Abortion

Sponge25 wrote: »

Knowing me I could be your dad! haha just kidding.

I think that was meant in the religious way not the parental way:D

Tipsygypsy wrote: »

cynder wrote: »

Original hospital was limerick, she think got transfered but I'm not 100% sure where, it's hard enough to know your babies going to die without getting into the nitty gritty, she had the baby in limerick. Buried her at home.

She went on to have another healthy baby.

Whatever hospital offered her an abortion would have been breaking the law as it stands in Ireland in doing so. This is why so many women whose babies have fatal fetal abnormalities HAVE to travel to England for treatment. I have heard many many stories like this and never ever heard of anyone being offered an abortion in Ireland. THe hospitals and OBs are all afraid to do so because they could very well face prosecution. THis is why I would like to know where she was offered it.

Not sure which hospital she was referred to, and I'm not going to broach the subject with her unless she brings it up as it would be insensitive....

Although I am pro life I don't see the problem with providing women who have decided to abort their pregnancy with counselling, surely being pro life would suggest that one should care about every living being.
I've friends who have had abortions and have sought counselling.
I also don't agree with adultery, drug abuse, domestic violence but should someone who has done any of the above seek help I can only look upon that as a good thing.
Some women who have chosen abortion can have major regrets, suffer depression, feel isolated and if councelling helps them cope it should be provided.
I try not to judge people although we all do to some extent, unfortunately life is not black and white, people make mistakes,have regrets. My opinion on abortion still stands but I have seen very good friends go through emotional hell after choosing abortion and I wouldn't be much of a friend if I turned my back on them. 

Sponge25 wrote: »

Knowing me I could be your dad! haha just kidding.

Your the Priest :eek:

gozunda wrote: »

cynder wrote: »

Never been baptized never, will be.

Not so much being anything to do with actual religion more the sentiment contained in that expression "Who are we to judge"?

cynder wrote: »

Just because I hate abortion doesn't make me a bad friend or neighbor. You judge me for my opinion. It's not like I go round stopping people, I pointed out my opinion on boards, I won't ever change it.

Having an opinion is good but publically assigning moralistic statements like they are murderers and killers is blatently not. Do you not think that someone who has had to have a termination (reason unknown and unknowable to you or me- whether rape or otherwise) coming on here and reading that they are being lambasted as a murderer is somehow not going to have a huge psycholoical effect on them? And then to hold that they should not be provided with counselling? Empathy is an important element of our society even in the face of adversity...

cynder wrote: »

But I also wont physically stop anyone, if they have made up their mind and do it fine, but I dont be a shoulder to cry on.

See above....

cynder wrote: »

Tbh I doubt that would ever happen as my close friends would also be anti abortion... Other than the abortion issue I'm a good neighbor and friend. I certainly wouldn't avoid someone who had an abortion, if they told me I would tell them straight I dont agree with it and leave it at that.

I have firends who would hold many oopposing ideas and opinions to me as I belive life is richer becasuse of it...If a friend in need came looking for help I would do my best to help them no matter what my opinions are...

cynder wrote: »

For the record I'm not pro life, I agree with euthanasia, assisted suicide and with the death sentence in certain circumstances...The only people I lack empathy for are people who seek abortion, ( not those who have been raped seeking abortion) and most people who kill their kids and most serial killers.

You do not know who was raped, drugged, was a victim of incest or someone whose own conraception failed - no one knows but them the real reasons therefore we cannot sit in judgement..

cynder wrote: »

Ps you seem to be judging me....

Your posts have displayed a remarkable lack of empathy imo so I am giving you my opinion based on what you have actually said...

And I'm giving my opinion, abortion is taking a life.

A murder takes a life, a killer takes a life, it may or may not be in self defense, it may or may not be premeditated. It may or may not have been their only option. Now I totally agree with someone killing someone in self defense, or in defense of another ( I would) but they still killed someone.


To take a life is to kill. That is my view.


The argument is when is the baby alive, one person said when it's heart beats, for another its not until it breaths air, for me it's from implantation.


Some believe that because the baby isn't alive, ( by calling it a bunch of cells or zygote because then it's easier to get rid of, its not like it's Human) it can be got rid of. if it's not alive as they see it they can't kill it, so what does it matter that I say, if they truly believe it's not alive it can't be killed. At the end of the day it's up to them. To me they are taking a life, and to take a life is to kill.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

^ Killing sheep, cows or pigs for food is also "taking a life". Those animals are no more or less alive than any human life. So grounding your moral opinion of abortion behind the rhetoric of "It is taking a life" fails to stand up to much moral or philosophical rigor. It sounds nice on the surface and looks good on paper but as soon as you start to unpack it there is very little there but the arbitrary assignment of moral concern to a rather random point.

The issue however is whether the fetus or zygote are "alive" in the sense of moral concern. Not just alive in the biological sense. As I said the biological sense alone is not enough to ground the discussion given we do not have the same moral concerns for other life on the planet as we do human life.

At the end of the day the entire Abortion debate is about a simple question: At any given stage in the development is the developing fetus worthy of the assignment of "Human Rights". I fail to be convinced that it is and certainly arguments that it is biologically alive or taxonomically human fail to ground the discussion in the way people who produce those facts hope it should.

I believe the unborn should have the right to live, i cant produce any facts, its a personal belife, i dont wish to change anyones mind, its my view.

You cant give me any facts that says the unborn has no right to life, its not a parasite or an alien life form. The terms bunch of cells means nothing to me, its a life, it should be given a chance.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

That is all well and good. We will vote differently in the voting booth when it comes to it. It is worth pointing out though that this is a discussion and debating forum so do not be surprised if people unpack your opinions and show where they are lacking in any intellectual or philosophical rigor.

In fact if you are unwilling to defend your views through discourse then perhaps you would be better off saying nothing at all and not posting? When you post your opinions, people like myself debunk them, and you reply with a cop out then it simply represents your side of the argument badly, makes it look weak, and plays into the hands of people like myself better than if you gave me your password and let me write your posts for you.



Again however it is no more a "life" than a cow is. Do you afford the same moral protection to all life? Are you completely vegetarian not eating any meat or fish? If not then clearly your opinion on morality is grounded in MUCH more than "It is a life" despite your protestations to the contrary. As such, perhaps you are not being altogether honest with yourself in that you have just arbitrarily selected a position and then walled it off from the rest of your intellect lest it not stand up to observation.

Perhaps if you got a group of school kids, taught them the life cycle of a frog, and then produced frogspawn and asked them to squish it, would they? My bets are most would not, because what of what feels right and what feels wrong, it would be wrong to squish the frogspawn as there would be no tadpole or frog.

A very simplistic view of what they think is right and what they think is wrong, however i doubt very much that any teacher would run that test with a group of school kids aged 5 - 12. I would love to see the test carried out though. Children are pure and untainted and would give a very simple yes and no on what feels right and what feels wrong.

My view is simple, its wrong. There are some situations i could understand why someone would do it.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

this is a discussion and debating forum so do not be surprised if people unpack your opinions and show where they are lacking in any intellectual or philosophical rigor.

That's nice, feel free to do this at any point.

In fact if you are unwilling to defend your views through discourse then perhaps you would be better off saying nothing at all and not posting?

Why would you seek to silence someones opinion? ...other than being simply rude, of course.

Again however it is no more a "life" than a cow is.

So you either value animal life on a parity with human life (similarly to vegans) or you have an equal lack of respect for human life as you do animals? That's fine. But the rest of society doesn't tend to agree with that position. Most of us value human life above other life.

Sadly, your attempts to discredit the poster by claiming they are hypocritical with respect to "life" (animal v human) doesn't hold up. This "ace in the hole" probably works logical miracles to those who think like you, but the rest of us don't think like you. The rest of us value human life above other life and see through it.

Malari wrote: »

And some of us value a pregnant woman's life above the life of an unwanted foetus.

I understand that.

Is there a reason you've deliberately avoided my salient point?

Zulu wrote: »

That's nice, feel free to do this at any point.

I have been doing so. Your not seeing it or not understanding it is not synonymous with me not having done it.

Zulu wrote: »

Why would you seek to silence someones opinion? ...other than being simply rude, of course.

Not aware that I was doing any such thing so lets not put words in my mouth. In fact I want to hear MORE of his opinions and the basis for them.

I was however giving him a gentlemanly heads up that if one really cares about position X then soap boxing position X and running away and copping out when asked to substantiate it is likely to do their own position more harm than good. It makes it look weak, unsubstantiated and useless.

I thought it polite to point that out, but by no means do I want to silence anyone. In fact making the position look weak, unsubstantiated and useless if A-OK with me because that is exactly what I feel it is.

Zulu wrote: »

So you either value animal life on a parity with human life (similarly to vegans) or you have an equal lack of respect for human life as you do animals?

If you say so. I did not however, and I am not about to discuss a position I did not espouse.

Zulu wrote: »

Sadly, your attempts to discredit the poster by claiming they are hypocritical with respect to "life" (animal v human) doesn't hold up.

If a person claims they are defending something because "it is a life" then it is worth pointing out that unless they apply that across the board then clearly there is more to their position than they are telling us.

Rather than discrediting him or proving him wrong or whatever other notion you have just taken a disliking to, what I am trying to do is show that whatever his position actually is... it is more than he has thus far articulated.

cynder wrote: »

That they would go off and eat a nice burger, lamb? venison? veal? But still you wont find the above in my house.

What has your house got to do with the kids you imagined? You brought the kids into this, not me. You imagine they would not damage spawn because of their subjective love for frogs. I am just pointing out that this is not a useful basis for suggesting anything about abortion. Especially given the lack of internal coherence to the position of those children.... who would happily chow down on baby sheep and deer.

I repeat though, if you want to base your adult moral opinions on abortion in the imagined actions of children then perhaps this explains much.

cynder wrote: »

Down to abortion though, it feels wrong

Many things feel wrong to me too. So I simply do not engage in them. However there is a chasm of difference between something being wrong for me, and me espousing that it should be considered wrong in and of itself. There is a divide there that I think we should be aware of.

If you live your life avoiding abortions because they are wrong to you then that is fine with me. I am not about to argue that you support them or have one. That is up to you.

However in a discussion forum we more often talk about things being wrong for other people. Wrong in and of themselves. Maybe even arguing that they should be illegal. As such I think if you come on to a forum espousing positions against abortion you should not be surprised if people want something a little more than "It feels wrong to me" or "Kids dont like to squish frog spawn" as an argument.

If you want to come on to a forum and simply say "I dont like abortion, its wrong to me" then that is fine. People still are going to respond against you however and there is no reason they should not. We can moan "It is my opinion, leave me alone" but it is a discussion forum and if you put your opinion out there, it is fair game. And if you really care about your positions then perhaps it is at least worth asking if you are representing them well, or letting them down, by soap boxing and then back peddling or moaning when people pull them apart.

Khannie wrote: »

That's really nothing to do with anything to be fair. We already have legal precedence that the life of the mother takes priority and either it will be legislated for or a referendum to alter the constitution that a majority agree on will come to pass. It's really got nothing to do with the abortion debate. We don't leave mothers to die while an ectopic pregnancy fires ahead.

I mean the woman's rights. The right to choose whether or not to continue the pregnancy.

Malari wrote: »

I mean the woman's rights. The right to choose whether or not to continue the pregnancy.

But that wasn't what you said, is it.

Zulu wrote: »

But that wasn't what you said, is it.

And then she corrected herself. That's the end of that really. We all makes mistakes.