Abortion debate thread

Fanny Cradock · 19-11-2012 04:23PM

nickcave wrote: »

Surely you mean an opinion on a basis for such definition? Christianity and other religions disagree famously on morality. Though I think you're twisting Marcus Aurelius' words here.

Nope. That is not what I mean. Disagreement about x does not in and of itself mean that x is invalid. But if you want to know more about this see the various threads we have had on morality.

nickcave · 19-11-2012 04:28PM

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

On atheism we are left with moral opinion

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Disagreement about x does not in and of itself mean that x is invalid.

Well at least you've cleared that up. Anyway, validity wasn't the point - whether or not there is some objective moral standard is neither here nor there. You stated that atheism constitutes moral opinion as if that's some kind of indictment of it. Yet you admit that religious and the moral objectivists are just the same, that they are in 'disagreement about x'. That was my point. But this isn't about morality, and I don't think we ought to get into it. Have a nice day.

martinnew · 19-11-2012 08:22PM

philologos wrote: »

Human life is different to animal life. It's because of human empathy and human rights that I'm pro-life. You aren't pro-life if you support the choice to kill the unborn.

I guess where this debate gets tricky is because I don't consider morality in the same postmodern way as you do. The whole aspect of personal morality is a perversion of truth. Things are good and things are evil this is known intrinsically by most people.

Philologos, People know killing is evil, wrong, immoral. Certainly elective on demand abortion is just that, wrong, evil, immoral.

You never see abortion in the media, the act itself, the dirty reality of abortion. The pro-choice keep it well covered up.. because having deformed some peoples consciences into thinking its only "cells" its not "Human", they don't want people to see the empirical truth about what really happens.

19-11-2012 08:31PM

martinnew wrote: »

You never see abortion in the media, the act itself, the dirty reality of abortion. The pro-choice keep it well covered up.. because having deformed some peoples consciences into thinking its only "cells" its not "Human", they don't want people to see the empirical truth about what really happens.

You mean like this: http://www.thisismyabortion.com/?

philologos · 19-11-2012 08:32PM

martinnew wrote: »

Philologos, People know killing is evil, wrong, immoral. Certainly elective on demand abortion is just that, wrong, evil, immoral.

You never see abortion in the media, the act itself, the dirty reality of abortion. The pro-choice keep it well covered up.. because having deformed some peoples consciences into thinking its only "cells" its not "Human", they don't want people to see the empirical truth about what really happens.

I agree, and you've asked some excellent questions.

Why don't you see abortion in the media? Why don't you see the procedure shown in sex-ed classes so that people can make an informed choice as to how ethical it is?

28064212 wrote: »

You mean like this: http://www.thisismyabortion.com/?

Mainstream media.

Obliq · 19-11-2012 08:54PM

nickcave wrote: »

But this isn't about morality, and I don't think we ought to get into it. Have a nice day.

I think it is about morality. About one version of morality that the Catholic church has imposed on an entire country, regardless of belief and enshrined (no pun intended) in the constitution, where it didn't ought to be. This article is on how Article 40.3.3 came to pass - it's long, but very interesting.
http://www.politico.ie/home/5472.html

A particularly pertinent part:

"In fact, left to the politicians, the debate on the propossed pro-life amendment would already be over. It is the Protestant churches, some doctors, lawyers and womens' groups who have recently atternpted/ to broaden the deebate, and there is now an emerging body of opinion that is anti-abortion but also anti-amendment. Some object to the denominational aspect of the amendment, claiming that it will enshrine a particularly Catholic viewpoint of life into the constitution. Others think it is a subject that should be tackled by the legislature after lengthy debate on the probblem of abortion, and that such a debate will be over before it's begun if the referendum succeeds. Still, others, mostly doctors, are worried that such a referendum will alter estabblished medical practice.

