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.
eviltwin wrote: » No my point was that you can't stop women having abortions. Its nothing like the example you gave.
eviltwin wrote: » Khannie I know women who have ended up in hospitals after a home abortion, not once were the police ever informed.
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.
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.).
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).
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
smokedeels wrote: » Can we all just put our abortion stance in our signatures and move on?
Mickeroo wrote: » Discussion for another thread but we could a learn a lot from policies like that and those in portugal.
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.
Mickeroo wrote: » I'm not challenging your personal views on abortion here I just don't see the logic of what you said there.
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.
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.
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.
cynder wrote: » sperm doesn't have feet, hands, a heart, nose, spine, eyes. And so on.
Stark wrote: » cynder wrote: » sperm doesn't have feet, hands, a heart, nose, spine, eyes. And so on. Neither does an embryo.
cynder wrote: » A zygote has DNA from both parents, sperm does not.
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?
cynder wrote: » Let nature take its course and what will be will be.
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.
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?
Pace2008 wrote: » Is that the attitude you adopt when someone gets cancer or a deep infection?
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.
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).
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).
cynder wrote: » The baby comes out after 9 months, in most cases pregnancy does not kill.
