Abortion

Knasher · 25-04-2012 7:47pm

partyatmygaff wrote: »

That's not a perfect analogy. The person's disease didn't come about as a result of the donor. The donor has nothing to do with their disease and is donating bone marrow solely out of kindness.

Some people have a genetic predisposition towards developing leukemia, so if someone inherits this predisposition from a parent and that parent is a possible donor, would we force their donation? Although I'm sure almost every parent would donate, and so it's a question that hopefully never arises, it doesn't really change the hypothetical situation.

partyatmygaff · 25-04-2012 7:54pm

Knasher wrote: »

Some people have a genetic predisposition towards developing leukemia, so if someone inherits this predisposition from a parent and that parent is a possible donor, would we force their donation? Although I'm sure almost every parent would donate, and so it's a question that hopefully never arises, it doesn't really change the hypothetical situation.

That's an unlikely scenario. For one, as you said almost every parent would not hesitate to donate and secondly if a parent is healthy and they were a carrier of the gene that predisposed their children to leukaemia i'd feel it would be their duty to donate.

Also, assuming the genes involved are recessive i'd be of the opinion that it would be the duty of both parents to donate if they didn't have already leukaemia themselves.

Knasher · 25-04-2012 8:03pm

partyatmygaff wrote: »

That's an unlikely scenario. For one, as you said almost every parent would not hesitate to donate and secondly if a parent is healthy and they were a carrier of the gene that predisposed their children to leukemia I'd feel it would be their duty to donate.

It's unlikely but plausible so I think it's fair game to use in an argument. Sure I could accept that a parent would have a duty to donate, but the question was would you force them to donate? (I'm not sure if you meant duty as an euphemism for forcing them) And if it's only the predisposition that makes the difference then does that mean you wouldn't force them to donate if they didn't carry the gene?

Morag · 25-04-2012 8:34pm

Irishchick wrote: »

this thread is about abortion so you hardly think its going to be one sided. The women are having trouble coming to terms with it because they know what they've done and they are regretting it now. Its what happens. Some women need counselling for years to deal with an abortion. Its damaging. There is nothing positive about it.

Some women do due to the stigma and taboo nature of abortion due to people like you who condemn and judge.

Many don't need counseling and are not damaged by it one bit.

Irishchick · 25-04-2012 8:42pm

Sharrow wrote: »

Many don't need counseling and are not damaged by it one bit.

Do you honestly believe that ?

philologos · 25-04-2012 8:54pm

true-or-false wrote: »

Killing your children and preventing their birth are two different things.

Abortion is killing an unborn child. To say otherwise is fudging the truth.

Knasher wrote: »

I'll have to read up a bit on that before I would be willing to say if I would consider that enough, wikipedia says that the neural tube "will later differentiate into the spinal cord and the brain", so it sounds a little premature to me. But for the sake of argument lets say I agree that the right to life should be extended all the way back to neurulation, it wouldn't change my pro-choice stance. Your right to life is contingent on your ability to practice it without violating the rights of others.

And abortion violates the rights of the child.

This is why I say that both rights should be considered insofar as it is practicable. That is neither should be steamrolled over. That's why I think death isn't a reasonable solution.

Knasher · 25-04-2012 9:09pm

philologos wrote: »

And abortion violates the rights of the child.

This is why I say that both rights should be considered insofar as it is practicable. That is neither should be steamrolled over. That's why I think death isn't a reasonable solution.

That's fair enough, and if there is a practical way to respect the rights of both the mother and the fetus, then I'm all for it. Unfortunately there currently isn't so we have to decide whose rights take president.

As far as I can see the right to life is always contingent on your ability to exercise it without infringing on the rights of another person. We take the right to bodily autonomy so seriously that we aren't willing to violate it by harvesting the organs of the dead to save the living (I've heard of people suggesting we might assume a willingness to donate until told otherwise via will or from the family, but that is still a fair distance from the right to life overriding the right to bodily autonomy of another).

So I don't see the reason why we would automatically assume the right to life of a fetus would override the right to bodily autonomy of another person.

philologos · 25-04-2012 9:11pm

There's something called finding a media between both. I.E - The mother wouldn't have to keep the child, but the child would be able to have the freedom to live.

I don't think killing is a reasonable or a valid option as a matter of mere choice. It is extremely serious, and should be taken extremely seriously. I can't ever be tolerant of the idea that people think that they should have the liberty to take someone else's life as a matter of mere choice.

Irishchick · 25-04-2012 9:20pm

Knasher wrote: »

So I don't see the reason why we would automatically assume the right to life of a fetus would override the right to bodily autonomy of another person.

No one is saying one right should override another, but that the feotus should have an equal right to a chance at life, however short that life might be.

Morag · 25-04-2012 9:27pm

Irishchick wrote: »

Do you honestly believe that ?

I don't believe it, I know it.
There have been studies and research which shows this.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2577621/Mental-health-is-not-harmed-by-abortion-study-says.html

Mental health is not harmed by abortion, study says
Abortions do not harm the mental health of women, an authoritative study has found.

By Sarah Knapton

7:04AM BST 18 Aug 2008

The American Psychological Association (APA), said it had uncovered no evidence that the majority of terminations caused psychiatric problems.

The APA is considered to be one of the world's most influential mental health bodies.

It is thought the study could hinder current efforts to make it harder for British women to obtain abortions.

Anti-abortion MPs have tabled an amendment to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill that would require all women to be counselled about psychiatric risks before they can be cleared to have a termination.

They claim many women suffer depression and anxiety following an abortion.

But the APA found "no credible evidence" that single abortions could directly cause mental health problems among adults with unwanted pregnancies.

Brenda Major, who chaired the task force, said: "Among adult women who have an unplanned pregnancy the relative risk of mental health problems is no greater if they have a single elective first-trimester abortion or deliver that pregnancy."

However the report did find that women who had late abortions because of fetal abnormalities often suffered adverse psychological reactions similar to those experience after miscarriage or still birth.

The APA's conclusions matched those of the Commons Science and Technology Select Committee, which last year found no evidence for psychiatric damage caused by abortion.

The idea that women are 'damaged' afterwards if a myth, one of the many that pro lifers love to spread. They say women are damaged by it or were damaged beforehand and that is why they had the abortion that way silencing women who have had an abortion who don't regret it and didn't need counseling from speaking out as they want to paint such women as some sort of sociopath.

Oh and the notion that women don't know what abortion is or what happens during abortion or that pro choice people don't know is another Myth.

Knasher · 25-04-2012 9:30pm

philologos wrote: »

There's something called finding a media between both. I.E - The mother wouldn't have to keep the child, but the child would be able to have the freedom to live. I don't think killing is a reasonable or a valid option as a matter of mere choice.

That isn't a medium between both, that is deciding straight up that the right to life of a fetus overrides the right to bodily autonomy. And assuming that you agree that in every other instance the right to life doesn't override an other persons right to bodily autonomy, I would like to know what justifies the exception for a fetus.

philologos wrote: »

I don't think killing is a reasonable or a valid option as a matter of mere choice. It is extremely serious, and should be taken extremely seriously.

I take this extremely serious, I put a hell of a lot of thought into it before I decided I was pro-choice, and if I am given a reasonable argument to why I should change my position, then I will seriously consider it. Polemics aside, if you please.

philologos · 25-04-2012 9:33pm

Bodily autonomy also applies in the case of the unborn child. It isn't the mothers liberty to insist on compromising that right.

As a result, both rights need to be considered and compromised as best as is humanly possible. Killing is not a justifiable solution to dealing with a conflict of human rights, indeed, it could be regarded as wholly barbaric.

50 million unborn children die in the world each year as a result of abortions. Personally, I just can't justify that. It's over 7 times the death toll (excuse the violation of Godwin's Law) of the Holocaust. That to be is fundamentally unjust, and fundamentally wrong, I can't and will never condone and applaud such a disgraceful human rights abuse.

eviltwin · 25-04-2012 9:44pm

Sharrow wrote: »

I don't believe it, I know it.
There have been studies and research which shows this.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2577621/Mental-health-is-not-harmed-by-abortion-study-says.html

The idea that women are 'damaged' afterwards if a myth, one of the many that pro lifers love to spread. They say women are damaged by it or were damaged beforehand and that is why they had the abortion that way silencing women who have had an abortion who don't regret it and didn't need counseling from speaking out as they want to paint such women as some sort of sociopath.

