Abortion

Maximus Alexander · 06-09-2012 01:30AM

up for anything wrote: »

Ah yes, allow the pregnancy to continue to full term and bring a baby into the world to live with your bad decisions.

Why is adoption never considered as an option?

Anyway, my parents made plenty of bad decisions and I'd still prefer the option of life.

Smidge · 06-09-2012 01:31AM

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

I think you read the "should" and "she" backwards.

My bad, damn you hayfever:(

off topic but is anyone else suffering, cant see a damn thing lately?

Maximus Alexander · 06-09-2012 01:32AM

Jernal wrote: »

False dichotomy.
Attach the baby to someone and make it dependant on that someone for survival but also affecting the quality of life of that someone.

What you talked about is an entity that is free of the mother's body. You are most certainly not comparing like for like. To use the most extreme case analogy. Suppose a six month old baby was dehumanised to be the equivalent of a clump of inanimate dust. That still wouldn't mean that somebody is allowed to do whatever they want to it. I mean, a painting by Caravaggio is exactly the equivalent of dust but you can't do what you like with that. Morals and ethics still apply but the key thing here is that there's no sharing or trading of values to be discussed between another party. Attach the Caravaggio to the somebody and you're back in similar territory. Which is basically how one end of the spectrum see it. The other group simply replace the Caravaggio with a live human being.

I hate to come across as terse, or blunt, in response to your well thought out and phrased response. You're not emotionally charged or aggressive, which is refreshing in these debates.

But a six month old is completely and utterly dependent on its mother. Substitute a two week old, or an eight month foetus, still in the womb, if it makes it easier.

up for anything · 06-09-2012 01:39AM

But you would have known nothing about it if they'd aborted you instead of bringing you into the world.

Why should adoption be an answer? There is a huge difference mentally and physically between aborting a fetus and entrusting the care of a living, breathing baby that you have given life to to complete strangers. Never mind that they have been vetted by the entirely and oh so trustworthy HSE!

Sponge25 · 06-09-2012 01:42AM

Madam_X wrote: »

So you'll wait to have sex until you're in a relationship only with a woman with whom you'd like to start a family. Fair play and best wishes.

I'd be more than happy to have an baby with my gf, although I wouldn't choose too now I most certainly wouldn't "abort" the child!

Turtwig · 06-09-2012 01:45AM

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

I hate to come across as terse, or blunt, in response to your well thought out and phrased response. You're not emotionally charged or aggressive, which is refreshing in these debates.

But a six month old is completely and utterly dependent on its mother. Substitute a two week old, or an eight month foetus, still in the womb, if it makes it easier.

Yeah but the mother isn't required for the six month old to survive. Currently there is no way for a foetus to survive outside the womb of its mother. Kill the mother of a six month old (taking another extreme lol) and the six month old can still be looked after by another entity.

What I meant by dependent was that the foetus and mother are attached to one another. If you sever the connection the foetus will be destroyed. In the case of the six month old, separate mother and baby connection and that baby could still survive, reach adulthood and hunt down whoever or whatever it was that severed the connection in the first place.

Maximus Alexander · 06-09-2012 01:46AM

up for anything wrote: »

But you would have known nothing about it if they'd aborted you instead of bringing you into the world.

And therein lies the tragedy. The odds of any us as individuals having ever come to have a consciousness or perspective on the world are vanishingly small.

There are over 70,000 billion combinations available for human DNA. Which means there are more people who will never exist, than will live and die until the end of time. And that's not even accounting for the fact that even genetically identical twins have separate and unique consciousness.

So to let somebody come that close, and then take away the opportunity, is not a decision any of us should be allowed to make. You have no way of knowing how grateful that person would be for the opportunity to look at the universe.

Sponge25 · 06-09-2012 01:48AM

Abortion for rape victims and mothers who's life is in extreme jeapordy is justifiable but I honestly believe if I found out my future wife supported abortion i'd divorce her.

It disgusts me. I have no pitty for people who suffer mental stress after abortion, that's generally what happens when you do something terribly wrong!

Dangerous Man · 06-09-2012 01:49AM

up for anything wrote: »

But you would have known nothing about it if they'd aborted you instead of bringing you into the world.

