Legalise abortion

StealthRolex · 10-05-2010 4:09pm

Penny Dreadful wrote: »

For me what makes you a person is your mind and your soul (if you belive in souls) and that makes it a philosophical debate where as this for me is not a debate about the rights and wrongs of abortion, its about the issue of choice. For me that is I am not saying that is it for you.

Maybe it would help if you let us know when you consider a human being is "ensouled" - conception, a day after conception, implantation, a day before birth?

If you believe a person has a soul then if you can define when a person gains a soul we have a baseline.

For me this is a debate about the rights and wrongs of killing human beings and as a human beings life starts at conception it is wrong to deliberate destroy that life especially if the only reason is "it's a choice".

Some countries choose to kill criminals. Is that right or wrong?
Some countries choose (or have chosen) to kill based on race or religion. Is that right or wrong?

This debate is about the right to kill based on age and location is it not?

StealthRolex · 10-05-2010 4:14pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

In this I disagree, as while there are no exact comparisons, may of these examples are relevant as they include parallels, and the arguments supporting or overriding the right to live are potentially valid even in the case of a fetus.

Do you not think that given your admission that the right to life is not absolute, that such comparisons are not worthy of debate? Or is your argument that without an exact parallel, there can be no debate?

No, there are parallels, some exact, some not so exact. For example while I do not agree with assisted suicide, I do not agree with the unnecessary prolongation of life either, or the starvation of the handicapped.

StealthRolex · 10-05-2010 4:19pm

cypharius wrote: »

Technically abortions are allready legal in the form of the morning after pill.

But yeah... early term(First two weeks) abortion should be legal.

Technically these pills are taken when the woman has no knowledge of whether she is pregnant or not.

Pills, condoms, IUDs, handjobs, blowjobs, sterilization, Depoprovera and morning after pills, and still substantial numbers of women find themselves with an unwanted pregnancy and seeking an elective abortion. What gives?

The Corinthian · 10-05-2010 4:46pm

StealthRolex wrote: »

No, there are parallels, some exact, some not so exact. For example while I do not agree with assisted suicide, I do not agree with the unnecessary prolongation of life either, or the starvation of the handicapped.

That's fair enough. My main point has been throughout that the whole 'is it human' debate is a bit of an intellectual red herring. Being human does not guarantee a right to life, so even if human the debate on abortion is not automatically won by the pro-Life side.

I believe that this particular debate simply has not been had, because all too often it devolves to emotive argument. Even here, the emphasis has been consistently on whether it is human or not, and I think that has been a wasted opportunity to discuss the issue.

Similarly arguing that the fetus is not human (typically on the basis that it is not 'viable') is ultimately self defeating for the pro-Choice side. Medical science is not standing still, and the age at which a fetus is medically 'viable' has been dropping for years, prompting rethinks in abortion law.

Eventually an artificial uterus will become possible, and then the debate will become significantly messier, as then abortion would mean the termination of medically viable fetuses.

Additionally genetic ownership could then become a legal issue, as fathers could sue for custody of otherwise discarded fetuses, resulting in women retaining control over their bodily integrity, but no longer being able to avoid the long-term financial responsibility of parenthood.

Zulu · 10-05-2010 4:54pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

Even here, the emphasis has been consistently on whether it is human or not, and I think that has been a wasted opportunity to discuss the issue.

I think (and I may be speaking out of turn) the reason for this is that most people taking this approach to the topic feel that all human(s) should be afforded the same right to life; that once declared human, a human should be protected by society regardless of their mental/physical development.

I do wholly accept that the "right to life" isn't an absolute by our (or any other) society (except perhaps buddists?

), but in the particular case of abortion, it's not a suitable "exemption" (if you catch my meaning) - in my opinion. ...but you know all this, as you've been reading the full thread.

The Corinthian · 10-05-2010 5:03pm

Zulu wrote: »

I think (and I may be speaking out of turn) the reason for this is that most people taking this approach to the topic feel that all human(s) should be afforded the same right to life; that once declared human, a human should be protected by society regardless of their mental/physical development.