Those in the medical profession who are not associated with PLAC have been slow to publicly voice their objections to the campaign. One of the reasons for this is that the grip that the Catholic Church has on the maternity hospitals has produced a real fear among some members of the medical profession that opposition to the amenddment marks the end of promotional prospects. Several of the major hospitals are subject to an ethics committee which includes Archbishop Ryan and this committee has the power to promote or halt careers of individual doctors."

Also this is particularly interesting:

"Certainly it is agreed that what becomes human life beegins at conception. What is not agreed is whether that is potential human life, or actual life which has the same rights as any citizen of the state. The Protestant churches see area for discussion here and, in the case of profound foetal abnormality or dangers to the mother's physical or mental health, or indeed threats to the existing family they would be inclined to leave room for weighing up maternal and foeetal rights and coming' to a just and compassionate decision that might include abortion.

The Pro-Life Amendment Campaign admits no potenntial conflict between mother and child. Certainly the draamatic save-the-mother-or-the-child choices that might have confronted a doctor in the first half of this century do not exist anymore, however many Protestants believe that the question of conflicting rights does indeed arise. According to Dean Griffin of St. Patrick's Cathedral: "Abortion is morally wrong. However, at some time there may be rare unfortunate cases in which it is resorted to as the lesser of two evils. It is wrong to enshrine the Catholic view of this in the constitution." "

This article was written THURSDAY, 01 JULY 1982 prior to the 8th amendment being put to the people. It clearly shows the pressure brought to bear on the government and the medical authorities by the Catholic Church and associated pressure groups. It also shows that NO informed or balanced debate was ever held about abortion in Ireland, before one religion's moral standpoint was railroaded into the constitution.

JimiTime · 19-11-2012 09:23PM

philologos wrote: »

Mainstream media.

Not to mention that there is nothing that contradicts the accusation on that site or in her Guardian piece. Her argument seems to be that 'Hey look, my aborted child looks more like its been through a blender, and indistinguishable from gazpacho, so those photo's of aborted babies are wrong Mmkay'. Also, this idea that she went in and 'got informed' etc, is such baloney. She got what every client of an abortion clinic got, her decision reinforced, cold medical language, and staff that would avoid anything that humanises the being growing inside the clients womb. She seems to have felt better after it, and that is the point. Being truly informed, she would be told what would actually happen to the unborn, and she would describe why the jar contained simply a bloody mess rather than any kind of form etc. It simply reinforces my opinion that its a complex matrix of self deceit that a right thinking person must go through in order to feel no shame or guilt about it.

I can't help but look at the bloody mess in that picture, and think about my own daughter being suffocated to death, surgically broken apart and coming out like that. She was my daughter, the same person as I hold today when she was 1 week as she is now. Its just unthinkable that a parent would choose to do that to their child. Self deceit is the only explanation, because even desperation would not lead someone to do such a thing IMO. The desperate of course may have the desire to be deceived, and there are many who oblige them.

philologos · 19-11-2012 09:28PM

Obliq wrote: »

This article was written THURSDAY, 01 JULY 1982 prior to the 8th amendment being put to the people. It clearly shows the pressure brought to bear on the government and the medical authorities by the Catholic Church and associated pressure groups. It also shows that NO informed or balanced debate was ever held about abortion in Ireland, before one religion's moral standpoint was railroaded into the constitution.

It doesn't show this. What it does show is that the Protestant churches had concerns about the health of the mother or conflicts of rights between the right of the child and the right of the mother in cases of extreme medical emergencies.

Nowhere in that article does it show broad advocacy of choice in respect to abortion. If the referendum passed in a popular vote it also shows that a majority of people in Ireland wanted it to pass.

Obliq · 19-11-2012 09:39PM

philologos wrote: »

It doesn't show this. What it does show is that the Protestant churches had concerns about the health of the mother or conflicts of rights between the right of the child and the right of the mother in cases of extreme medical emergencies.

Nowhere in that article does it show broad advocacy of choice in respect to abortion. If the referendum passed in a popular vote it also shows that a majority of people in Ireland wanted it to pass.