Why should adoption be an answer? There is a huge difference mentally and physically between aborting a fetus and entrusting the care of a living, breathing baby that you have given life to to complete strangers. Never mind that they have been vetted by the entirely and oh so trustworthy HSE!

So rather than take a baby to term and give him or her the chance of life with a family that has been vetted by a gov organization - abort it in case it doesn't have a nice life? Really?

up for anything · 06-09-2012 01:51AM

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

And therein lies the tragedy. The odds of any us as individuals having ever come to have a consciousness or perspective on the world are vanishingly small.

There are over 70,000 billion combinations available for human DNA. Which means there are more people who will never exist, than will live and die until the end of time. And that's not even accounting for the fact that even genetically identical twins have separate and unique consciousness.

So to let somebody come that close, and then take away the opportunity, is not a decision any of us should be allowed to make. You have no way of knowing how grateful that person would be for the opportunity to look at the universe.

I'll leave it here because you are entering the realm of metaphysics with that argument and it really has no place, to my mind, in the bringing or not bringing of a child into the world based on it. Goodnight/morning.

Turtwig · 06-09-2012 01:54AM

Sponge25 wrote: »

Abortion for rape victims

I can never understand this position by people who are against abortion. Suppose a bisexual father raped ten men, does that mean we should kill all his wife's children? I mean you seriously seem to consider the foetus a human person yet you're ok with it being killed if its parent was a rapist? Surely the child is innocent in all this. Protect the rights of most vulnerable? Or whatever?

I understand the position from those who generally want abortion but I cannot fathom how someone who is so vehemently against abortion would be o.k with it in the cases of rape. It's just mind boggling.

Maximus Alexander · 06-09-2012 01:57AM

Jernal wrote: »

I can never understand this position by people who are against abortion. Suppose a bisexual father raped ten men, does that mean we should kill all his wife's children? I mean you seriously seem to consider the foetus a human person yet you're ok with it being killed if its parent was a rapist? Surely the child is innocent in all this. Protect the rights of most vulnerable? Or whatever?

I understand the position from those who generally want abortion but I cannot fathom how someone who is so vehemently against abortion would be o.k with it in the cases of rape. It's just mind boggling.

I think the point is that the rape victim's health is more important than that of the baby. The psychological trauma of carrying a baby resulting from rape is likely to to ruin you for life. It's not about the baby being guilty.

cartell_best · 06-09-2012 02:03AM

70 billion combinations for human DNA? you need to re-examine that statement.

Back on Topic, guys & girls: Abortion? Old fashioned kind of way from my perspective - No...In certain circumstances, of course it is. But from someone (me - gay) thats not designed in a way that would more than welcome a child, I love the thoughts of new life. I love seeing my brothers and sisters introduce a new existence on this planet.

However, my heart goes out to the ladies that feel that they have reached a certain point in life, that only a certain course of action will give them a certain level in life....but the thing is, they should not feel bad or have any kind of pain resulting from what they believe is and what they feel is right and apropriate.

These ladies are no different than anybody on this planet. Life is not pre-determined on a specific level but an opportunity given when another person is willing and able to give another life an experience...which is but up to the person who decides to do so.

Madam_X · 06-09-2012 02:06AM

Sponge25 wrote: »

I'd be more than happy to have an baby with my gf, although I wouldn't choose too now I most certainly wouldn't "abort" the child!

So you have had non procreational sex despite telling others not to as they're not mature enough. Well done.

Maximus Alexander · 06-09-2012 02:12AM

cartell_best wrote: »

70 billion combinations for human DNA? you need to re-examine that statement.

I'm not a biologist, and the actual number is unknown. But the number you've written is 10^3 times lower than the one I did, so you might want to re-examine that.

Executive Steve · 06-09-2012 02:44AM

dodderangler wrote: »

Ffs another abortion thread
I say we should abort these threads!!!

Would have thought Boards.ie would have had ways of shutting threads like this down

Dangerous Man · 06-09-2012 05:55AM

Executive Steve wrote: »

Would have thought Boards.ie would have had ways of shutting threads like this down

It does. But if you read through the thread you'll actually see that despite the fact that the topic in question is extremely divisive, people have done a damn good job, collectively, of arguing their cases and being respectful of each other's positions.