Except that there is no 'same' right to life. Our right to life has always been heavily dependent on many factors; who else it affects, how it affects them, not to mention various other criteria that have been considered acceptable over the centuries.

I think it is a complex debate as it touches on many difficult, and in some cases, controversial topics - quality of life, bodily integrity, eugenics and suicide, to name just a few.

Edit: I think when I suggested that there is no 'same' right to life, it could be confusing. While all people have the 'same' right to life, it should not be confused to mean that they have the 'same' right to life in all situations.

StealthRolex · 11-05-2010 2:29pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

That's fair enough. My main point has been throughout that the whole 'is it human' debate is a bit of an intellectual red herring. Being human does not guarantee a right to life, so even if human the debate on abortion is not automatically won by the pro-Life side.

No intellectual red herring here - it is scientific fact that it is human and the argument then devolves to the question of which humans are entitled to a right to life and which humans are not and why.

Most people who are born and live expect that their right to life will be protected by law. If they choose to put their own lives at risk or commit suicide that is a separate issue. As is forfeiting ones right to life by forcing the hand of another in a defensive position. Otherwise why have laws against homicide or charge people with war crimes.
In the abortion debate it is a question of whether or not you wish to extend such protections to those who are human but as yet have no voice.

The Corinthian wrote: »

I believe that this particular debate simply has not been had, because all too often it devolves to emotive argument. Even here, the emphasis has been consistently on whether it is human or not, and I think that has been a wasted opportunity to discuss the issue.

Any debate that involves discussing the legality or otherwise of depriving another person of life is naturally emotive. Many of us have experienced a miscarriage or have had to see a loved one in hospital hooked up to a machine. Some of us have experienced worse.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Similarly arguing that the fetus is not human (typically on the basis that it is not 'viable') is ultimately self defeating for the pro-Choice side. Medical science is not standing still, and the age at which a fetus is medically 'viable' has been dropping for years, prompting rethinks in abortion law.

It has been said before, if women had see through uteri would abortion be acceptable.
Medical science through ultrasound has now provided us with that scenario. if a woman seeking an abortion first underwent an ultrasound and saw what was in her uterus would she still find it easy to make the choice for abortion?

The Corinthian wrote: »

Eventually an artificial uterus will become possible, and then the debate will become significantly messier, as then abortion would mean the termination of medically viable fetuses.

If it happens the debate remains the same - is the termination of a human life legal.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Additionally genetic ownership could then become a legal issue, as fathers could sue for custody of otherwise discarded fetuses, resulting in women retaining control over their bodily integrity, but no longer being able to avoid the long-term financial responsibility of parenthood.

There is no reason why this should not be a legal issue now. Even if the child escapes abortion and gets born there are circumstances where the father is denied the right to be a part of his child's life and yet is expected to take on financial responsibility.

drkpower · 12-05-2010 12:58pm

Zulu wrote: »

I think (and I may be speaking out of turn) the reason for this is that most people taking this approach to the topic feel that all human(s) should be afforded the same right to life; that once declared human, a human should be protected by society regardless of their mental/physical development.

The question is not whether a human foetus should be afforded protection of society (of course it should), the question is how to resolve a conflict between the rights of the foetus and the rights of its mother. How we decide the relative worth or ranking of a specific foetal right as against a maternal right is not easy. But that is where the battle ground is; those who try to solve this debate by reducing the foetus to a non-entity entirely devoid of rights completely miss the point, and the reality - equally, those at the other end of the spectrum who claim that the foetus and mother are entirely equal misrepresent even what they themsleves believe, but dont have the honesty to confront it.

If a foetus grew and developed to viability in a nice warm bath, or in the future, in an artificial uterus, this debate would look a whole lot different. But it doesnt. This debate only exists because a foetus' rights can conflict with a mother's.

Zulu · 12-05-2010 1:15pm

drkpower wrote: »

How we decide the relative worth or ranking of a specific foetal right as against a maternal right is not easy.

This is the part I find easy. Once I can establish (to my own satisfaction) that the foetus is a human, then to me the ranking is a persons life vs a persons convenience.