And I didn't say that it did. Anywhere. It said there was no debate at the time where the protestant church at least, wanted one. The medical practicioners were too scared of the Catholic church to have one, and so none was had.

The majority of people in Ireland at that time still thought that the Catholic church had SOME MORAL AUTHORITY. You and I and everyone else here know that is not the case today. Time for the debate, and this time without the overwhelming influence of the Catholic church on the Government AND the people.

Read that article yourselves people. You'll all take something different from it, but facts are facts. Read it and weep, if you support the separation of church and state.......

doctoremma · 19-11-2012 09:42PM

Jimi - re: that picture. Perhaps you should be clear what you are looking at, because what you're saying suggests you don't understand.

She had an abortion at 6 weeks, when the fetus is around the size of a pea. The volume you see in the flask is uterus lining and extra-embryonic tissue. The jar contains a bloody mess because it's the same stuff as a period. Furthermore, the fetus has neither lungs nor brain, so is incapable of being suffocated. Also, the fetus has no internal skeletal or cartilaginous structure, so is incapable of being ripped apart.

Just for info.

philologos · 19-11-2012 09:46PM

Obliq wrote: »

And I didn't say that it did. Anywhere. It said there was no debate at the time where the protestant church at least, wanted one. The medical practicioners were too scared of the Catholic church to have one, and so none was had.

In the article. It shows that the Protestant churches had issues concerning issues to do with the mother's health.

Certainly it is agreed that what becomes human life beegins at conception. What is not agreed is whether that is potential human life, or actual life which has the same rights as any citizen of the state. The Protestant churches see area for discussion here and, in the case of profound foetal abnormality or dangers to the mother's physical or mental health, or indeed threats to the existing family they would be inclined to leave room for weighing up maternal and foeetal rights and coming' to a just and compassionate decision that might include abortion.

I think that was a valid point to bring up at the time and should have been listened to.

Nowhere does it say that Protestant churches were pro-choice. What it does say:

The Pro-Life Amendment Campaign admits no potenntial conflict between mother and child. Certainly the draamatic save-the-mother-or-the-child choices that might have confronted a doctor in the first half of this century do not exist anymore, however many Protestants believe that the question of conflicting rights does indeed arise. According to Dean Griffin of St. Patrick's Cathedral: "Abortion is morally wrong. However, at some time there may be rare unfortunate cases in which it is resorted to as the lesser of two evils. It is wrong to enshrine the Catholic view of this in the constitution."

Obliq wrote: »

The majority of people in Ireland at that time still thought that the Catholic church had SOME MORAL AUTHORITY. You and I and everyone else here know that is not the case today. Time for the debate, and this time without the overwhelming influence of the Catholic church on the Government AND the people.

What do you mean by "debate"?

Obliq wrote: »

Read that article yourselves people. You'll all take something different from it, but facts are facts. Read it and weep, if you support the separation of church and state.......

There are atheists who are pro-life by the by. One can hold pro-life views without invoking any creed, but this is the Christianity forum and we'll probably discuss the Christian underpinnings of this from time to time.

I've read the article in full, I don't agree with your conclusions from it.

Fanny Cradock · 19-11-2012 10:53PM

nickcave wrote: »

Well at least you've cleared that up. Anyway, validity wasn't the point - whether or not there is some objective moral standard is neither here nor there. You stated that atheism constitutes moral opinion as if that's some kind of indictment of it. Yet you admit that religious and the moral objectivists are just the same, that they are in 'disagreement about x'. That was my point. But this isn't about morality, and I don't think we ought to get into it. Have a nice day.

I think you have missed my point. But perhaps our discussion will have to wait until another day. Alternatively, you can just dig up on of the recent threads on the topic as I'm sure I would just be repeating myself.

Obliq · 19-11-2012 11:16PM

philologos wrote: »

In the article. It shows that the Protestant churches had issues concerning issues to do with the mother's health......
I think that was a valid point to bring up at the time and should have been listened to.

Yes, same here. I think it would have furthered debate instead of the rushed through referendum.