Oh and the notion that women don't know what abortion is or what happens during abortion or that pro choice people don't know is another Myth.

I think in cases where women are left with mental health issues - and it does happen, I was very messed up myself for a while - its done to a few things. Lack of decent pre abortion counselling is one. In this country it exists but you are so busy trying to book flights you can afford, find a clinic etc its the last thing you think of.

Then you have the lack of post abortion counselling. I think its been proven that if women are able to access proper non judgemental information they are more likely to make the right choice for them. As it stands people are rushing into it.

Knasher · 25-04-2012 9:53pm

philologos wrote: »

It's over 7 times the death toll (excuse the violation of Godwin's Law) of the Holocaust.

Saying you are about to break Godwin's does not excuse it. If you have nothing to add and this is the style of argument you want to engage in, then I have no interest in proceeding with you.

philologos · 25-04-2012 10:09pm

Knasher wrote: »

Saying you are about to break Godwin's does not excuse it. If you have nothing to add and this is the style of argument you want to engage in, then I have no interest in proceeding with you.

So it's inexcusable to bring up the truth that 50 million unborn children die globally in a single year as a result of abortion-by-choice? - You're saying it's unacceptable to bring up truth in a discussion. That's kind of strange.

25-04-2012 10:12pm

philologos wrote: »

And abortion violates the rights of the child.

But could you explain why you think the unborn child should have rights?

philologos · 25-04-2012 10:20pm

true-or-false wrote: »

But could you explain why you think the unborn child should have rights?

Why do you think anyone else should have human rights?

I think the burden is on those who wish to deny the unborn child those rights to suggest why they shouldn't have these liberties unlike other humans?

The question is why do people think there is a fundamental difference between in-utero and ex-utero? Why isn't infanticide a reasonable suggestion? What is the difference between a child in the womb, and the day it is born? Or even a child in the womb a day before it is born, and when it is born?

There's no difference? - Children which have been born have been left to die in hospitals. Indeed, people have survived abortions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPF1FhCMPuQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8B1nKGIAeg

Why shouldn't people like Gianna Jessen have had the unalienable right to life as all other humans have? Why as a result of the botched abortion that her mother had to endure was it acceptable that that happened to her? Why is it acceptable that it happens to anyone? She's lucky - she survived. 50 million each year don't - I find that deeply wrong.

Simply put, abortion is not a solution to any problem. What is a solution to a problem is finding out a way to reduce and tackle head on the issue of unplanned pregnancy.

Knasher · 25-04-2012 10:20pm

philologos wrote: »

So it's inexcusable to bring up the truth that 50 million unborn children die globally in a single year as a result of abortion-by-choice? - You're saying it's unacceptable to bring up truth in a discussion. That's kind of strange.

You know what part of you post I was objecting to. (Hint, it's the part I quoted.)
Please don't play coy with me.

partyatmygaff · 25-04-2012 10:22pm

true-or-false wrote: »

But could you explain why you think the unborn child should have rights?

For the same reason a born child has rights. Why else?

Mal-Adjusted · 25-04-2012 10:29pm

Knasher wrote: »

If you have nothing to add and this is the style of argument you want to engage in, then I have no interest in proceeding with you.

because you can't argue his point?

philologos · 25-04-2012 10:31pm

Knasher wrote: »

You know what part of you post I was objecting to. (Hint, it's the part I quoted.)
Please don't play coy with me.

It's a valid comparison. I'm not going to fudge reality. There's something tragic about 50 million lives going down the tube in a single year isn't there?

And I'm the one who is too extreme for saying that? - Heck, perhaps the world has turned upside down.

micropig · 25-04-2012 10:33pm

I think we should let the child decide for themselves when they're 18

micropig · 25-04-2012 10:34pm

true-or-false wrote: »

But could you explain why you think the unborn child should have rights?

Because it's Irish, and comes with a sense of entitlement, even before it leaves the womb:pac::pac:

Knasher · 25-04-2012 10:35pm

Mal-Adjusted wrote: »

because you can't argue his point?

