Abortion debate thread

J C · 09-05-2013 08:40PM

PlainP wrote: »

What other ways would these be??

Can you not think of any way ... other than killing our children?

PlainP · 09-05-2013 08:48PM

You said there were many more morally licit ways with controlling overpopulation?

What are they?

Edit: Also what do you mean by "our children" ?

J C · 09-05-2013 08:52PM

PlainP wrote: »

You said there were many more morally licit ways with controlling overpopulation?

What are they?

I know of many ... I'm just asking you first ... given the fact that you seem to believe that killing unborn children is a good way - or am I misunderstanding you?

We really have reached a moral low-point if we are going to kill our unborn children to make place for rare snails and frogs!!!

PlainP · 09-05-2013 09:04PM

J C wrote: »

I know of many ... I'm just asking you first ... given the fact that you seem to believe that killing unborn children is a good way - or am I misunderstanding you?

I don't know of any that's why I asked.
They are not children.

J C · 09-05-2013 09:17PM

PlainP wrote: »

I don't know of any that's why I asked.
They are not children.

They are unborn Human children - fact.
... and do you really not know of any other way of controlling population expansion (assuming that this is laudible, in the first place) other than by killing our unborn children?

... could anybody else suggest a means of controlling population expansion other than by deliberately killing?

... and where is the supposed 'choice' in all of this, if abortion is really the centrepiece of a population control mechanism ?

lazygal · 09-05-2013 09:44PM

Condoms, the pill, the coil, the implant......would any of them prevent the need for abortion/killing the babies?

J C · 09-05-2013 09:58PM

lazygal wrote: »

Condoms, the pill, the coil, the implant......would any of them prevent the need for abortion/killing the babies?

They could help control population growth.
I don't know if they prevent the need for abortion though.
... there seems to be an idea abroad that abortion is a good thing ... because its helping to 'Save the Planet' ... by killing unborn Human Beings.
... and no amount of contraception ... may be sufficient, if that is the objective.

lazygal · 09-05-2013 10:00PM

J C wrote: »

They could help control population growth.
I don't know if they prevent the need for abortion though.
... there seems to be an idea abroad that abortion is a good thing ... because its helping to 'Save the Planet' ... by killing unborn Human Beings.
... and no amount of contraception ... may be sufficient, if that is the objective.

No contraception is 100% effective. Education is also essential.
But women still need access to safe, legal abortion, or killing their babies if that's what you call it, if they do not wish to be pregnant, not for population control but because forced pregnancy and birth shouldn't be something any girl or woman should have to endure.

Morbert · 09-05-2013 11:00PM

J C wrote: »

This stuff about organ transplants versus abortion is a complete 'red herring'. There is no moral or ethical requirement on anybody to provide spare body parts to somebody else ... indeed such a requirement would be open to serious abuse, with the 'strong' literally cannibalising the 'weak' - if it were ever to become law.
The surgical analogy with an abortion is a surgeon who starts an operation (like a woman getting pregnant) ... and then 'walks out' half way through the operation, thereby killing the patient.

J C you have been corrected on this before. The analogy is clearly not representative of your view, as nobody is forced to perform an operation, while you would happily commandeer a rape victim's body to see a pregnancy through.

Also, your repeated insistence that abortion is the killing of children can be dismissed out of hand.

Morbert · 09-05-2013 11:02PM

J C wrote: »

There is nothing difficult about the question of when Human Life begins. It is patently obvous that Human Life begins at fertilisation ... and all this obfuscation is utilised to allow Human Life to be taken in its most vulnerable state, with legal impunity.

Not only is it not patently obvious, your definition is actually rejected in Ireland, as the morning after pill is legal here.

Also, identical twins emerge after conception.

PlainP · 09-05-2013 11:07PM

J C wrote: »

They are unborn Human children - fact.
... and do you really not know of any other way of controlling population expansion (assuming that this is laudible, in the first place) other than by killing our unborn children?

... could anybody else suggest a means of controlling population expansion other than by deliberately killing?