Nowhere does it say that Protestant churches were pro-choice.

And nowhere did I say that they were. They did however, have a much broader take on when abortion might be morally feasible.

"Certainly it is agreed that what becomes human life beegins at conception. What is not agreed is whether that is potential human life, or actual life which has the same rights as any citizen of the state. The Protestant churches see area for discussion here and, in the case of profound foetal abnormality or dangers to the mother's physical or mental health, or indeed threats to the existing family they would be inclined to leave room for weighing up maternal and foeetal rights and coming' to a just and compassionate decision that might include abortion. "

I see that as an entirely sensible thing to say, and certainly much more inclusive (even to a pro-choice atheist like me!) than this wonderful example of moralising:

" .....those involved in the pro-amendment campaign, for they view their efforts not just as securing an all-time constitutional prohibition on abortion but as the start of a moral crusade against those liberalising trends in Irish society which have led to the legallisation of the sale of contraceptives, sex education, a greater public willingness to permit divorce, sexual permissiveness, the breakdown of marriage and an abandonment of formal religion."

What do you mean by "debate"?

"Definition of DEBATE

: a contention by words or arguments: as
a : the formal discussion of a motion before a deliberative body according to the rules of parliamentary procedure
b : a regulated discussion of a proposition between two matched sides"
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/debate

There are atheists who are pro-life by the by. One can hold pro-life views without invoking any creed, but this is the Christianity forum and we'll probably discuss the Christian underpinnings of this from time to time.

I've read the article in full, I don't agree with your conclusions from it.

Sure, I know there are atheists who are pro-life. There are also Christians who are pro-choice.

I haven't a problem with anyone supporting their faith, why would I? I think it must be clear by now that I DO have a problem with the tenets of a particular faith having a massive impact on the supposedly secular constitution of my country, and actually I thank you all for allowing me to tell you all that. It would genuinely help to know that there is a certain element of understanding of my stance on a pro-life & christian thread.

And of course I have no need for you to agree either - I am just hoping you can recognise the unfairness felt by many about the imposition of a particular creed on people of no religion/other religions in this country.

decimatio · 19-11-2012 11:43PM

Lingua Franca wrote: »

No, the legalities around child support favour the child.

Oh no they certainly do not. They favour what the mother wants to do with the money.

I have no statistics to back up how many mothers misuse the system but I think it's undisputable that it does happen, however little the number may be.

this is why men aren't allowed to duck out of child support with "well I wanted her to have an abortion", otherwise it'd be a lot more common.

What would be a lot more common?

Man and woman have sex. Woman decides she wants to keep it. Man wants to abort.

The woman has all the power and the man is powerless. She has a choice, he does not.

Here's two scenarios for you.

A) 40 year old man looking for sex gets an 18 year old girl drunk and pregnant. She decides to keep the child and he's forced to pay child support.

40 year old woman looking for sex gets an 18 year old man drunk and gets pregnant after sex with him. She decides to keep the child and he's forced to pay child support.

Doesn't B strike you as anyways unfair? The young man's life has being turned upside down just as much as the young womans yet he has no choice in the matter. He is now hampered with a financial burden which he had no choice in.

19-11-2012 11:50PM

philologos wrote: »

Mainstream media.

The Guardian covered her story.

And does it really confuse you why most women don't want their personal stories covered? Especially when the act inspires such absolute hatred in some sections of the population?

georgieporgy · 20-11-2012 12:31AM

doctoremma wrote: »

Jimi - re: that picture. Perhaps you should be clear what you are looking at, because what you're saying suggests you don't understand.

She had an abortion at 6 weeks, when the fetus is around the size of a pea. The volume you see in the flask is uterus lining and extra-embryonic tissue. The jar contains a bloody mess because it's the same stuff as a period. Furthermore, the fetus has neither lungs nor brain, so is incapable of being suffocated. Also, the fetus has no internal skeletal or cartilaginous structure, so is incapable of being ripped apart.

