Abortion

Khannie wrote: »

But sure your argument is based entirely on the same values.

Not that I am aware of. There is no emotional arguments or arguments from emotion in my posts at all for example.

Khannie wrote: »

you're saying it's human because it displays a set of characteristics that you entirely subjectively define as showing human life.

There is always going to be a subjective element given morality IS subjective (unless youre a theist and think it comes from god of course, but I have yet to hear THAT substantiated).

That said however my choice to centre my position around the faculty of human consciousness is not solely subjective. IF we are having a conversation about human morality and ethics and rights then I can only see one source of that conversation. Human Consciousness. It is that faculty the concept comes from (again, unless youre into the god hypothesis), that decides what those rights are, who will get them, how to enforce them and much more.

It is not much of a leap to suggest it is TO that self same faculty we are pinning them.

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.

But I repeat that in "law" this is near unavoidable. It is generally how many of our laws work. For example if I sell alcohol to a teen the day before his 18th birthday I can legally be prosecuted. What happens on his birthday? What is different about him on that one day that was not present the day before? Nothing, but alas in writing law we have to define cut off points like it or not.

No one would make the ridiculous argument that since no cut off point really makes sense at all for alcohol, or as you said voting, then let us throw out hands in the air and give up and simple either let anyone, or no one, buy alcohol or vote.

So why you think the same argument, ridiculous as it is in other conversations, suddenly becomes useful and applicable here is entirely opaque to me I am afraid. After all the "Argument from emotion" and "Argument Ad Populum" I have seen around here, this really is the first time I have been presented the "Argument from just giving up".

My line of thinking has always been Human egg, well women loose one a month, who cares. Sperm cells, we loose million a few times a week.
Stick them together... is there a *poof* magic human instance... no, nor at implantation. Its a long process.

Its proven there is no possibly felt before 22 weeks. It has the beginning on a brain and spinal colomn etc. But they don't actually work yet. In fact many experts believe babies are unconscious and only have uncontrolled reflexes until birth.

A lot of people get confused by the whole "at 6 weeks it has organs and brain activity". organs beginning to form to not mean a functioning respiratory/excretion/circulatory system. brain activity does not mean though. Theres brain activity in a dead person for hours after they die.

about 1/4 of all pregnancies miscarry (also known as spontaneous abortion), if that number seems high its because most those women never knew they were pregnant. They might have a late period and not realise that when it comes its a miscarriage.

In the UK about 91% of abortions happen before 13 weeks. its about as complex as a shrimp at that point, not concious , no capacity for pain. In fact Irelands abortion laws only delay the women who plan to get an abortion from getting one. If they were available here majority would be as soon as pregnancy is detected. at 4-6 weeks.

Anti abortion posters always feature late term abortions (illegal nearly everywhere) or actual stillbirths.

I refuse to believe this embryo deserves more protection than the fully grown, functioning, feeling woman who carries it. Its sad and a last option because yes, she has to deal with guilt of not allowing that embryo to one day become a human. But it is not yet a person.

People drown kittens and say its the best thing to do, if you eat meat at all actually im not sure how you can say abortion is murder.

seamus wrote: »

Overdose? Haha, you're joking right, get out of my hospital.

Couldn't stop laughing.

Actor wrote: »

The panel was made up of famously pro-life medical professionals to further their agenda. Of course you know better?

Aim for a bit of accuracy there.

Do you reckon there were any pro-choice doctors invited to give their opinions? Who first called for this symposium and asked for their opinion? Why was it chaired by pro-life activists? Why were there only 140 people at an "international symposium" on maternal health?

If we knew the answers to those questions, then we'd all know better.

What, you mean apart from Doctors for Choice? Dr Mary Favier? Dr Peadar O’Grady? Aye, very strange that.

robp wrote: »

There has been no Dublin declaration demanding abortion for medical reasons.

I know. Your point? There's plenty of other demands for abortion for medical reasons. The constitution, for example. The various referendums, too.