I'm perfectly willing to continue the conversation if someone wants to pick up what ever point philogos was making without the comparisons to the Holocaust or the other polemics he was using, or alternatively address the points I was making in my previous posts. But to be frank I saw little to it except polemics and I don't see that as a particularly productive line of debate. If you think I'm taking the easy way out because I can't argue, then I won't dissuade you from that opinion.

philologos · 25-04-2012 10:36pm

How is it polemics to point out the truth that 50 million unborn children die through abortion-by-choice?

micropig · 25-04-2012 10:39pm

philologos wrote: »

How is it polemics to point out the truth that 50 million unborn children die through abortion-by-choice?

What's the alternative 50 million unwanted children & 100 million parents who don't want them?

philologos · 25-04-2012 10:41pm

micropig wrote: »

What's the alternative 50 million unwanted children & 100 million parents who don't want them?

And plenty more people who do?

By the by, it's also not exactly accurate to suggest that death is better than an orphanage and the possibility to live. Or even that there aren't parents who are seeking to adopt, particularly those who can't conceive.

25-04-2012 10:45pm

Wow, Philologos, that's a lot of questions you want me to answer, especially considering you didn't answer mine.
I think people should have human rights to prevent suffering. I don't believe a foetus is capable of complex emotions and thought processes that lead to suffering in the same sense that an actual person would, or even as an animal would. I think human rights are also important in a selfish sense. Everything we do can be found to have a selfish component. Ensuring that people have human rights ensures that our society is somewhat co-operative and give us a far better chance of preserving ourselves.

I don't believe an embryo should have rights in the same way I don't think a tumour has rights.

The difference between in-utero and ex-utero is obvious. In one case the child is connected to it's mother's body, in the other it is a distinct entity. In addition, while I think that abortion should be socially acceptable and legal in this country, I'm by no means saying that one day before birth is still a viable stage for abortion.

As for why shouldn't people like Gianna Jessen "have had the unalienable right to life as all other humans have?" The answer I would give to that is that it's because she wasn't Gianna Jessen when she was still a clump of cells. I don't think that living material has rights just because it's living. Although I think that 7 months may be past the stage where I would call abortion acceptable.

Why as a result of the botched abortion that her mother had to endure was it acceptable that that happened to her?

The abortion probably wouldn't have been a rushed botched attempt at 7 months if her mother had had better access to the options available to her. If abortion wasn't such a taboo, and if her mother hadn't been a scared 17 year old, the abortion would have had a far better chance of succeeding.

What is a solution to a problem is finding out a way to reduce and tackle head on the issue of unplanned pregnancy.

How on earth would you do that?

zimmermania · 25-04-2012 10:46pm

philologos wrote: »

It's a valid comparison. I'm not going to fudge reality. There's something tragic about 50 million lives going down the tube in a single year isn't there?

And I'm the one who is too extreme for saying that? - Heck, perhaps the world has turned upside down.

I believe its a womans right to choose.A thought just struck me,years ago when a woman miscarried the foetus was disposed of and sacriments were not administered.A lot of our hospitals were run by religous orders and it would appear that they did not consider that they were dealing with a human life.Limbo was in fashion then and despite the teaching that a child not baptized could not go to heaven and had to go to purgatory,foetuses were not baptized so it would appear that they were not considered to be human beings,strange?.

partyatmygaff · 25-04-2012 10:56pm

true-or-false wrote: »

Wow, Philologos, that's a lot of questions you want me to answer, especially considering you didn't answer mine.
I think people should have human rights to prevent suffering. I don't believe a foetus is capable of complex emotions and thought processes that lead to suffering in the same sense that an actual person would, or even as an animal would.

Consider a baby born comatose with a 90% chance of gaining consciousness within a month.

Does that child have a right to live? They cannot feel pain, suffering or complex emotions so by your way of thinking killing them is acceptable.

I don't believe an embryo should have rights in the same way I don't think a tumour has rights.

As far as i'm aware you do science in TCD.

Deary me is all I can say if you think an embryo and a tumour are equivalent in any way.

The difference between in-utero and ex-utero is obvious. In one case the child is connected to it's mother's body, in the other it is a distinct entity.

It's a distinct entity regardless of whether or not it's still in the womb. The very fact that the placenta exists is proof of that.

In addition, while I think that abortion should be socially acceptable and legal in this country, I'm by no means saying that one day before birth is still a viable stage for abortion.

Why should elective abortion be considered acceptable let alone legal?

Abortion

Comments