Just for info.

Further info about fetus development at 6 weeks would include pointing out that you can hear a heartbeat. Presumably the heart is capable of being ripped apart.

MayoClinic.com states that the "embryonic period" starts around week five when your baby's spinal cord, brain, heart and other organs form. Your baby continues to grow rapidly during this trimester---developing facial features, arm buds and eye lenses

Read more: http://www.livestrong.com/article/267425-baby-development-in-the-womb-week-by-week/#ixzz2CiKCfvhs

Peregrinus · 20-11-2012 02:25AM

decimatio wrote: »

(A) 40 year old man looking for sex gets an 18 year old girl drunk and pregnant. She decides to keep the child and he's forced to pay child support.

40 year old woman looking for sex gets an 18 year old man drunk and gets pregnant after sex with him. She decides to keep the child and he's forced to pay child support.

Doesn't B strike you as anyways unfair? The young man's life has being turned upside down just as much as the young womans yet he has no choice in the matter. He is now hampered with a financial burden which he had no choice in.

He had no choice? He couldn’t have turned down the drink? Turned down the sex?

It’s not rocket science, decimatio. You don’t want to risk having a child, keep it in your pants, or get a vasectomy. There are no other 100% reliable methods of avoiding the risk.

One of the marks of maturity is accepting the consequences of your actions, even when they’re not the consequences you sought or hoped for. I can understand the 18-year-old feeling pissed off at the situation he finds himself in, but he’s not pissed off because he’s been treated unfairly; he’s pissed off because he’s immature. (When you’re 18, immaturity is to be expected.)

You beget a child, you are responsible for it. You might hope, in the 18-year-old’s situation, that someone else will relieve you of the responsibility by deciding not to carry the child to term or by placing the child for adoption, but you have no right to expect that she will make that decision, and you have no right to be relieved of your responsibilities merely because you wish she had made that decision.

decimatio · 20-11-2012 05:10AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

He had no choice? He couldn’t have turned down the drink? Turned down the sex?

The same argument that people have used against women for years which is utterly flawed.

I don't know if you're pro-life/choice but if you make the above argument for a male then it's equally valid* for a female.

* I consider it invalid for both.

It’s not rocket science, decimatio. You don’t want to risk having a child, keep it in your pants, or get a vasectomy. There are no other 100% reliable methods of avoiding the risk.

As a side point, you are aware that female on male rape does occur don't you ? And not just statutory rape.

Having sex does not (in most civilised countries) and should not mean an agreement to the possibility of childhood if pregnancy occurs for women. A man however has no choice (and rightly so) from conception to birth.

My simple point however is that the current system (in most civilised countries) is extremely unfair on the father in that he has little to no rights over his own child while also having no choice in whether he wants to financially support said child.

You beget a child, you are responsible for it. You might hope, in the 18-year-old’s situation, that someone else will relieve you of the responsibility by deciding not to carry the child to term or by placing the child for adoption, but you have no right to expect that she will make that decision, and you have no right to be relieved of your responsibilities merely because you wish she had made that decision.

Sounds all well and good. Let's play a game of what-if.

40+ year old woman statutorially rapes (with consent) a 16 year old boy. Is he now responsible ?

40+ year old woman statutorially rapes (without consent) a 16 year old boy. Is he now responsible ?

I've seen a guys life ruined by one of the above by the way, so don't come back with a "that wouldn't happen".

decimatio · 20-11-2012 05:20AM

Zombrex wrote: »

Firstly child benefit is for the sake of the child. The father not having the option to stop the child from continuing to live does not mean he should not have to support the child, since by definition he didn't stop the child living, the child still exists, and requires support.

And I believe the father should be given a choice. To legally accept responsibility or not while abortion is still an option. Then the mother can decide if she wants to continue with the pregnancy knowing the fathers position i.e that she will have his financial support or she won't.