A no brainer in my opinion.

drkpower · 12-05-2010 1:59pm

Zulu wrote: »

This is the part I find easy. Once I can establish (to my own satisfaction) that the foetus is a human, then to me the ranking is a persons life vs a persons convenience.

A no brainer in my opinion.

Indeed; and if you frame these maternal rights as 'a convenience', I can see how you could view the resolution of any conflict as a no-brainer. If however, you view the maternal rights that is being affected as the right to privacy and bodily integrity (which is how they are traditionally viewed), perhaps the issues are less clear.

If the maternal rights are merely 'conveniences' and clearly rank below the foetal right to life, have you considered what other issues arise as a result of that position? For instance, if a mother is threatening the life of her foetus by:
1) refusing to have a caesarean section, without which the foetus will die;
2) abusing drugs
should the maternal right to privacy and bodily integrity be breached in order to vindicate the life of the foetus, which outranks these rights? If not, why not?

Zulu · 12-05-2010 2:09pm

drkpower wrote: »

If the maternal rights are merely 'conveniences' and clearly rank below the foetal right to life, have you considered what other issues arise as a result of that position? For instance, if a mother is threatening the life of her foetus by:
1) refusing to have a caesarean section, without which the foetus will die;
2) abusing drugs
should the maternal right to privacy and bodily integrity be breached in order to vindicate the life of the foetus, which outranks these rights? If not, why not?

I'm not really interested in discussing your straw-men - this is an abortion discussion, but as an aside:

1) interesting case, I certainly haven't given it too much thought, however, off the top of my hat, the mother isn't opting to undertake an action that is ultimately fatal to the child so it's not really the same.

2) I'm a little unclear as to the purpose of this straw-man. Pregnant women shouldn't abuse drugs. Should we legalise drugs for pregnant women? No. Of course not.

drkpower · 12-05-2010 2:17pm

Zulu wrote: »

I'm not really interested in discussing your straw-men - this is an abortion discussion, but as an aside:

1) interesting case, I certainly haven't given it too much thought, however, off the top of my hat, the mother isn't opting to undertake an action that is ultimately fatal to the child so it's not really the same.

2) I'm a little unclear as to the purpose of this straw-man. Pregnant women shouldn't abuse drugs. Should we legalise drugs for pregnant women? No. Of course not.

If you dont want to discuss it, dont discuss it. But it is not a 'straw man'. We are involved in a debate, in the context of abortion, on the conflicts of rights between mother & foetus. You have expressed a view as to a potential resolution of this conflict to your satisfaction. I am simply pointing to other consequences of your position, and asking if you have considered them. If you haven't that's fine, but it is not a straw-man.

on 1) The mother, by not undergoing a C-Section IS putting the foetus at risk, that is the point (there are a number of conditions which make this a medical reality; foetal distress in labour, liquor leakage pre-term, numerous others). IF her right to bodily integrity ranks, as you have said, below the foetal right to life, does it not follow that her right to bodily integrity can be breached to save the foetus? If not, why not?

on 2) My contention on this pint is that, if the maternal right to privacy ranks below the foetal right to life, does it not follow that her right to privacy can be breached (by detention) to stop her from abusing drugs and to save the foetus? If not, why not?

As an aside, on 1, this is the great elephant in the room in Irish obstetrics, from a medico-legal perspective. This issue has never been tested in court but based on Irish law, it is likely that a mother would be forced to undergo a caesarean section against her will in these circumstances to save the life of the foetus. It has come before the courts in the UK and will here at some point; it will be very interesting to see the reaction.

Zulu · 12-05-2010 2:47pm

Your examples may be somewhat relevant but they are straw-men.

In the case of:
1) you're discussing forcing someone to undergo a medical procedure in order to save another. This isn't the same as abortion. The outcome of no medical operation is a certainty. It's probably more similar to forcing some one to donate an organ to save another.

2) one thing that is clearly evident across the globe is that detention doesn't prevent the consumption of illicit narcotics.

...but I stress that neither point is abortion. Why not tackle the real problem (as I've stating time and again in this thread)? The real reason people wish to avail of abortion is because they do not want to have a child - not because of some bizarre medical issue thet might kill them.

