnant woman, amazingly enough, is a termination of pregnancy. You may want to get caught up in nomenclature but the effect is the same. It just reinforces my belief that Catholics care little for the foetus, they just care for doctrine. And if they can get around difficulties by changing the name of something to seemingly leave their doctrine unchallenged, they will do so, and to hell with the reality of whether a foetus is killed or not.

If Catholics (or pro-lifers) reallly cared for the foetus, and really believed it was equal, they would not advocate killing it in order to provide a mother with a better chance of survival. Cancer is a perfect example of this; delaying hysterectomy by a number of months will not kill the mother, it will only diminish her chances by a certain % - why kill the foetus for that, if it is supposedly equal?

Given the significant numbers of married women who have abortions, sometimes because its what their husband want, although more likely because they don't want anymore children - who should be sanctioned?

Also given the amount of women who have abortions because they have decided they want too - hasn't the question should we legalise abortion already been answered - the need exists for the service but we prefer to bury our heads in sand.

There are other options of course - but some people having considered all these options actively want to abort.

Also if someone is raped - is forced to carry full term - is raped again and forced to carry for term, etc - at what point would their autonomous HR come into play or would they never be entitled to make autonomous decisons about their own body and mind could cope with. Would a so called "higher power" always know whats best?

drkpower wrote: »

drkpower

Why do you insist on bring religion, specifically Catholicism, into this discussion.

Is it because you know you have lost the argument and it is all you have to resort to?

if you want to argue on religions grounds I suggest you start a thread in a religion orientated forum.

sparkling sea wrote: »

It not a rebuttal - you give a mistaken definition of double effect - there is nothing to rebutt.

It was; to your claim of supporting equality.

Wikipedia is not a valid source of information - be real.

I absolutely accept that some of the facts presented on Wikipedia cannot be trusted blindly, however all I cited there was an explination for, and origin to, the term 'male abortion'. If you dispute either, please let me know.

But if you choose to use it you shouldn’t just cherry pick the bits you like Melanie McCulley's male abortion concept aims to equalize the legal status of unwed men and unwed women by giving the unwed man by law the ability to 'abort' his rights in and obligations to the child. If a woman decides to keep the child the father may choose not to by severing all ties legally.

OK, if I was cherry picking, what's missing from the Wikipedia piece?

Given that I do not recognise an embryo as having any rights, and I full advocate abortion in the first nine week - please do no compare one with the other in your counter arguement - because it won't be valid.

Then during that period should not the father be aforesaid to disavow connection to something before it has a chance to attain those rights? Is there any reason that such a move should not be binding thereafter?

If not you need to consider the future rights of anyone before carrying out an action - and that includes termination.

Firstly the needs of the childs need should be paramount not the needs of the parents - its one thing to abort a potential child - completely different when it is an actual child.

Actually, that is not followed in law. If that was the case, many children would forcibly taken from their parents, rather than the assumption that the biological mother is best for them - which serves only her rights of property and not the child.

Indeed, the right for a mother to unilaterally (when unmarried) put a child up for adoption is also not putting the child's needs as paramount - only the mother's wishes.

If you believe in the child's interests, should we not address these?

Many fathers in Ireland abort their rights and obligations - I don't I agree with it because I think once a child is a person in its own right it needs both parents.

So no adoption then?

Women avoid the financial responsibility of parenthood in what world, quite alot of women are bringing up children on their own without any financial support from the father.

So the majority of abortions are because of suicide risk? Please :rolleyes:

Why are you confusing issues - two wrongs don't make a right - its not necessary to knock legimate problems to highlight others.

No, I am pointing out that the entire question of a "woman's right" in reproduction has been promoted to the detriment of everyone else affected, and to blindly use this as a justification only serves to justify the inequalities it has left in it's wake. It's 'cake and eat it' feminism.

StealthRolex wrote: »

Why do you insist on bring religion, specifically Catholicism, into this discussion.Is it because you know you have lost the argument and it is all you have to resort to?.

Because it is clear from where you get your information; you are just preaching the nonsense the Catholic Church preaches to you. So I have to address that. But I have addressed your issues on a medical/legal/ethical level also, so if you want to ignore the bits I wrote about Catholic doctrine, go for it. I'd also like if you would ignore Catholic doctrine, but I guess that aint gonnna happen anytime soon, is it?:rolleyes:

I find it interesting you talk in terms of 'losing the argument'; if you had any real understanding of this issue, such terms would be redundant and silly; there are no - and there never will be any - winners and losers in this issue. It is an argument that can never be won, by anyone. The idea you think you can win this argument betrays your ignorance.

Just one more question, an adult has the right to refuse medical treatment, even if this means they will die.
If a woman of sound mind who can to cured refuses medical treatment and is pregnant, should she then be forced to take such treatment to extend her life because of the rights of the fetus to live? Who has superceding rights here? Who gets to make the decision?

cynder

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Baby-Boy-Survives-For-Two-Days-After-Being-Aborted-In-Rossano-Italy/Article/201004415622228?lpos=World_News_First_World_News_Article_Teaser_Region_4&lid=ARTICLE_15622228_Baby_Boy_Survives_For_Two_Days_After_Being_Aborted_In_Rossano%2C_Italy

I think that is just horrendous.

The Corinthian wrote: »

It was; to your claim of supporting equality.