Secondly abortion is not the act of giving up responsibility for your child, it is the process of removing the child from your body. The issues are confused because in the vast majority of cases this causes the child to die, and thus the woman has no child to care for and thus no financial responsibility. But it is not actually the process of giving up responsibility to the child

It entails it and for many, if not most, it's one of the main reasons to do so.

For example, if a woman decided to have an abortion and the child survived she should still be responsible for the child.

And the father would be financially responsible also.

So there is no real argument for saying that the father can choose not to support the child because the woman can choose to have an abortion.

I don't see for a second why this follows.

A man should be able to inform the woman that he agrees to financially support the child or not after a pregnancy is detected. Now the woman can choose what to do with that extra information. She can choose to give birth and raise the child without financial support from the father or abort the pregnancy.

What is wrong with that ?

For that to work you have put forward an argument for some way the father can legally cause the child not to be living any more, of which there is none.

Agreed.

Peregrinus · 20-11-2012 05:26AM

decimatio wrote: »

The same argument that people have used against women for years which is utterly flawed.

I don't know if you're pro-life/choice but if you make the above argument for a male then it's equally valid* for a female.

* I consider it invalid for both.

As a side point, you are aware that female on male rape does occur don't you ? And not just statutory rape.

Mate, there’s a difference between “having sex when your drunk” (been there, done that) and “being raped” (never been raped).

If you wanted to stipulate in your hypothetical B that the man was raped, then why didn’t you?

decimatio wrote: »

Having sex does not (in most civilised countries) and should not mean an agreement to the possibility of childhood if pregnancy occurs for women.

It certainly does. I know of no civilized country in which a man who has sex is absolved from financial or other responsibility in relation to a resulting pregnancy merely because he wishes a pregnancy had not resulted, or he wishes that the woman would have chosen to abort. If you do, now would be a good time to name the country concerned

decimatio wrote: »

My simple point however is that the current system (in most civilised countries) is extremely unfair on the father in that he has little to no rights over his own child while also having no choice in whether he wants to financially support said child.

Then surely you should be campaigning for greater rights for fathers? If there’s unfairness here, I don’t see how it is redressed by penalizing the child, which is what you are proposing.

decimatio wrote: »

40+ year old woman statutorially rapes (with consent) a 16 year old boy. Is he now responsible ?

40+ year old woman statutorially rapes (without consent) a 16 year old boy. Is he now responsible ?

I've seen a guys life ruined by one of the above by the way, so don't come back with a "that wouldn't happen".

Yes, he is (financially) responsible (to his child), just as a raped 16-year old has responsibilities to her child.

Sometimes bad things happen to us, and they degrade our lives. I don’t think we can redress this by financially penalising the child. Whoever is responsible for the rape, it is certainly not the child.

I wouldn’t have a problem with the boy in turn seeking financial redress from the person who raped him, which may of course mean that the entire financial burden of raising the child eventually comes back to her, assuming she has the means to bear it. But I don’t think he can simply take himself out of the loop, and act as if he had no son or daughter. He does have a son or daughter, and this is a hard objective fact which cannot be wished away.

doctoremma · 20-11-2012 10:02AM

georgieporgy wrote: »

Further info about fetus development at 6 weeks would include pointing out that you can hear a heartbeat. Presumably the heart is capable of being ripped apart.

At this stage, the heart is a primitive tube. It beats, but is very flimsy and undifferentiated.

And do you know what? The ONLY thing that stopped me writing 'Yep, fair point...' is what you followed with.

georgieporgy wrote: »

MayoClinic.com states that the "embryonic period" starts around week five when your baby's spinal cord, brain, heart and other organs form.

This is NOT what Mayo state. Nice Georgy edit of the words 'begin to' between 'organs' and 'form'.

Your baby's spinal cord, brain, heart and other organs START TO form at week 6. That's very different to what you're trying to assert.

At this stage, neither the spinal cord nor brain have even been thought of. The neural tube is closing but this is an 'empty' or 'blank' structure. The anterior portion will soon begin the receive positional information to tell it to start mapping out brain structure. The posterior section will receive info to tell it to start mapping the spinal cord.