It doesn't help to not talk about stuff like this. I think that's something that both sides can agree on.

up for anything · 06-09-2012 07:21AM

Dangerous Man wrote: »

So rather than take a baby to term and give him or her the chance of life with a family that has been vetted by a gov organization - abort it in case it doesn't have a nice life? Really?

Someone asked the reason why more consideration isn't given to adoption and I was giving one reason. There are more but you'd need to stop thinking off the cuff to figure them out.

Why do you think that there are so very few newborn nationals available for adoption since forced adoptions ceased and the option of abortion in the UK became available?

Why should the rights of the fetus supersede those of the pregnant woman on whom it is dependent?

I've always found it strange that there is an element of pregnant woman blaming in connection with the natural premature ending of a pregnancy. The terms miscarriage and losing the baby make it seem like she is to blame or has just been careless.

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

I think the point is that the rape victim's health is more important than that of the baby. The psychological trauma of carrying a baby resulting from rape is likely to to ruin you for life. It's not about the baby being guilty.

The psychological trauma of carrying an unwanted baby resulting from any sexual encounter is likely to ruin you for life. It's not about the baby being guilty.

Maximus Alexander · 06-09-2012 07:35AM

up for anything wrote: »

The psychological trauma of carrying an unwanted baby resulting from any sexual encounter is likely to ruin you for life. It's not about the baby being guilty.

Tough break. If it's a result of your decision making then you harden up and deal with it, rather than taking someone else's life.

up for anything · 06-09-2012 07:53AM

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

Tough break. If it's a result of your decision making then you harden up and deal with it, rather than taking someone else's life.

Oooh punishment by enforced baby. Almost Shariya/Christian fundamentalist in its thinking. That is a longer life sentence than I'd get for murdering someone already in this world.

I dislike the way you assume babies result from a deliberate decision. Another almost biblical slant. I'd imagine if this system came into being again it wouldn't be long before the babies resulting from these enforced pregnancies would once again be made to suffer along with their mothers.

So how do you intend to punish the father?

Maximus Alexander · 06-09-2012 08:05AM

It's bizarre to me how you view "not killing babies" to be the same thing as "punishing women".

In life, if you make poor decisions, you have to live with the consequences. That's how society works. It's not because you are being punished, it's because other people are not responsible for freeing you from your commitments.

If I put my life savings into starting up a business and it fails, leaving me broke, I have to deal with that. Nobody is punishing me, I have put myself in that situation and it's my responsibility to deal with the results. The same is true in all areas of life, and killing people is never an acceptable solution.

Unless you're referring to rape, which I have previously covered, then babies do result from deliberate decision; the decision to have sex.

Fathers, unfortunately, can't carry babies. Which is a shame, because I am certain there are plenty of cases where they would take that burden than have their baby aborted. What about the fathers who are being "punished" right now, by having their babies aborted without their consent?

up for anything · 06-09-2012 08:26AM

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

It's bizarre to me how you view "not killing babies" to be the same thing as "punishing women".

In life, if you make poor decisions, you have to live with the consequences. That's how society works. It's not because you are being punished, it's because other people are not responsible for freeing you from your commitments.

If I put my life savings into starting up a business and it fails, leaving me broke, I have to deal with that. Nobody is punishing me, I have put myself in that situation and it's my responsibility to deal with the results. The same is true in all areas of life, and killing people is never an acceptable solution.

Unless you're referring to rape, which I have previously covered, then babies do result from deliberate decision; the decision to have sex.

People escape from and deal with poor life decisions all time. It's a fact of life. Dragging an innocent baby into dealing with a poor life decision that I have made is not something I see as right. If someone was to be punished for life by a poor business decision then the world would grind to a halt because no one would take that chance. By your lights, I should be punished enough by the guilt of having taken a life.

Fathers, unfortunately, can't carry babies. Which is a shame, because I am certain there are plenty of cases where they would take that burden than have their baby aborted. What about the fathers who are being "punished" right now, by having their babies aborted without their consent?

You didn't answer the question I asked in your eagerness to wave fathers' rights at me which means in your world fathers get away scot free.

Actor · 06-09-2012 08:37AM

eviltwin wrote: »

Yes I have had an abortion, no I have no regrets.

I find that hard to believe. Did you have an abortion for contraceptive purposes?

eviltwin wrote: »

And I had counselling, months and months of it in fact but not for the reasons you think.

I'm not proud of it but I'm not ashamed either, I haven't done anything wrong.

I'm not surprised that you're "not proud of it". Why would you need counselling seeing as you state you've done nothing wrong? Abortion is wrong and frankly, you should be ashamed of yourself. I sympathise with you, but in no way do I condone the decision you have made. I guess you'll have to live with that decision till the day you meet your Maker.

Maximus Alexander · 06-09-2012 08:38AM

up for anything wrote: »

You didn't answer the question I asked in your eagerness to wave fathers' rights at me which means in your world fathers get away scot free.

That's because your question was both nonsensical in light of my overall response, and a straw man.

Your posts are built on fallacies, which makes you very hard to have a meaningful debate with.

Anyway, I'm going to bow out of this thread because the topic makes me way too unhappy, and these discussions never go anywhere.

Matt_Trakker · 06-09-2012 08:39AM

A foetus is not a living thing. It is a life, but just as a weed, a bacteria, a germ etc is a life. However, it is not a person.

It has no personality, cannot exercise higher cognitive thought, it isn't a rational or self-aware being, it cannot make decisions.
It's not a person, it may become a person if a miscarriage or termination doesn't occur but it isn't a person, ergo you are not killing a person. Abortion cannot be seen as murder. You're terminating a life form yes, but it's no different than killing bacteria, weeds, germs etc.

This is.......errr..........'gospel'

:p

Actor wrote: »

I'm not surprised that you're "not proud of it". Why would you need counselling seeing as you state you've done nothing wrong? Abortion is wrong and frankly, you should be ashamed of yourself. I sympathise with you, but in no way do I condone the decision you have made. I guess you'll have to live with that decision till the day you meet your Maker.

Wow, just wow. You sympathise, but you don't really and then you have the cheek to try to enforce your nonsense 'maker' beliefs.
Whoever you are Actor, you're a nasty piece of work.

Actor · 06-09-2012 08:40AM

up for anything wrote: »

You didn't answer the question I asked in your eagerness to wave fathers' rights at me which means in your world fathers get away scot free.

The whole "father's rights" thing is a red herring in this debate.

Actor · 06-09-2012 08:41AM

Matt_Trakker wrote: »

A foetus is not a living thing. It is a life, but just as a weed, a bacteria, a germ etc is a life. However, it is not a person.

It has no personality, cannot exercise higher cognitive thought, it isn't a rational or self-aware being, it cannot make decisions.
It's not a person, it may become a person if a miscarriage or termination doesn't occur but it isn't a person, ergo you are not killing a person. Abortion cannot be seen as murder. You're terminating a life form yes, but it's no different than killing bacteria, weeds, germs etc.

This is.......errr..........'gospel' :p

Evidently you haven't thought about this issue in any great depth.

Do you think those in a vegitative state should be "put down"?

optogirl · 06-09-2012 08:48AM

Actor wrote: »

Evidently you haven't thought about this issue in any great depth.

Do you think those in a vegitative state should be "put down"?

If it was me or my partner in a vegetative state - yes. We've already discussed that. Sadly it is not our right to make that decision.

seamus · 06-09-2012 08:49AM

Actor wrote: »

Do you think those in a vegitative state should be "put down"?

If a person is in a persistent vegetative state, then I see no issue with taking the merciful route for all and allowing them to die quickly, painlessly and with dignity.

Would you rather that they be kept alive? For what purpose?

Actor · 06-09-2012 08:49AM

Sponge25 wrote: »

Abortion for rape victims and mothers who's life is in extreme jeapordy is justifiable but I honestly believe if I found out my future wife supported abortion i'd divorce her.

It disgusts me. I have no pitty for people who suffer mental stress after abortion, that's generally what happens when you do something terribly wrong!

Agree. Still don't support abortion for rape victims. It's terrible that they've been raped, but two wrongs don't make a right. In fact, abortion is a more severe crime than rape.

Abortion

Comments