Nor will you find scientific papers verifying a medical need for abortion. Believe me I have looked.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10804498
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12879819

Keep looking. I found more but they are PDF files I viewed as google docs.

Yes some doctors are pro-choice but the leadership of the pro-choice campaign in Ireland are people who support abortion on-demand not for extreme cases.

Again, your point? That's just one campaign. There are a few, you know, and they're not all pretending to have nothing to do with each other like all of the anti abortion groups operating independant of one another out of Capel Street. There's now a campaign for termination for medical reasons, for example. I do not know if they support abortion on demand, because they have not come out and said anything on that topic.

Even the Pro-choice Ireland website when discussing this very topic says they do not claim women are dying in this country because of Irish law. fact.

I am looking at their website and can't see where they say this. Could you point it out to me? Thanks.

robp wrote: »

The constitution is a very old legal document, it can't considered an authority on medical science.

Good grief. Are you deliberately being obtuse? I said there are demands for abortion for medical reasons, not "the consitution is indistinguishable from The Lancet". You could have pointed out that the various referendums and the Irish people aren't authorities on medical science, too.

I read both abstracts you linked and their only referring to what occurs or could occur occur in Ireland.

I guess that answers my previous question.

here is the citation of the choiceireland website I mentioned. It says Of course its not an official press release, they imply women's lives are being saved by English abortions. How exactly this is the case is completely unexplained. Still it hammers the point down that women's health is not risked by Irish law.

Oh dearie me. You need to do some work on your reading comprehension. That quote in full:

The latest mantra which has popped up in every anti-choicer interview I’ve heard recently has to do with Ireland’s maternal mortality rate (MMR). It’s one of the lowest in the world, apparently, and for some reason they think this is really really significant in the abortion debate. The first couple times I heard them say this, I dismissed it as being too obviously irrelevant to merit further consideration – after all, who ever suggested that our abortion ban was killing women? Pro-choicers have always pointed to the numbers of women travelling to Britain or further afield (statistics, incidentally, which the antis prefer to ignore) as demonstrating our hypocrisy in using another country’s laws as our safety net so that Irish women don’t die from illegal abortions. We have never claimed that they are somehow dying anyway. So what exactly are the anti-choicers on about?

Was that TL/DR for you? Your selective quote was totally out of context and does not mean what you claim it means.

That's just, like, your opinion, man. :P

Sponge25 wrote: »

If a girl was raped or the baby was gonna die or make the mum very sick I don't think any reasonable person can argue she shouldn't be entitled to make up her own mind with all the right information at hand to have an abortion;

What you're saying here is "any reasonable person would agree with ME". It's not as clear as that, it's not black and white. Many people believe that a woman carrying a rape baby should not entitled to an abortion. As you can see from previous posts, many people believe that there's no such thing as a need for termination for medical reasons. Some doctors believe that. Some don't. Michelle Harte's doctors believed that she needed one.

The fact is that some people are anti-abortion on demand but want medical exceptions. Some are anti-abortion but want medical, rape and incest exceptions. Some are anti abortion under any circumstances. Some people are for abortion on demand. Everyone has their own reasons for what they believe, and everyone believes that any reasonable person would agree with them.

robp wrote: »

Yes the terminology is problematic but what occurs in Irish hospitals is not considered abortion. If the mothers life is at risk almost inherently the unborn's life is at risk. So NO ONE is asking women to risk their lives by keeping a pregnancy. That would be unreasonable.

No, they're just asking them to travel to England to deal with it.

robp wrote: »

There has been no Dublin declaration demanding abortion for medical reasons.

Nor will you find scientific papers verifying a medical need for abortion. Believe me I have looked. ... Even the Pro-choice Ireland website when discussing this very topic says they do not claim women are dying in this country because of Irish law. fact.

That article is not discussing medical reasons for abortion. Fact.

robp wrote: »

They are legally allowed to. Irish law has no standing in the UK. People travel to do all sorts of stuff which isn't permitted here.

If your asking do I think that this option saves lives no. I believe there is not a shred of evidence for that theory.

You really think our maternal death rates aren't helped by the right to travel for an abortion?