Abortion

Old Tom · 21-04-2012 02:40PM

iguana wrote: »

No it actually doesn't. Nobody is ever forced to impinge on their bodily integrity to save the life of someone who is an indisputably a person.

And when exactly you became a person, you may want to enlighten me perhaps?

As for perception and limited mental capabilities - sure I know places full of these beings. We could start with mental institutions, then gradually move to people with Down syndrome.

I'm just an old fashioned agnostic, I don't fancy gay parades nor I follow all this new age stuff and tolerance just for the sake of it - sincere apologies if my questions sound naive.

iguana · 21-04-2012 02:43PM

Old Tom wrote: »

And when exactly you became a person, you may want to enlighten me perhaps?

I'm just an old fashioned agnostic, I don't fancy gay parades nor I follow all this new age stuff and tolerance just for the sake of it - sincere apologies if my questions sound naive.

When they are born.

Old Tom · 21-04-2012 02:47PM

iguana wrote: »

When they are born.

Can you precise: born = leave the womb?

iguana · 21-04-2012 02:48PM

philologos wrote: »

Maybe that's because a miscarriage isn't quite the same thing as a birth.

And you speak from a position of experience on that? Because in most cases a woman who miscarries at 22 weeks has to go through labour just as much as woman who has a stillbirth at 24.

iguana · 21-04-2012 02:50PM

Old Tom wrote: »

Can you precise: born = leave the womb?

Can I be any more precise than the exact precise word that describes a very particular event? No strangely enough I can not be any more precise than the complete lack of ambiguity presented originally.

Old Tom · 21-04-2012 03:00PM

iguana wrote: »

Can I be any more precise than the exact precise word that describes a very particular event? No strangely enough I can not be any more precise than the complete lack of ambiguity presented originally.

Well, you appear to be deciding about some persons "be" or "not be".
I wanted to understand what makes you think you have right to make such decisions.

If it's all about mental capabilities, I said already where I would suggest to start.

People think that a "fetus" is same as "fungus" - doesn't think and may cause inconvenience, therefore can be removed.

By having sex 2 people should be aware that they may create a new life, they either accept the responsibility or they don't.

Now, here is the time for making decisions for mature, self conscious humans. Not whether or not to remove already existing being. But here are the key words: responsibility, think, mature.

That's all in my opinion.

battle_hardend · 21-04-2012 03:11PM

philologos wrote: »

The thing is though, is abortion a solution to the problem? Or does the problem still remain. I wouldn't see the problem as the child, rather the problem is carelessness in respect to sexual expression. That problem remains, abortion shoves it under the carpet.

you make a valid point , asking the question of whether liberal sexuality carries any responsibility has become taboo in our culture , people can and should be allowed have all the sex they like but should thier always be a quick and easy get out of jail card

K-9 · 21-04-2012 03:14PM

Ellis Dee wrote: »

I can't see why not. It would only bring Ireland more or less into line with almost all other reasonably developed European countries.:) I'm in one now - Finland - where abortion is available more or less on demand, as it is in all of the neighbouring states, and I haven't seem much evidence that society is crashing down around my or anyone else's ears. In fact, I believe fewer Finnish women have abortions that Irish women (in the UK and elsewhere), which probably has a lot to do with sex education, easy availability of contraception and - perhaps most importantly - a stronger sense of responsibility on the part of citizens.:rolleyes:

Few of you will be old enough to recall the 1970s and 1980s, when condoms and other contraceptive aids were banned in Ireland. The arrival of AIDS created pressure to change that - against the fierce opposition of the kiddy-fiddler church - and eventually the Government had to make an important first step: contraceptives were made available to married couples on prescription (I'm not kidding, look it up!). Asked about it by a bemused English journalist, the then Taoiseach and renowned champion of family values (when he wasn't shagging his long-term mistress, a journalist and wife of a High Court judge) Charles J. Haughey said it was: "An Irish solution to an Irish problem.":D:D

Well, just in case anyone hasn't noticed, we also found an Irish solution to the Irish problem of abortion long ago.:)

That Irish solution to an Irish problem is called "England".;)

Not sure about Finland but in many European countries the abortion rate starts to drop a few years after it is introduced.

So the way to have less abortions is to introduce it!

iguana · 21-04-2012 03:15PM

Old Tom wrote: »

People think that a "fetus" is same as "fungus" - doesn't think and may cause inconvenience, therefore can be removed.

Really? Where did anybody say that? I certainly don't think that the very much wanted and loved 'baby' I am currently carrying is in anyway a fungus, what a stupid and ridiculous suggestion, it's so ridiculous in fact that it ridicules the claimant far more than anyone else. Nor did I ever think that my much loved, wanted and grieved for miscarried 'baby' was a fungus, nor would I have equated it with one, not even a delicious porchini mushroom. However I was more than aware that neither were nor are babies, I lost an embryo and I am currently carrying a foetus.

I think of both as my babies, but that babyhood is nothing other than a projection of my feelings. The thoughts they have, they love they feel, the bond between us that I imagine goes both ways, is nothing more than my imaginings. To tell you the truth I would much prefer my foetus was a baby, even inside me. I wish it loved me, I wish it was having a happy time bouncing about in my uterus wondering where it is and what's in it's future. I wish that the bond between us wasn't one sided, loving something so much that isn't even aware of me feels a more than a bit lopsided. But the reality, the facts (something objective which one can not have an opposing opinion on) are that my 'baby' does not exist, a foetus does.

And as a foetus it doesn't not deserve more rights than me. I'm happy to give it those rights because of the love I feel for it, but if I did not feel that love and I did not wish to go through what has so far been an utterly hellish pregnancy, that should be my right because I am, indisfúckingputably, a person.

Kwiecien · 21-04-2012 04:17PM

Should be legalised imo!

Countries who dont have abortion legalised are simply sweeping the problem under the carpet and ignoring the needs of people.

The catholic church has run this country for long enough. Just because abortion is legal in The Netherlands for example, do all Dutch women elect to have it done... no! But they get people from other countries (eg Poland) travelling to get it done because the facilites are not there in their home country.

Shouldnt the money generated from the procedure stay in the country! Why are we paying clinics in other countries to do what should be done here!

Maybe im being cold here, but this was banned by people who thought it was ok to sexually abuse children and beat young women for "fornication" :eek:

Atlantis50 · 21-04-2012 05:16PM

Sharrow wrote: »

Yes.

If your pregnancy ends it'self before 24 weeks, you misscarried and there is no birthcert or person to register and you don't get maternity leave to recover.

If your pregnancy ends it'self after 24 weeks you get a brirthcert and a death cert and you go on maternity leave to recover.

The state does not see pregnancies which didn't get as far as 24 weeks as being a 'person'.

Wrong. Employment legislation relating to maternity leave does not override constitutional law.

If what you are saying was correct, why are abortions before 24 weeks illegal in Ireland?

Atlantis50 · 21-04-2012 05:19PM

true-or-false wrote: »

But when life begins isn't the point - the point is when the right to that life begins.

I believe a foetus is alive, I believe an embryo is alive, I believe a zygote is alive. I believe sperm are alive. But I don't think it should have any rights until quite far into pregnancy.

When life begins the right to life automatically exists so when life begins is the point.

Stercus Accidit · 21-04-2012 05:21PM

Handsome Bob wrote: »

While I feel the point you were responding to was slightly simplistic, I also feel it's a tad simplistic to compare a potatoe to somethig with life, or potential life, whatever you want to call it.

People should have the right to choose, or at least have the right to be assessed on a case by case basis. I've got my own views on abortion, I am uncomfortable with the idea of it, and I'm not even religious. But ultimately, I can't make decisions for people.

The point of my post was to be facetious, which I achieved and you have subsequently pointed out, but which was the intention to begin with!

The jumble of cells with potential life before the stage where it can be called a human being is incapable of speech, or any thought or communication, much like a potato.

That is the thing that I am ok with being prevented from developing, because it isn't a person, it may as well be a potato sitting in the womb. It is up to scientists and doctors to determine when that thing becomes sentient, or a person, not people swayed by emotional appeals to 'what the fetus would say' if asked x, y or z. You may as well ask the spud.

Doc Ruby · 21-04-2012 06:08PM

iguana wrote: »

No it actually doesn't. Nobody is ever forced to impinge on their bodily integrity to save the life of someone who is an indisputably a person. Not even to the point of having to donate blood (a procedure that comes no where near to comparing with the invasiveness, physical discomfort and potential for lifelong physical damage of pregnancy) if they are the only match for someone who will definitely die without it. We don't even insist that the dead give up their organs which are useless to them, in order to save the life of many people who will die without them.

So what? You know what you can compare conception and childbirth to? Nothing. Its apples and oranges, a unique situation, not organ donation, not blood donation, not even close. Once mental activity begins, you're dealing with a person, not a slimy blob of cells, at which point its not your body we're talking about.

I'm assuming you're keeping in mind my earlier posts on the matter, particularly with regard to rape.

iguana wrote: »

We give a foetus with the mental capacity of a worm more rights than we do mothers, wives, fathers, husbands, friends, children, etc in need of transfusions and transplants and we give the dead more rights to bodily integrity than we do living women.

Yes, because every childbirth results in the painful death of the mother. There's a seriously sick meme going around which views childbirth as some sort of demented parasitism, with people you really wouldn't want round for dinner behind it.

The unborn need these rights to protect them from the few tins short of a shelf brigade.

Dyr · 21-04-2012 06:12PM

Old Tom wrote: »

Well, you appear to be deciding about some persons "be" or "not be".

SO are you my man, also you should probably put "person" in brackets too.

rain10 · 21-04-2012 06:16PM

YES , i feel very strongly against this subject and believe it should be legal, freedom of choice for the woman, i understand people are against it because the baby has no say etc but i still feel it should be ones own decision,

suicide_circus · 21-04-2012 06:16PM

I reluctantly think it should be legal, simply because you cant force people to go through with a pregnancy if they dont want to. That said I think an awful lot of pro choicers are quite disingenuous about why it should be allowed and rely on semantics.

So a feotus isnt a baby. True but given the chance, whats it gonna be? A toaster? A pogostick? No, a baby. And I'm saying this without reference to religious notions or the idea of a soul. A society is said to be judged on how it treats its most vulnerable members, few are more vulnerable than those without a voice. The spartans left their infants in the wilderness and and practiced infanticide, whats the difference between infanticide and abortion? A few months?

At what stage does life begin? When is abortion not ok? When you can see fingers and toes on the ultrascan?

So abortion is an unfortunate but necessary facility to have in a modern society, agreed. But some serious sorting out of the details needs to be done. There is an awful lot of grey areas, wishy washyness and variation from state to state, for something as monumental as 'when is ok to terminate a potential human life' when the mother is in no danger, I would like to see a lot more consensous

PrincessLola · 21-04-2012 06:22PM

suicide_circus wrote: »

I reluctantly think it should be legal, simply because you cant force people to go through with a pregnancy if they dont want to. That said I think an awful lot of pro choicers are quote disingenuous about why it should be allowed and rely on semantics.

So a feotus isnt a baby. True but given the chance, whats it gonna be? A toaster? A pogostick? No, a baby. And I'm saying this without reference to religious notions or the idea of a soul. A society is said to be judged on how it treats its most vulnerable members, few are more vulnerable than those without a voice.

They're made of stem cells which have the potential to form into anything human. They're still not a life yet though. Silk isn't a dress, an acorn isn't a tree, an egg isn't a chicken.

suicide_circus · 21-04-2012 06:29PM

PrincessLola wrote: »

They're made of stem cells which have the potential to form into anything human. They're still not a life yet though. Silk isn't a dress, an acorn isn't a tree, an egg isn't a chicken.

I'm not talking about the potential to become a dress, a tree or a chicken...i'm talking about a human being, like you.

Doc Ruby · 21-04-2012 06:32PM

PrincessLola wrote: »

They're made of stem cells

Stem cells with mental activity? Pretty impressive stem cells.

First trimester, not much there. Second trimester make sure its not hormones or an abusive partner/parents calling the shots. Third trimester no.

suicide_circus · 21-04-2012 06:33PM

PrincessLola wrote: »

They're still not a life yet though.

Its not a human life but it certainly is a life, which will become a human life

efb · 21-04-2012 06:43PM

Everybodys favourite Right Wing Senator Ronan Mullen is in a shīt storm on twitter.Allegedly smirking at women who discussed their stories in the dail- accusing them of having a different agenda- and suggesting hospice style care homes - where woman could bring the terminal feutuses to full term. - all a bit Magdeline Laundries for me tbh

Fiona · 21-04-2012 06:47PM

Yes abortion should be legal in this country regardless of the circumstances. I do not have the right to tell another woman what she can and can't do with her body plain and simple.

iguana · 21-04-2012 06:49PM

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Yes, because every childbirth results in the painful death of the mother.

Nobody said anything even remotely like that. Why don't you make sure you actually understand what's been written before commenting on it so vociferously.

Bullseye1 · 21-04-2012 06:52PM

K-9 wrote: »

Not sure about Finland but in many European countries the abortion rate starts to drop a few years after it is introduced.

That doesn't make sense if it's true. I'd love to hear an explaination. I'd also like to see some readin material.

Des Carter · 21-04-2012 07:01PM

Fiona wrote: »

Yes abortion should be legal in this country regardless of the circumstances. I do not have the right to tell another woman what she can and can't do with her body plain and simple.

Why should she have the right to decide what happens to the babies body? No one should be allowed take anothers life plain and simple. And the fact that some people dont see it as a human life is irrelevant. The Nazis didnt see the Jews as human and they were able to justify murdering millions of them. This is no different

efb · 21-04-2012 07:03PM

Godwin!

Fiona · 21-04-2012 07:08PM

Des Carter wrote: »

Why should she have the right to decide what happens to the babies body? No one should be allowed take anothers life plain and simple. And the fact that some people dont see it as a human life is irrelevant. The Nazis didnt see the Jews as human and they were able to justify murdering millions of them. This is no different

It's not a life in my eyes, it's a bunch of cells plain and simple.

Doc Ruby · 21-04-2012 07:11PM

iguana wrote: »

Nobody said anything even remotely like that. Why don't you make sure you actually understand what's been written before commenting on it so vociferously.

The way some of these nuts carry on about it you'd swear it was like a scene from Alien. These are typically the same types you see demanding a "safe space", which is shorthand for "remove anyone saying anything I don't want to hear". Sure, that's a legitimate mental health technique but don't tell me its not abused by the unhinged.

Bottom line is, once there is mental activity it is very dubious ground to say that your body is the only one in question. If a low IQ is your bother, sure lets get rid of all the autistic. Children generally are a burden on society, lets stop supporting them. Lets stop all child payments since its the fault of those kids they were born to poor/irresponsible parents.

Step outside the echo chambers for a few minutes and consider the realities here.

Dyr · 21-04-2012 07:12PM

Des Carter wrote: »

Why should she have the right to decide what happens to the babies body? No one should be allowed take anothers life plain and simple. And the fact that some people dont see it as a human life is irrelevant. The Nazis didnt see the Jews as human and they were able to justify murdering millions of them. This is no different

What baby?

Abortion

Comments