StealthRolex · 12-05-2010 2:59pm

Zulu wrote: »

...but I stress that neither point is abortion. Why not tackle the real problem (as I've stating time and again in this thread)? The real reason people wish to avail of abortion is because they do not want to have a child - not because of some bizarre medical issue thet might kill them.

It would be interesting to see the demographic of who supports abortion given that:

a) it gets men off the hook

b) it allows men to pressurize women into having an abortion for the purposes of a)

c) it still leaves women with having to deal with the consequences

d) it leaves the woman open to accusations of murder later in the relationship.

e) in medical cases it gets doctors off the hook and makes their life easier.

f) it increases female infertility risks

g) it increases maternal mortality risks

Do turkeys, Christmas and ballot boxes come to mind?

drkpower · 12-05-2010 3:42pm

Zulu wrote: »

...but I stress that neither point is abortion. Why not tackle the real problem (as I've stating time and again in this thread)? The real reason people wish to avail of abortion is because they do not want to have a child - not because of some bizarre medical issue thet might kill them.

Of course they are not the same as abortion. Nor have I said they are. A child could see that.

But if one comes to a determination on the issue of abortion on the basis of an assessment of the conflict of rights between mother and foetus, you need to be able to consider the consequences of that position. That is why I am exploring this. And it seems clear from your answers that you havent properly considered the real and practical consequences of your own view that the maternal right to privacy/bodily integrity rank below the foetal right to life. Indeed the fact you refer to this consideration as a 'no-brainer' suggests you have given the matter little thought.

Further, our constitutional prohibition of 'abortion' does not once mention abortion. It mentions rights. So the abortion issue cannot be considered seperate to a wider discussion on rights. One informs the other and any attempt to deal with one, without a proper consideration of the other, is doomed to failure. Bear in mind that this same constitutional provision (which 'prohibits abortion') also, in all likelihood, permits the forcible detention/restraint of a woman in order to force her to submit to a C-section (as in my point 1.).

Zulu · 12-05-2010 4:18pm

drkpower wrote: »

And it seems clear from your answers that you havent properly considered the real and practical consequences of your own view that the maternal right to privacy/bodily integrity rank below the fetal right to life. Indeed the fact you refer to this consideration as a 'no-brainer' suggests you have given the matter little thought.

First off, be respectful if you wish me to engage; declaring defacto that I haven't considered this is both wrong, and belittling of your salient point.
Secondly, second guessing what consideration I've given to the topic is aggravating and hardly conducive of a civil & rational discussion. If you wish to presuppose my position - fine, but keep it to yourself & out of this discussion.

Further, our constitutional prohibition of 'abortion' does not once mention abortion. It mentions rights.

There is an underling reality to this issue. It's clear as a bell, but people tend to dance around it pandering to sensitivities. I think doing so is counter-productive, and prevents the topic being tackled.

Sure we can discuss various rights and the semantics of a "person" or "life", but in reality, whatever the outcome of any such discussion isn't going to change the crux of the problem - some people are for "terminating" a human in order to protect their current lifestyle, others don't believe that's a good enough reason to "terminate" another human.

StealthRolex · 12-05-2010 4:56pm

drkpower wrote: »

Bear in mind that this same constitutional provision (which 'prohibits abortion') also, in all likelihood, permits the forcible detention/restraint of a woman in order to force her to submit to a C-section (as in my point 1.).

Scaremongering. It can not and does not. Are you constructing another straw man?

drkpower · 12-05-2010 5:52pm

StealthRolex wrote: »

Scaremongering. It can not and does not. Are you constructing another straw man?

Not scaremongering at all. This issue has never been considered before by the Irish courts, so I wouldnt say that the Supreme Court will definitely rule this way, but the likelihood is that they will, or at least it is the logical way they woul rule given the protection of the unborn under A.40.3.3. If you can construct a legal argument as to why the SC would not act in this way, given the terms of A. 40.3.3, I look forward to hearing from you.

Or you could read the odd legal medicine textbook, if you are interested. Or you could look at recent topics and questions in medical law curriculae in the LawSociety, where this very issue has been a topic for questions. Are the LawSociety scare-mongering?

There are a number of cases in the UK of 'forced ceasarean sections' but the latest ruling there has essentially ruled against it in the long term. Our constitutional protection of the unborn changes the balance in Ireland however, and the considered legal view (including my own) is that the SC would vindicate the life of the unborn by breaching the maternal right to bodily integrity and forcing her to undergo a C-S.

drkpower · 12-05-2010 6:39pm

Zulu wrote: »

Sure we can discuss various rights and the semantics of a "person" or "life", but in reality, whatever the outcome of any such discussion isn't going to change the crux of the problem - some people are for "terminating" a human in order to protect their current lifestyle, others don't believe that's a good enough reason to "terminate" another human.

The discussion of rights is the only way you can actually come to a determination on all of the issues in this debate, the legality/permisaability of 'abortion on demand' included. That is the necessary first step. If you come to a view on where the balance of rights lies, you must challenge yourself by honestly exploring what the practical consequences of that position is. If you dont do that, or havent done that, I dont think your view is of any real value.

The problem with your second sentence is that you charachterise the reason for termination as 'to protect their current lifestyle'. A woman who wants a termination is likely to frame her view that she is so entitled as 'protecting her right to bodily integrity', which is a resonable contention. If you feel that the foetal right to life trumps her 'right to bodily integrity', you need to consider the other areas that view leads you, or you need to distinguish them.

Permabear · 16-05-2010 11:25am

This post has been deleted.

common sense brigade · 26-11-2010 9:58am

some of you people on this thread would not be sat here today if abortion was legal. Just my view. I could never abort a baby. the unborn child has a soul and rights like anybody else. It is not natural to have an abortion. and i am glad I live in a country were it is illegal. i know people will go mental at me and say what about young people getting pregnant. what about rape. My answer to that would be adoption.I have a little girl. Her heart started beating at 6-7 weeks. Who am I to decide to stop her little heart from beating. And convince myself she didnt feel the pain of dying. Say what yous all like. Abortion is i understand what some people feel is right for them. Its just not for me and not a society I would want to live in.

Nevyn · 26-11-2010 10:03am

It is legal under certain very narrow and stricted circumstance but it hasn't be legistlated for so the health services and private practices can not preforum them and women are sent to the UK rather then having what is a legal abortion here.

wolfpawnat · 26-11-2010 10:11am

I do not think for one second it would decrease crime. Based on a generalization here, we all know what background the majority of those who turn out to be petty criminals and the like tend to be and they are not the people whom would avail of said services.

Though I myself cannot see myself ever getting one, I do believe it should be a service offered to those who wish to have it. It is safer than the vodka, coat hanger and a bath tub method which some feel they have to resort to!

Plus it would do the HSE no harm to have the money going to private clinics in Britain to go here instead!

Zulu · 26-11-2010 10:20am

wolfpawnat wrote: »

Though I myself cannot see myself ever getting one

Why? Why can you not imagine yourself opting for one?

I do believe it should be a service offered to those who wish to have it. It is safer than the vodka, coat hanger and a bath tub method which some feel they have to resort to!

I don't buy this. We don't legalise just because someone might resort to something drastic. If that was the case, we'd legalise drugs, to ensure no one snorts rat poison; we'd legalise sex with minors to prevent children getting raped.

Plus it would do the HSE no harm to have the money going to private clinics in Britain to go here instead!

I think when some people are talking about human life - adding the potential monetary gain is particularly crass.

wolfpawnat · 26-11-2010 10:31am

Zulu wrote: »

Why? Why can you not imagine yourself opting for one?

Short of a rape or a terrible medical problem I cannot see myself having one. That is my choice. I thought through having one in England when I was pregnant before but opted not to!

Zulu wrote: »

I don't buy this. We don't legalise just because someone might resort to something drastic. If that was the case, we'd legalise drugs, to ensure no one snorts rat poison; we'd legalise sex with minors to prevent children getting raped.
I think when some people are talking about human life - adding the potential monetary gain is particularly crass.

If a girl decides she is destroying the baby you and I cannot stop her. We can only try and insure the best medical care possible for her rather than her getting infections.