However, neither structure is even remotely developed by week 6. What's happening is roughly equivalent to drawing the basic plan of a house - three rooms downstairs, four rooms upstairs, etc - but not specifying any of the room details. There is nothing recognisable in the most upper room in the house, but we know it will be an attic because of WHERE it is.

There is no such thing as a primitive brain cell until around week 10 (to be generous). And even then, these are glial cells (support cells) rather than neurones (the business cells).

Apropos of your post, I wonder if the general public (quite reasonably) don't have enough developmental biology. It's very easy to say that 'at week 6, the brain begins to develop' and for people to imagine a fully-formed yet tiny brain that only needs to grow a little bit. From my POV, such simplifying excludes a huge amount of not just information but of conceptual understanding. Usually, such understanding isn't necessary - Mum just wants milestones - but I've found myself explaining the above a couple of times in this debate.

Zombrex · 20-11-2012 11:37AM

decimatio wrote: »

And I believe the father should be given a choice. To legally accept responsibility or not while abortion is still an option. Then the mother can decide if she wants to continue with the pregnancy knowing the fathers position i.e that she will have his financial support or she won't.

Again the father not choosing to support his child does not cause the child to cease to exist. All you have in such a case is a father abandoning his child. The mother doesn't have that right, why would the father?

A father has a responsibility to his child so long as the child exists. And since there is no way the father can effect that he basically has responsibility to his child period.

decimatio wrote: »

And the father would be financially responsible also.

You have just argued you shouldn't unless he wants to. Or do you mean if the abortion didn't kill the child then it invalidates him saying he doesn't want to any more? How does that work? What is the difference between the child existing after an abortion and the child existing after birth?

decimatio wrote: »

I don't see for a second why this follows.

Because the man choosing to abandon his child doesn't cause the child to not exist. As such you have a child who is simply abandoned. That is not the same as abortion in most cases, and in the case where after the abortion the child still exists then the mother still should have responsibility.

You seem to be missing the point that there is no action the father can do that causes the child not to exist.

decimatio wrote: »

A man should be able to inform the woman that he agrees to financially support the child or not after a pregnancy is detected. Now the woman can choose what to do with that extra information. She can choose to give birth and raise the child without financial support from the father or abort the pregnancy.

What is wrong with that ?

What is wrong with that is an outcome is a child that is not receiving financial support from both its parents.

Zombrex · 20-11-2012 11:42AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

Then surely you should be campaigning for greater rights for fathers? If there’s unfairness here, I don’t see how it is redressed by penalizing the child, which is what you are proposing.

Exactly.

Saying "I didn't have the option of an abortion so I'm not supporting my child" is frankly silly. One has nothing to do with the other.

georgieporgy · 20-11-2012 11:47AM

doctoremma wrote: »

At this stage, the heart is a primitive tube. It beats, but is very flimsy and undifferentiated.

And do you know what? The ONLY thing that stopped me writing 'Yep, fair point...' is what you followed with.

This is NOT what Mayo state. Nice Georgy edit of the words 'begin to' between 'organs' and 'form'.

Your baby's spinal cord, brain, heart and other organs START TO form at week 6. That's very different to what you're trying to assert.

don't have enough developmental biology. It's very easy to say that 'at .

I did not edit Mayo Clinic's statement. But I think you may have confused fifth week of pregnancy with third week of fetal development (ie third week after conception)
Week 5: The embryonic period begins

Fetal development three weeks after conception
The fifth week of pregnancy, or the third week after conception, marks the beginning of the embryonic period. This is when the baby's brain, spinal cord, heart and other organs begin to form.

Fetal development at 6 weeks is much more advanced :
Week 8: Baby's eyes are visible

Fetal development six weeks after conception
Eight weeks into your pregnancy, or six weeks after conception, your baby's arms and legs are growing longer, and fingers have begun to form. The shell-shaped parts of your baby's ears also are forming, and your baby's eyes are visible. The upper lip and nose have formed. The trunk of your baby's body is beginning to straighten.
By the end of this week, your baby might be about 1/2 inch (11 to 14 millimeters) long.

