Abortion

tomtherobot · 06-09-2012 10:36PM

Idle Passerby wrote: »

Well that's what this whole argument comes down to then. Some see the feotus/zygote as a fully formed person with the same human rights as an individual person who can live independently (as in, not inside another person, dependent on their body/blood/food etc for its survival) and other people see it as something, that since it cannot live outside the mother, it is not therefore a fully formed person and not inherently deserving of the rights a fully formed person would have, so aborting it cannot be considered murder.

Nope, if you see an unborn child as not living, how can you ask the state to fund your counseling after you destroy it?

gearoidof · 06-09-2012 10:46PM

Tomtherobot, do you have any intention of changing your opinion in the face of solid reasoning and argument?

Do you think your arguments will make people "pro-life"?

Your arguments haven't been very good yet, so I doubt anyone has been swayed (I personally am on the pro-choice side). And it seems to me there's no chance of changing your mind.

That makes this entire thread an exercise in futility, doesn't it?

Idle Passerby · 06-09-2012 10:48PM

tomtherobot wrote: »

Nope, if you see an unborn child as not living, how can you ask the state to fund your counseling after you destroy it?

its not that anyone considers it to be not living, its that people dont neccessarily consider it to be a child just a potential child, but not yet an actual person.

tomtherobot · 06-09-2012 10:52PM

gearoidof wrote: »

Tomtherobot, do you have any intention of changing your opinion in the face of solid reasoning and argument?

Do you think your arguments will make people "pro-life"?

Your arguments haven't been very good yet, so I doubt anyone has been swayed (I personally am on the pro-choice side). And it seems to me there's no chance of changing your mind.

That makes this entire thread an exercise in futility, doesn't it?

I think some people here have acknowledge the validity or my arguments, do you think, given you're pro-abortion leanings you're in a position to objectively decide? I also think it's great this thread has remained remarkable civil. In a lot of arguments people get entrenched on both sides, does this make boards.ie or internet forums an exercise in futility?

Esoteric_ · 06-09-2012 10:54PM

tomtherobot wrote: »

Sorry i think i have clarified this already. I'm not against the state funding of counseling for a variety of problems, post-natal depression, domestic violence, drug-abuse and so on. My argument against the state funding of abortion counseling is that it comes without the acknowledgement that abortion is harmful.

You're not against state funded treatment for drug users, but you are for people who have had abortions? Because, again, people who take drugs CHOOSE to do so, knowing the consequences, just as people who have abortions, choose to do so, knowing the consequences.

I'm not saying whether I am pro-choice or pro-life (I could just be playing devil's advocate here tbh), but you're coming across as one of those extremists that you said you dislike.

tomtherobot · 06-09-2012 10:55PM

Idle Passerby wrote: »

its not that anyone considers it to be not living, its that people dont neccessarily consider it to be a child just a potential child, but not yet an actual person.

I think you'll find a lot of people consider an unborn child not to be alive. At this point we are going over old ground but if it's just a potential child why aren't people demanding post-contraception counseling or post-masturbation counseling?

Esoteric_ · 06-09-2012 10:56PM

tomtherobot wrote: »

I think some people here have acknowledge the validity or my arguments, do you think, given you're pro-abortion leanings you're in a position to objectively decide? I also think it's great this thread has remained remarkable civil. In a lot of arguments people get entrenched on both sides, does this make boards.ie or internet forums an exercise in futility?

Pro-abortion and pro-choice are two very different things and calling the poster pro-abortion when they have stated that they are pro-choice is as hyperbolic as me calling you a pro-forcing-rape-victims-to-give-birth-to-an-unwanted-child.

tomtherobot · 06-09-2012 10:57PM

LyndaMcL wrote: »

You're not against state funded treatment for drug users, but you are for people who have had abortions? Because, again, people who take drugs CHOOSE to do so, knowing the consequences, just as people who have abortions, choose to do so, knowing the consequences.

I'm not saying whether I am pro-choice or pro-life (I could just be playing devil's advocate here tbh), but you're coming across as one of those extremists that you said you dislike.

How can there be consequences if it's just the removal of a small group of unliving cells? I think that's quite a logical question and not extremist?

Idle Passerby · 06-09-2012 11:00PM

tomtherobot wrote: »

I think you'll find a lot of people consider an unborn child not to be alive. At this point we are going over old ground but if it's just a potential child why aren't people demanding post-contraception counseling or post-masturbation counseling?

Because a condom or a pill or someone having a solitary **** does not equal a potential child, they don't really force anyone to seriously and profoundly consider their future or how they handle the situation might affect the rest of their life or the lives of their family/partner.

tomtherobot · 06-09-2012 11:01PM

LyndaMcL wrote: »

Pro-abortion and pro-choice are two very different things and calling the poster pro-abortion when they have stated that they are pro-choice is as hyperbolic as me calling you a pro-forcing-rape-victims-to-give-birth-to-an-unwanted-child.

Ok, I think you need to read the thread this has all been covered, I don't think rape victims should be forced to give birth to an unwanted child. I also don't think that's a valid 'pro-choice' argument because the woman who has been raped clearly hasn't chosen to do so.

That's one reason why i don't use the term pro-choice. The others are in the thread.

Esoteric_ · 06-09-2012 11:02PM

:D

tomtherobot wrote: »

How can there be consequences if it's just the removal of a small group of unliving cells? I think that's quite a logical question and not extremist?

In the same way that some people who would be of a more vulnerable frame of mind may need counselling after any other kind of surgery? For example, someone gets life-saving surgery, or surgery that causes them to stop feeling chronic pain from an injury. Shock to the system, some people will need counselling.

Or, as some people have already stated, the person could want a child, but not at that moment in time be prepared for it, so are upset at the loss of a potential (in their minds) child.

tomtherobot · 06-09-2012 11:02PM

Idle Passerby wrote: »

Because a condom or a pill or someone having a solitary **** does not equal a potential child.

I don't know how up to date you are on the whole birds and bees thing but i think you'll find they are.

Esoteric_ · 06-09-2012 11:04PM

tomtherobot wrote: »

Ok, I think you need to read the thread this has all been covered, I don't think rape victims should be forced to give birth to an unwanted child. I also don't think that's a valid 'pro-choice' argument because the woman who has been raped clearly hasn't chosen to do so.

That's one reason why i don't use the term pro-choice. The others are in the thread.

Sigh. I wasn't getting on to the rape debate. I was saying that you calling another poster 'pro-abortion' is as ridiculous as me calling you 'pro-forcing-rape-victims-to-give-birth-to-an-unwanted-child.'

I'll make it more concise - calling somebody pro-abortion is insulting. Pro-choice and pro-abortion are completely different things.

tomtherobot · 06-09-2012 11:05PM

LyndaMcL and Idle Passerby: Im sorry i don't mean to be curt with you two but at the same time this has all been covered earlier in the thread. I dont want to go over old ground so unless there's a new question i won't respond

Esoteric_ · 06-09-2012 11:05PM

tomtherobot wrote: »

I don't know how up to date you are on the whole birds and bees thing but i think you'll find they are.

I think you'll find that there needs to be more than just semen for a potential child.:rolleyes:

Idle Passerby · 06-09-2012 11:05PM

tomtherobot wrote: »

I don't know how up to date you are on the whole birds and bees thing but i think you'll find they are.

I'd ask you the same question. Contraception exists to prevent conception. Masterbation by its very definition is a solitary activity, one person pleasuring themselves alone cannot result in conception.

Esoteric_ · 06-09-2012 11:06PM

tomtherobot wrote: »

LyndaMcL and Idle Passerby: Im sorry i don't mean to be curt with you two but at the same time this has all been covered earlier in the thread. I dont want to go over old ground so unless there's a new question i won't respond

Do you really expect people to go through 40-odd pages of abortion/anti-abortion ranting?

tomtherobot · 06-09-2012 11:10PM

Idle Passerby wrote: »

I'd ask you the same question. Contraception exists to prevent conception. Masterbation by its very definition is a solitary activity, one person pleasuring themselves alone cannot result in conception.

Sigh, there's only so many times a person will have sexual energy or the semen required for conception. If that is used through masturbation it won't be used for sex. In lay man's terms if i spend the day whacking off im not gonna be up for riding that night am i?

LyndaMcL wrote: »

Do you really expect people to go through 40-odd pages of abortion/anti-abortion ranting?

I'm sorry, if you consider this debate ranting why are you here?

Idle Passerby · 06-09-2012 11:18PM

tomtherobot wrote: »

Sigh, there's only so many times a person will have sexual energy or the semen required for conception. If that is used through masturbation it won't be used for sex. In lay man's terms if i spend the day whacking off im not gonna be up for riding that night am i?

Theres no point trying to have a discussion with someone who equates having a **** to be the same thing as conception.

I am not against abortion, I also do not think of a feotus as an inanimate object to be flipantly discarded. There are many reasons why a woman would choose abortion and I dont think anyone who has not been in her shoes can judge her for those choices.

tomtherobot · 06-09-2012 11:31PM

Idle Passerby wrote: »

Theres no point trying to have a discussion with someone who equates having a **** to be the same thing as conception.

There's already been pro-abortionists on here trying to tell me that people who masturbate might need grief counseling because of the loss of potential life.

Idle Passerby wrote: »

I am not against abortion, I also do not think of a feotus as an inanimate object to be flipantly discarded. There are many reasons why a woman would choose abortion and I dont think anyone who has not been in her shoes can judge her for those choices.

I'm sorry that's just too vague and wishy-washy to respond.

Turtwig · 06-09-2012 11:35PM

tomtherobot wrote: »

I'm sorry that's just too vague and wishy-washy to respond.

Ok, what would you consider to not be vague and wishy-washy?

Stark · 06-09-2012 11:36PM

tomtherobot wrote: »

Sigh, there's only so many times a person will have sexual energy or the semen required for conception. If that is used through masturbation it won't be used for sex. In lay man's terms if i spend the day whacking off im not gonna be up for riding that night am i?

Kind of a moot point because no man is going to be getting women pregnant twice a day. Is this what the Youth Defence ilk are stooping to now?

Dangerous Man · 06-09-2012 11:38PM

LyndaMcL wrote: »

Do you really expect people to go through 40-odd pages of abortion/anti-abortion ranting?

Yes - you should read the thread if you're going to contribute to it!

Smidge · 06-09-2012 11:44PM

I'd like to submit a hypothetical situation.
I am not against abortion as I see it as an individual and very personal choice even though I would not consider it for myself.

I read a post some pages back(can't remember by who or exactly where) but it related to the mother giving the father say in the matter.
Now, I can understand this scenario if the mother was considering going through with the pregnancy and wanted to know if the father wanted to be involved with the future child etc.
But if the woman had decided against the pregnancy and has decided to go ahead with termination, other than telling the man about her decision, does he really have a "Say" in the matter?

tomtherobot · 06-09-2012 11:45PM

Jernal wrote: »

Ok, what would you consider to not be vague and wishy-washy?

Well he can't or won't say what he thinks a 'foetus' actually is. That's fine maybe he hasn't reached a conclusion himself but it's nonetheless pretty vague. And again he's vague in saying there are valid reasons but not giving them.

Stark wrote: »

Kind of a moot point because no man is going to be getting women pregnant twice a day. Is this what the Youth Defence ilk are stooping to now?

I'm sorry, if he's all whacked out he won't be doing it even once, surely you can see that, it's pretty straight forward? I've no affiliation with Youth Defense, I don't really even know who they are. Are they some kind of religious group, that statement isn't religious, it's very straightforward?

tomtherobot · 06-09-2012 11:47PM

mishkalucy wrote: »

I'd like to submit a hypothetical situation.
I am not against abortion as I see it as an individual and very personal choice even though I would not consider it for myself.

I read a post some pages back(can't remember by who or exactly where) but it related to the mother giving the father say in the matter.
Now, I can understand this scenario if the mother was considering going through with the pregnancy and wanted to know if the father wanted to be involved with the future child etc.
But if the woman had decided against the pregnancy and has decided to go ahead with termination, other than telling the man about her decision, does he really have a "Say" in the matter?

So why should he be expected to pay maintenance?

Smidge · 06-09-2012 11:50PM

tomtherobot wrote: »

So why should he be expected to pay maintenance?

I never mentioned anything about maintenance

I think you have skipped a few steps past the intention of my post.

tomtherobot · 06-09-2012 11:55PM

mishkalucy wrote: »

I never mentioned anything about maintenance

I think you have skipped a few steps past the intention of my post.

Well, it was part of the original post, and i think the issue of the woman or man choosing also makes calling it pro-choice nonsense, whose choice is it, the woman's, the man's, both and only goes ahead if they agree, the states choice etc etc.

Sorry tho, i'll take a step back and let you at it. Apologies, i've probably got a little caught up if im jumping in like this! Time for a break.

Turtwig · 06-09-2012 11:56PM

mishkalucy wrote: »

I'd like to submit a hypothetical situation.
I am not against abortion as I see it as an individual and very personal choice even though I would not consider it for myself.

I read a post some pages back(can't remember by who or exactly where) but it related to the mother giving the father say in the matter.
Now, I can understand this scenario if the mother was considering going through with the pregnancy and wanted to know if the father wanted to be involved with the future child etc.
But if the woman had decided against the pregnancy and has decided to go ahead with termination, other than telling the man about her decision, does he really have a "Say" in the matter?

I'd say as an ethics problem this is a nightmare. Obviously the father should have some say, but it's not his body, it's not his potential life, just his progeny so perhaps rather unfairly he gets the least say in the matter. Harsh, I think but ultimately if it's a questions of rights, then the main conflict is between that of the woman and the foetus inside her.

Smidge · 07-09-2012 12:08AM

Jernal wrote: »

I'd say as an ethics problem this is a nightmare. Obviously the father should have some say, but it's not his body, it's not his potential life, just his progeny so perhaps rather unfairly he gets the least say in the matter. Harsh, I think but ultimately if it's a questions of rights, then the main conflict is between that of the woman and the foetus inside her.

Have to say I agree with you.
I can understand that he should get some input but the final choice lies with the woman.

Abortion

Comments