Unplanned pregnancies are not like drugs. A young girl may feel trapped. She may still be in school. Her parents may act as though this is the middle ages! We cannot force her to have a baby either!

Though I myself would suggest adoption so to ensure the child a secure and loving home. Many women may not want to carry the child to term!

nozzferrahhtoo · 26-11-2010 10:42am

common sense brigade wrote: »

some of you people on this thread would not be sat here today if abortion was legal.

It would be worth looking up the phrase “appeal to emotion” because that is what this is. If I was aborted then I would not really care would I? You are trying to use retrospective emotion to cloud a moral judgement to which it is not connected.

There are many people not alive today, for example, because of the legality of condoms. Where is your concern for them?

In fact even conception itself should be bad in your eyes because for every person on the planet, there are several billion other people contained in the same Ejaculation that are not sitting here today because that person got there first.

common sense brigade wrote: »

the unborn child has a soul

I have yet to be shown any evidence as to the existence of "soul". However maybe you can define what it is you are talking about and establish it's existence as what people mean by the word seems to vary by as many instances of the use of the word.

It would be a massively important piece of data to have in any moral argument about rights if, for example, you could find something called "soul" was inserted into the child on day 1 of conception. It would be a piece of evidence that I am hard pushed to imagine would not leave our discourse on this subject unchanged if not unrecognisable to that which we currently have.

common sense brigade wrote: »

It is not natural to have an abortion.

There are two problems with this sentence.

The first is that it is wrong. Abortion is in fact very natural as nature itself engages in a massive amount of it and you would be surprised to here the % of pregnancies that self abort in the first 12 weeks of development.

The second is that it is irrelevant. “Natural” does not equate to morally “right” or “wrong”. Do you think spending money, typing posts on an internet forum, cooking food, turning on electric lights, or driving to work in a car are all “natural” things?

common sense brigade wrote: »

and i am glad I live in a country were it is illegal.

Oh, silly me, I was assuming you lived in Ireland.

common sense brigade wrote: »

i know people will go mental at me and say what about young people getting pregnant. what about rape.

Actually you do not know this because I for one think rape is irrelevant. The committing of one crime for me is not reason to commit another. IF we were to consider abortion a crime therefore, I would not see Rape as a valid reason to commit it. The issue is that I do not see abortion as being something we should consider a crime, so the reasons for engaging in it whether it be rape, financial, or just because the person plain feels like it, are just irrelevant.

common sense brigade wrote: »

My answer to that would be adoption.

That is great for you and is your choice. No one here is arguing that you should have an abortion. We are arguing that people should have that choice. If your choice is to use adoption then great! Not a single person here has issue with that. If you choose not to have an abortion then that is great too... all we are arguing for here is that you HAVE that choice. How you use it is not our concern.

Zulu · 26-11-2010 10:48am

wolfpawnat wrote: »

If a girl decides she is destroying the baby you and I cannot stop her.

Perhaps - but that doesn't equate to enabling her. If I decide to speed on the way home - you can't stop me, but that doesn't equate to abolising speed limits.

We can only try and insure the best medical care possible for her rather than her getting infections.

That, or not alegally allow her to do it.

Unplanned pregnancies are not like drugs.

I was giving an example of other places where people take drastic measures & we don't enable it.

A young girl may feel trapped.

This isn't a good enough reason. I could feel "trapped" by poverty, should I be allowed to embessel money?

She may still be in school.

So?

Her parents may act as though this is the middle ages!

So?

We cannot force her to have a baby either!

Doesn't mean we should allow her to kill her child.

TBH, you'll be hard pushed to find a reason that will make me think is a good enough reason to kill a child. (And I see the unborn child as a child)

Though I myself would suggest adoption so to ensure the child a secure and loving home.

I'd be the same.

Many women may not want to carry the child to term!

That's unfortunate, but I don't think the child should suffer - terminally.

wolfpawnat · 26-11-2010 11:11am

Zulu wrote: »

So?
So? Doesn't mean we should allow her to kill her child.

TBH, you'll be hard pushed to find a reason that will make me think is a good enough reason to kill a child. (And I see the unborn child as a child)

I'd be the same.
That's unfortunate, but I don't think the child should suffer - terminally.