It was a correction of your misunderstanding of double effect nothing else.

If you are bringing in the law - then a fetus does not have equal right to the mother legally this has been establised in the Irish courts and I have given cases where this principle has been upheld.

I didn't say the law upheld the principle that the needs of the child should be paramount - I said in my opinion the needs of the child should be paramount.
It is a sad indictment of our society that they are not.

With regard to adoption, as I believe a man should have equal rights of custody then unless neither parent wanted the child, adoption should not be consider. I don't think a mother has an automatic right to decide - joint custody and decison making as I said - if one parent opts out, then the other should be automatically entitled to have full responsibility.

Parents falling out with each other has nothing to do with a child.

The website is focused on all the issues surronding children and custody not just the one you quoted - you are not showing balance. Its a counter position.

I am completely lost on your response about the majority of abortions being suicidal, what is this a reply too, where have I stated this. I don't think the majority of women who have abortions are suicidal, I think they don't want, for a whole host of reasons to either carry or have a baby.

Also what on earth is this about No, I am pointing out that the entire question of a "woman's right" in reproduction has been promoted to the detriment of everyone else affected, and to blindly use this as a justification only serves to justify the inequalities it has left in it's wake. It's 'cake and eat it' feminism.
I dont see people in terms of gender, I see them in terms of people, please stop using me to push an agenda with random comments that mean nothing

drkpower wrote: »

Because it is clear from where you get your information; you are just preaching the nonsense the Catholic Church preaches to you. So I have to address that. But I have addressed your issues on a medical/legal/ethical level also, so if you want to ignore the bits I wrote about Catholic doctrine, go for it. I'd also like if you would ignore Catholic doctrine, but I guess that aint gonnna happen anytime soon, is it?:rolleyes:

I find it interesting you talk in terms of 'losing the argument'; if you had any real understanding of this issue, such terms would be redundant and silly; there are no - and there never will be any - winners and losers in this issue. It is an argument that can never be won, by anyone. The idea you think you can win this argument betrays your ignorance.

I would urge you then to present this "Catholic Doctrine" to which you refer to support your contention.

As regards winning or losing I do not suppose that I can win this but I do suppose you can lose it by resorting to religious slanging and sectarian comments.

grindelwald wrote: »

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Baby-Boy-Survives-For-Two-Days-After-Being-Aborted-In-Rossano-Italy/Article/201004415622228?lpos=World_News_First_World_News_Article_Teaser_Region_4&lid=ARTICLE_15622228_Baby_Boy_Survives_For_Two_Days_After_Being_Aborted_In_Rossano%2C_Italy

I think that is just horrendous.

It really is and hard cases make for bad laws - hence the need for legislation which allows for abortion and which has reasonable and humane time limits.

This article is from the Independent dating back to 2003 and the Family Planning Clinic have recently expressed concern that the situation will worsen because of the recession
A SIGNIFICANT number of Irishwomen are still having abortions as late as five months into their pregnancy, new figures reveal.
The British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS), which runs a number of clinics in England, revealed as many as 4pc of Irishwomen who had terminations with its service last year were 20 or more weeks pregnant.

Counsellors with the Irish Family Planning Association (IFPA) said although the numbers having late terminations are decreasing, the financial cost of an abortion is a problem for one in every two women who seek advice with the agency.

This is leading to some women having to delay terminations until they raise the money, with a number having to resort to money lenders or taking out a credit union or bank loan.

We need to face what a ban on abortion entails. It should be part of any discussion on this issue.

sparkling sea wrote: »

If you are bringing in the law - then a fetus does not have equal right to the mother legally this has been establised in the Irish courts and I have given cases where this principle has been upheld.

No, at most I am pointing out inequities in the law that cause the other party (or parties depending upon your point of view) to pay for the rights of one of the parties.

I am completely lost on your response about the majority of abortions being suicidal, what is this a reply too, where have I stated this.

It was sarcasm, highlighting that the majority of abortions are not motivated by suicidal depression, rape, medical complications or whatever else, but by purely social and economic factors - the female equivalent of a 'deadbeat dad', if you will.

I dont see people in terms of gender, I see them in terms of people, please stop using me to push an agenda with random comments that mean nothing

I disagree, because the whole argument that abortion is a woman's issue (as you have been espousing) is based on seeing people in terms of gender - and seeks to win rights for one at the expense of the other.

In short, even if you do not believe that the fetus should have rights, you are still justifying that a man should pay for the unilateral choice of another - be it to keep a child or not. And that pretty much erodes your moral high ground to nothing.

sparkling sea wrote: »

It really is and hard cases make for bad laws

Like the X Case?

mach1982

SLUSK wrote: »

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.

This argument makes no sense.How do know some one born to a poor family will become a criminal. People are not born criminals.

StealthRolex wrote: »

I would urge you then to present this "Catholic Doctrine" to which you refer to support your contention.

As regards winning or losing I do not suppose that I can win this but I do suppose you can lose it by resorting to religious slanging and sectarian comments.

Hey, I gave you the opportunity to address the medical/legal/ethical aspects of my post(s); and you didnt. Does that mean I win...?!;)

And disagreeing (firmly) with the view of the RCC isn't slagging or sectarian; no more than disagreeing with the a black man is racist. But you keep playing the victim....:rolleyes: