Abortion

eviltwin · 10-09-2012 04:00PM

cynder wrote: »

Yes it's sad, but a natural occurrence, we all die at some point. A termination isn't natural.

Someone who is killed in a car crash at 22 is worse than someone who dies from a heart attack at 80. The 80 year old got to live their life, the 22 year old only had a short time.

Why can't the women have the baby they have made, look after the baby they made, live up to thier parental responsibilities.

They don't want to, they want the life they had before and a baby is inconvenience.

Women have abortions for all sorts of reasons, don't presume you know, its clear you know very little about the thought process that goes into making such a difficult decision.

Khannie · 10-09-2012 04:05PM

eviltwin wrote: »

No my point was that you can't stop women having abortions. Its nothing like the example you gave.

I could say the same about drugs. Different countries have different laws on drugs, some a lot more relaxed than ours. We should never base our laws on what you can do in another country.

By your logic we should have the most lenient laws in all cases. "ah sure you can get heroin on a prescription in Switzerland, we should do that too because you could travel for it it you wanted" (source).

eviltwin wrote: »

Khannie I know women who have ended up in hospitals after a home abortion, not once were the police ever informed.

That doesn't mean that no crime has occurred or that the police shouldn't have been informed. Aborting a foetus is still a crime to the best of my knowledge. The right to life of the unborn child is still guaranteed in this country (except under exceptional circumstances - life of the mother etc.).

Stark · 10-09-2012 04:09PM

cynder wrote: »

I can tell you one thing the baby I saw in me at 8 weeks, I knew it was a baby, at 19 weeks I was told my baby was a girl. At 39 weeks she arrived and is soon to be 13.

My 8 week fetus wasn't going to be a dog or a cat, or a cow or a monkey, it could only ever be human.

My sperm could only ever be a human. Doesn't mean I don't feel guilty about flushing it down the toilet or feel that any woman should be obliged to carry it through to being a human. I don't care for "potential" personally. Just because a couple who have had an accidental child answer you "no" to the question "do you wish you could go back in time and use better contraception" doesn't mean contraception is wrong. I feel similarly to undeveloped stages like zyogte/embryo. Only when it can feel something do I think you can start to argue about whether it should be given rights over someone's bodily integrity.

eviltwin · 10-09-2012 04:11PM

Khannie wrote: »

I could say the same about drugs. Different countries have different laws on drugs, some a lot more relaxed than ours. We should never base our laws on what you can do in another country.

By your logic we should have the most lenient laws in all cases. "ah sure you can get heroin on a prescription in Switzerland, we should do that too because you could travel for it it you wanted" (source).

That doesn't mean that no crime has occurred or that the police shouldn't have been informed. Aborting a foetus is still a crime to the best of my knowledge. The right to life of the unborn child is still guaranteed in this country (except under exceptional circumstances - life of the mother etc.).

Its similar to the drugs situation ie drugs can't legally be obtained but if someone wants to take them they can. I've no time for drugs personally but if I see someone doing them I'm not going to judge. Its their choice. Same with abortion.

Having an abortion isn't a crime, its the act of preforming the abortion that is illegal. I don't know the legal standing for a woman who tries to carry out an abortion here herself, I know in the two cases I am aware of the women were treated with compassion and support, the police were never informed.

Mickeroo · 10-09-2012 04:13PM

Khannie wrote: »

I could say the same about drugs. Different countries have different laws on drugs, some a lot more relaxed than ours. We should never base our laws on what you can do in another country.

By your logic we should have the most lenient laws in all cases. "ah sure you can get heroin on a prescription in Switzerland, we should do that too because you could travel for it it you wanted" (source).

Discussion for another thread but we could a learn a lot from policies like that and those in portugal. Just because something is illegal here doesn't mean it shouldn't be questioned. I don't agree with our drug laws at all for example, its better that we think for ourselves rather than saying our laws are our laws and thats that. If people actually thought like that we still wouldn't be able to buy condoms here.

I'm not challenging your personal views on abortion here I just don't see the logic of what you said there.

cynder · 10-09-2012 04:13PM

Mickeroo wrote: »

cynder wrote: »

Yes it's sad, but a natural occurrence, we all die at some point. A termination isn't natural.

Someone who is killed in a car crash at 22 is worse than someone who dies from a heart attack at 80. The 80 year old got to live their life, the 22 year old only had a short time.

Why can't the women have the baby they have made, look after the baby they made, live up to thier parental responsibilities.

They don't want to, they want the life they had before and a baby is inconvenience.

If you had to choose between saving a fetus in the early stages (say first 16 weeks) of pregnancy or the 22 year old, which would you choose out of interest?

Are you asking about a pregnant 22 year old?

If the 22 year old pregnant woman dies, the baby could die too, I have heard of cases where a woman has died she has been kept alive and the baby delivered alive a few days or more later.

Tbh I would risk my life to save someone else, if they are known or unknown to me.

Be they a child, pregnant, black, male, female, catholic, atheist, Muslim and so on.

If I saved a woman and found she had an abortion because she didn't want a child, I would be a bit annoyed that she didn't give her child a chance. But I would hope that if she ever got pregnant again that she showed some compassion to the unborn baby. And give it a chance at life.

smokedeels · 10-09-2012 04:13PM

Can we all just put our abortion stance in our signatures and move on?

Mickeroo · 10-09-2012 04:17PM

cynder wrote: »

Are you asking about a pregnant 22 year old?

If the 22 year old pregnant woman dies, the baby could die too, I have heard of cases where a woman has died she has been kept alive and the baby delivered alive a few days or more later.

Tbh I would risk my life to save someone else, if they are known or unknown to me.

Be they a child, pregnant, black, male, female, catholic, atheist, Muslim and so on.

If I saved a woman and found she had an abortion because she didn't want a child, I would be a bit annoyed that she didn't give her child a chance. But I would hope that if she ever got pregnant again that she showed some compassion to the unborn baby. And give it a chance at life.

Never mind.

cynder · 10-09-2012 04:19PM

eviltwin wrote: »

cynder wrote: »

I think 2 referendums in Ireland and in both irelands majority voted no.

It's a democracy. I'm not the only one....

Majority rules... You want an abortion the UK isnt far away.

Out of interest if the laws changed to allow abortion would you accept that?

I live by the laws of the land, if it ever did get accepted in Ireland I wouldn't avail of it.

My views would still be the same.

Just because there is no law saying a 5 year old cant mind a 2 year old , would I ever leave a 5 year old minding a 2 year old.

In Ireland there is no minimum age in which a child can babysit.

Des Carter · 10-09-2012 04:20PM

eviltwin wrote: »

I've no time for drugs personally but if I see someone doing them I'm not going to judge. Its their choice. Same with abortion.

I am the same, I dont care what people do to themselves, its their own bodies and their own lives and everyone should be allowed do what they want as long as it doesn't negatively affect another person.

However in terms of abortion it is taking the life of another human being and to me that is completly wrong regardless their age.

eviltwin · 10-09-2012 04:22PM

cynder wrote: »

I live by the laws of the land, if it ever did get accepted in Ireland I wouldn't avail of it.

My views would still be the same.

Just because there is no law saying a 5 year old cant mind a 2 year old , would I ever leave a 5 year old minding a 2 year old.

In Ireland there is no minimum age in which a child can babysit.

I wasn't asking if you would have an abortion... :rolleyes:

nozzferrahhtoo · 10-09-2012 04:24PM

cynder wrote: »

I can tell you one thing the baby I saw in me at 8 weeks, I knew it was a baby, at 19 weeks I was told my baby was a girl. At 39 weeks she arrived and is soon to be 13.

"I just knew" is not really an argument. It emotionally and subjectively meant something to you. That is great for you. But hardly admissible in what is, after all, an abortion debate thread.

If that is what you felt then great, more power to you, but it does not make it objectively so and it is certainly not a useful argument if someone were to try and employ it as anti abortion rhetoric.

nozzferrahhtoo · 10-09-2012 04:25PM

smokedeels wrote: »

Can we all just put our abortion stance in our signatures and move on?

:P Can we all just learn not to open threads we do not want to see/read/reply to and just move on?

Khannie · 10-09-2012 04:25PM

Mickeroo wrote: »

Discussion for another thread but we could a learn a lot from policies like that and those in portugal.

I agree, generally. Not familiar with the Portuguese ones.

Mickeroo wrote: »

Just because something is illegal here doesn't mean it shouldn't be questioned. I don't agree with our drug laws at all for example, its better that we think for ourselves rather than saying our laws are our laws and thats that. If people actually thought like that we still wouldn't be able to buy condoms here.

I agree.

Mickeroo wrote: »

I'm not challenging your personal views on abortion here I just don't see the logic of what you said there.

I'll try to be clearer. Simply because it is available in another country does not mean that we should allow it here. It being available elsewhere should actually have no bearing on our laws. Other countries have other laws. If you allow their laws to dictate what we allow then by extension the most lenient laws of every land should be applied here simply because I can travel to avail of them.

Khannie · 10-09-2012 04:28PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

"I just knew" is not really an argument. It emotionally and subjectively meant something to you. That is great for you. But hardly admissible in what is, after all, an abortion debate thread.

But sure your argument is based entirely on the same values. You try to be all "sciencey" and objective about it, but realistically you're saying it's human because it displays a set of characteristics that you entirely subjectively define as showing human life. Her characteristics on what define a human are just different from yours.

Mickeroo · 10-09-2012 04:32PM

Khannie wrote: »

I'll try to be clearer. Simply because it is available in another country does not mean that we should allow it here. It being available elsewhere should actually have no bearing on our laws. Other countries have other laws. If you allow their laws to dictate what we allow then by extension the most lenient laws of every land should be applied here simply because I can travel to avail of them.

Ok well I agree with what you're saying in that case. We shouldn't change our laws just because they're different to other countries.

Unrelated: Portugal decriminalised all drugs about ten years ago, thats what I was referring to.

cynder · 10-09-2012 04:43PM

Khannie wrote: »

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

"I just knew" is not really an argument. It emotionally and subjectively meant something to you. That is great for you. But hardly admissible in what is, after all, an abortion debate thread.

But sure your argument is based entirely on the same values. You try to be all "sciencey" and objective about it, but realistically you're saying it's human because it displays a set of characteristics that you entirely subjectively define as showing human life. Her characteristics on what define a human are just different from yours.

Looks human! Has human DNA.

An ape, chimpanzee, monkey have different jaws, different spines, different hands, different DNA.

human head, hands, toes, limbs, heart, lungs, liver, kidneys, mouth, nose.

All these can be seen in the scans,

Human DNA is unique.

If blood is found at a crime scene they test it to see if it's human DNA. A fetus has the same DNA, human DNA. Not donkey DNA,

sperm doesn't have feet, hands, a heart, nose, spine, eyes. And so on.

At 8 weeks you can see a good bit. The scans are getting more and more detailed.

Stark · 10-09-2012 04:53PM

cynder wrote: »

sperm doesn't have feet, hands, a heart, nose, spine, eyes. And so on.

Neither does an embryo.

cynder · 10-09-2012 05:17PM

Stark wrote: »

cynder wrote: »

sperm doesn't have feet, hands, a heart, nose, spine, eyes. And so on.

Neither does an embryo.

At 5-7 days after fertilization the heart and brain begin ti develop.

18 days after fertilization an embryo has a heart beat.

Brain activity is there from week 6 of menstrual cycle.

At week 6-8 after menstruation it has facial features it has arms and legs,

A single sperm is not like the above, it dies off after a few days.

A zygote has DNA from both parents, sperm does not.

Pace2008 · 10-09-2012 05:28PM

cynder wrote: »

A zygote has DNA from both parents, sperm does not.

So if this renders them as viable humans, why does no one try to stop them from dying en masse except when it comes to abortion?

cynder · 10-09-2012 05:44PM

Pace2008 wrote: »

cynder wrote: »

A zygote has DNA from both parents, sperm does not.

So if this renders them as viable humans, why does no one try to stop them from dying en masse except when it comes to abortion?

Let nature take its course and what will be will be.

On the other hand if someone could find a way to stop miscarriage, there would be a hell of a lot of happy people out there.

Pace2008 · 10-09-2012 05:46PM

cynder wrote: »

Let nature take its course and what will be will be.

Is that the attitude you adopt when someone gets cancer or a deep infection?

Khannie · 10-09-2012 05:53PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Indeed, I also wonder how useful this approach is given that day to day changes are so slight. It would be like trying to pick the point red becomes purple on a rainbow.

The issue is that legally we do need to draw a line in the sand. This "no True scotsman" approach can be used no matter what time frame you pick. 2 weeks, 20, 40, you can always ask "What about the day before/after that"??

So I would not reject time based conclusions entirely just because of that. None of them will be perfect and the only other option is an all or nothing approach of reject abortion entirely at any stage.... or allow it at any stage.

So I mulled this for a bit, as it's a good point. Eventually though I had to come to the conclusion that it is flawed. The problem with defining an arbitrary (and they're all arbitrary based on one thing or another that is also fairly arbitrary) time based solution is that you have to be willing to prosecute those who break that law. So what you're saying by drawing this line in the sand at 12 weeks or whatever is that one day later and you consider it something worth prosecuting over, so it's not a small line.

Initially I thought to myself "well what about the right to vote?". That's an example of a line in the sand that is time based (I do try to see both sides / am open to altering my position with a strong enough argument). Referendum is on the day when you're 17 years and 364 days? Tough. No vote. We might do well to make exceptions to this though. In the US for example they sometimes blur the line and try minors as adults and in certain circumstances that seems right to me. Certainly it seems like a good idea for the opposite to happen - if someone with the mental capacity of a child commits a crime, I don't believe it's right to punish them as an adult, so adulthood is not a hard and fast line in the sand.

In the absence of the ability to draw a hard and fast line with a damned good reason (and simply "we should draw some line" is a poor reason) and with people surely believing that very late term abortion is wrong, we need to look towards the other end of the spectrum. I believe in that case that the best line is no line (i.e. that abortion should be rejected, or based on something that is not time based but clearly measurable like implantation or heartbeat or whatever).

cynder · 10-09-2012 05:58PM

Pace2008 wrote: »

cynder wrote: »

Let nature take its course and what will be will be.

Is that the attitude you adopt when someone gets cancer or a deep infection?

After all avenues of treatment have been exhausted yes. Sometimes prolonging the inevitable is worse, You can't live forever. At least they got the chance to live.

Stark · 10-09-2012 06:06PM

Pace2008 wrote: »

Is that the attitude you adopt when someone gets cancer or a deep infection?

That cancer has human DNA and therefore the right to run its natural course! :mad:

(Only being party facetious here. For many women the feeling of having an unwanted parasite growing inside you, feeding off your insides is just as terrifying as having a cancerous lump. That's why you see deaths and serious injuries from women desperately trying to perform home abortions in countries without abortion services or plane trips to England).

MOC88 · 10-09-2012 06:10PM

I haven't made my mind up on all this tbh but I still feel I was me when I was a week old chemical ball

As a matter of interest please don't shoot me but would people consider a voluntary free contraceptive measure ie. the staple in the arm for girls (is there any counterpart for males that we could implement?) and if you get pregnant then you get the whole chebang as per social welfare or if you don't get it and get pregnant you get welfare but much reduced - or would this be unfair/unbalanced or extremely disrespectful?

whatever happens I think it is a bit of a joke how some men walk away and take no responsibility and don't have to help- should be something to prevent this (yes I am a man)

Pace2008 · 10-09-2012 06:16PM

cynder wrote: »

After all avenues of treatment have been exhausted yes. Sometimes prolonging the inevitable is worse, You can't live forever. At least they got the chance to live.

So you're saying that cancer patients do deserve life-saving/preserving treatment. But this doesn't seem to zygotes that fail to implant. No one is doing anything to drastically reduce the rate of zygote death because, as far as I can see, no one really views them as human beings.

A couple trying to conceive may "kill" many zygotes in their attempts and think nothing of it. I'm sure if they wanted to they could take expensive measures to greatly improve their chances of successful implantation, but no one does apart from couples with fertility issues, presumably because no one really cares. Yet when it comes to a child who has already been born, or is in the later stages of pregnancy, there is no amount of money a parent would not spend to save their baby, even if there were only an outside chance of their child living.

Does this not suggest to you that there is a stage in development when a new human life is not considered valuable?

Mickeroo · 10-09-2012 06:30PM

Khannie wrote: »

So I mulled this for a bit, as it's a good point. Eventually though I had to come to the conclusion that it is flawed. The problem with defining an arbitrary (and they're all arbitrary based on one thing or another that is also fairly arbitrary) time based solution is that you have to be willing to prosecute those who break that law. So what you're saying by drawing this line in the sand at 12 weeks or whatever is that one day later and you consider it something worth prosecuting over, so it's not a small line.

Initially I thought to myself "well what about the right to vote?". That's an example of a line in the sand that is time based (I do try to see both sides / am open to altering my position with a strong enough argument). Referendum is on the day when you're 17 years and 364 days? Tough. No vote. We might do well to make exceptions to this though. In the US for example they sometimes blur the line and try minors as adults and in certain circumstances that seems right to me. Certainly it seems like a good idea for the opposite to happen - if someone with the mental capacity of a child commits a crime, I don't believe it's right to punish them as an adult, so adulthood is not a hard and fast line in the sand.

In the absence of the ability to draw a hard and fast line with a damned good reason (and simply "we should draw some line" is a poor reason) and with people surely believing that very late term abortion is wrong, we need to look towards the other end of the spectrum. I believe in that case that the best line is no line (i.e. that abortion should be rejected, or based on something that is not time based but clearly measurable like implantation or heartbeat or whatever).

I'm only being hypothetical here as my knowledge of the specifics of fetal development is pretty limited. I would say rather than drawing a specific line in the sand where you can't abort afterwards it should be on basis of assessment for each individual case. I'm guessing each fetus would have slight differences in terms of how quick or slow they develop, so it would make sense to me to carry out a series of tests on each individual fetus.

So for example rather than saying "well this fetus is however many weeks and one day old, we can't abort" or "this fetus is however many weeks(-1) and 6 days old we can abort" it would be a case of "this fetus is however many weeks old but it's neural development is slower/quicker than usual we can/can't abort".

I'd imagine it would probably cost a lot more money to do it that way but it would make more sense to me than going by nothing more than a time window. To use the voting analogy you suggested, rather than just having people vote when they're 18 have teenagers sit a test and if they show they're savvy enough let them vote earlier or if they fail don't let them vote until they pass.

Just a thought i had after reading your post.

cynder · 10-09-2012 06:57PM

Stark wrote: »

Pace2008 wrote: »

Is that the attitude you adopt when someone gets cancer or a deep infection?

That cancer has human DNA and therefore the right to run its natural course! :mad:

(Only being party facetious here. For many women the feeling of having an unwanted parasite growing inside you, feeding off your insides is just as terrifying as having a cancerous lump. That's why you see deaths and serious injuries from women desperately trying to perform home abortions in countries without abortion services or plane trips to England).

The baby comes out after 9 months, in most cases pregnancy does not kill.

Cancer does not go away after 9 months.

Stark · 10-09-2012 07:44PM

cynder wrote: »

The baby comes out after 9 months, in most cases pregnancy does not kill.

And in cases where it does kill? Pregnancy is not without its risks. The slightest hint of legislation to deal with cases where the mother's life is in risk and suddenly everyone is geared up to oppose it.

Plenty of cases of suicide because mothers would rather die than continue to have their body violated. That's why doctors provide abortion services, not to end life but to provide a necessary medical service. But I guess they get what they deserve for having sex :rolleyes:

Abortion

Comments