Zulu I do not believe in abortion as a solution to the problem myself. But as I would not want others to push their beliefs on me, I cannot push mine on them!

I think people are having sex and are not thinking through the true consequences of their actions these days! I see too many 14-17 year olds pregnant and truth be told 95% of them are not mature enough to look after themselves, let alone another human being!

I was crying when I found out I was pregnant. I saw everything I ever wanted explode in front of my eyes. Working in Africa, going trekking in Egypt etc. Now I probably would not have got to do them anyway but they were options before a baby. I can see why girls would take the selfish road out.

Do I regret having my son, never in a million years. But many people are not programmed to want to have kids young. Many girls want to party and have the craic and do what they want.

I think girls should be introduced to young tantrumming children while in secondary school. Ones that are screeching and crying their eyes out. It may open their eyes! I would say a good proportion of the girls getting theses in England surely would be the 26-24 years age group!

common sense brigade · 26-11-2010 11:13am

Abortion is in fact very natural as nature itself engages in a massive amount of it and you would be surprised to here the % of pregnancies that self abort in the first 12 weeks of development.

- what you are talking about here is miscarriage correct me if i am wrong which i am sure you will. miscarriage is natural. To go in and have an abortion procedure is not natural.
regardless I was just posting my point of view. i believe the unborn baby does have a soul. that is my belief.
If anyone chooses to have an abortion their choice. Its just not something I agree with.

It would be worth looking up the phrase “appeal to emotion” because that is what this is

Whats wrong with appealing to peoples emotions?

There are many people not alive today, for example, because of the legality of condoms. Where is your concern for them?

Conception does not take place if you use a condom therefore a person was never created and killed by abortion

We are arguing that people should have that choice.

I believe the unborn child has a right to life.

nozzferrahhtoo · 26-11-2010 11:25am

common sense brigade wrote: »

what you are talking about here is miscarriage correct me if i am wrong which i am sure you will. miscarriage is natural.

You keep saying on this thread how "sure" you are something will happen and then it does not happen. You are very correct that the term is "miscarriage" and I am not about to correct you on that. What you are doing is equivocating over terms however. Just because there is two words for the one thing does not mean we are talking about 2 entirely different things that in no way relate. English is funny that way and often people simply make a new word for something in order to compatmentalise things easier in their minds.

Miscarriages are natures abortions. The reasons that such abortions occur are not always clear to us, though some of them are. Either way nature has "decided" (if such a word can be used about a mindless process) to abort the child.

The only real different between abortion and miscarriage is that there has been a recognisable choice on the part of a human mind to engage in one of them but not the other. Either way the ending of the development process of a new child for a "reason" is what we are talking about and it happens all the time.

However as I said the point is irrelevant. Something being "natural" is wholly independent to whether it is morally right or wrong. A great many things are natural yet we consider them bad/wrong and a great many things are unnatural and we consider them good/right. For example when you say....

common sense brigade wrote: »

To go in and have an abortion procedure is not natural.

... I simply have to point out that to go in and have a heart bypass procedure is not natural either. Or were you under the impression it was?

common sense brigade wrote: »

i believe the unborn baby does have a soul. that is my believe.

Yes but this thread is about something in the real world. You are welcome to your beliefs, but in the context of real world changes to society, law and morality simply saying "I believe it" does not make it either true, or relevant. Maybe I believe you are a mass murderer and you kill at least one person a day. I am welcome to that idea and there is nothing you can do about it. The moment I espouse it however, the onus is on me to back it up and as far as I am aware there is literally zero back out for the concept of "soul" in so far as I understand the way that word is generally used.

common sense brigade wrote: »

Its just not something I agree with.

No one is asking you to. If you do not want to have abortions then do not have abortions. The main topic of this thread however is whether other people who are not you should be allowed that choice or not.

The fear I have is, from your words so far, that you are one of those people who appear to think that "I do not like X, I do not want to have X, therefore no one else should have X either".

Maybe this is not how you think, but it is certainly what is coming across in what you write and it is worth engaging in the lone exercise of exploring with yourself if that is in fact how you are engaged with the topic.

Legalise abortion

Comments