Note the size. Half inch long, a really big pea wouldn't you think? And obviously much more than a glob of period stuff.

Obliq · 20-11-2012 11:59AM

georgieporgy wrote: »

By the end of this week, your baby might be about 1/2 inch (11 to 14 millimeters) long.

Note the size. Half inch long, a really big pea wouldn't you think? And obviously much more than a glob of period stuff.

Honey, I regularly have to kill hatched chickens that can't walk or have a spinal problem leading to them being unable to hold their heads up. If I was a cruel person, I'd give them over to the cats, but instead I kill them quickly.

They usually measure about 3 inches. Death is a fact of life - for some it comes too soon. For some humans, it comes before birth. I am rather less sentimental about that than you.

georgieporgy · 20-11-2012 12:06PM

Obliq wrote: »

Honey, I regularly have to kill hatched chickens that can't walk or have a spinal problem leading to them being unable to hold their heads up. If I was a cruel person, I'd give them over to the cats, but instead I kill them quickly.

They usually measure about 3 inches. Death is a fact of life - for some it comes too soon. For some humans, it comes before birth. I am rather less sentimental about that than you.

We're discussing human fetal development, not the peculiar habits of hillbillys.

Obliq · 20-11-2012 12:14PM

georgieporgy wrote: »

We're discussing human fetal development, not the peculiar habits of hillbillys.

Are you vegetarian? If not, then you have just shown yourself to be a massive hypocrit. I am well aware of what is being discussed - I am, and have been, showing a parallel between the deaths of one tiny defenceless animal and another. It IS fair to say you are very sentimental about one particular animal over another. Why is it that you are?

georgieporgy · 20-11-2012 12:23PM

Obliq wrote: »

Are you vegetarian? If not, then you have just shown yourself to be a massive hypocrit. I am well aware of what is being discussed - I am, and have been, showing a parallel between the deaths of one tiny defenceless animal and another. It IS fair to say you are very sentimental about one particular animal over another. Why is it that you are?

You've got me mixed up with someone else. I am not talking about animals at all.
This thread's title is "A Pro-Life Thread .. For Christians"

doctoremma · 20-11-2012 12:25PM

Georgie, there is evidence in your own posts, comparing the first to the second, that you omitted the words 'begin to'.

The girl was 6 weeks pregnant, 4 weeks post-conception. Please compare what I wrote with that on any standard developmental biology website. I think you'll find that my descriptions are accurate.

I'm not going to argue about the size of a pea. Frankly, it's a derail and beneath either of us. Even by your maximum quoted size at 8 weeks LMP (which is two weeks later than this abortion was performed at), the embryonic volume would not exceed 2.8 ml, when that flask clearly contains approx 200 ml of uterus contents.

Now, all of this is, of course, moot if one is opposed to abortion full stop. No discussion of when a heart is a heart (or why that should be a reasonable threshold for determining life), when the brain begins to function or when an eye becomes visible is going to make any difference to you. My post was in response to Jimi, whose appeared to think (or who was prepared to assert as propaganda) that the flask was full of a ripped apart/suffocated baby. I was correcting that inaccurate assessment.

Obliq · 20-11-2012 12:29PM

georgieporgy wrote: »

You've got me mixed up with someone else. I am not talking about animals at all.
This thread's title is "A Pro-Life Thread .. For Christians"

Well, that's the trouble. You are actually talking about animals - we are animals. I am not Christian, but please - if you want to just talk amongst yourselves and have general consensus, that's obviously your right on this thread - just let me know, via thanking this post, and I'll stop contributing. I'd say it'll take at least 10 thanks, or one mod to stop me though.

However, if you are up for debate, then I am happy to continue showing you that not everyone in Ireland has the same take on human life as you do.

Abortion debate thread

Comments