... and where is the supposed 'choice' in all of this, if abortion is really the centrepiece of a population control mechanism ?

You said you knew ways yet you still haven't told us, you're very good at deflecting questions JC, using emotive language. Can you please just answer the question.

J C · 09-05-2013 11:32PM

Morbert wrote: »

J C you have been corrected on this before. The analogy is clearly not representative of your view, as nobody is forced to perform an operation, while you would happily commandeer a rape victim's body to see a pregnancy through.

The analogy is perfectly fine for the vast vast majority of pregnancies that haven't been conceived in rape.
Rape is a hard case and I have said that I couldn't even begin to imagine the trauma that this must cause women ... and with the added trauma of pregnancy, it must be off the scale. I have also said that is why rape is correctly treated in law with potentially the same sentence as murder i.e. life imprisonment.

Morbert wrote: »

Also, your repeated insistence that abortion is the killing of children can be dismissed out of hand.

They are unborn children technically and legally, when a woman has a wanted pregnancy ... and when it isn't wanted they are still unborn children.

J C · 09-05-2013 11:47PM

Morbert wrote: »

Not only is it not patently obvious, your definition is actually rejected in Ireland, as the morning after pill is legal here.

It is allowed on the technicality that it prevents impantation or conception ... and the working legal definition of 'unborn' is regarded as an implanted embryo (to allow the Morning After Pill and the keeping and disposal of Fertilised Embryos ex utero). An attempt was made to copper-fasten this definition in a referendum, but it wasn't passed ... but the definition continues to be used.

In any event, this doesn't alter the fact that Human Life starts at fertilisation.

Morbert wrote: »

Also, identical twins emerge after conception.

It still doesn't alter the fact that their lives began at fertilisation.

J C · 09-05-2013 11:57PM

lazygal wrote: »

No contraception is 100% effective. Education is also essential.
But women still need access to safe, legal abortion, or killing their babies if that's what you call it, if they do not wish to be pregnant, not for population control but because forced pregnancy and birth shouldn't be something any girl or woman should have to endure.

If they don't wish to endure a pregnancy they need to either not have sex (yes, believe it or not, that is an option exercised by many people either through choice or circumstances) ... or if they do have sex, they need to use effective contraception.

You are correct that no contraception is 100% effective ... so somebody who is sexually active needs to take this into account and realise that they have a responsibility to not kill unborn Humans that may result from their negligence.
Accidents may happen ... but try telling that to a judge when you drive out in front of somebody and crash into their car.
A similar moral responsibility attaches to somebody (and their partner) who has an 'accidental' pregnacy.

Zombrex · 10-05-2013 08:53AM

J C wrote: »

The analogy is perfectly fine for the vast vast majority of pregnancies that haven't been conceived in rape.

I don't in away think you are being serious in this discussion, but just in case anyone reading your posts takes your point seriously it should be pointed out it is completely bogus.

No doctor in Ireland is expected to give up their own body in order to save a patient. If you are on the operating table and suddenly need a body there is no requirement on you doctor to give you blood, bone marrow or in any way invalidate his bodily integrity in order to save you.

Nor has anyone ever been required to continue with a donation of/from their body against their will because in the past they agreed to it. If you agree to give a kidney and then later change your mind your kidney is not forcibly removed against you will because previously you agreed. A woman can decide at any point during her pregnancy that she no longer consents to her body being used to sustain the foetus, just like you can at any time walk out of a blood transfusion or at any time refuse to continue being a bone marrow donor. The blood clinic does not come around to your house hold you down and take blood from you because 3 weeks ago you agreed to give blood.

So you are talking nonsense. But then you already knew that, didn't you JC

robp · 10-05-2013 09:35AM

Zombrex wrote: »

No doctor in Ireland is expected to give up their own body in order to save a patient. If you are on the operating table and suddenly need a body there is no requirement on you doctor to give you blood, bone marrow or in any way invalidate his bodily integrity in order to save you.

Nor has anyone ever been required to continue with a donation of/from their body against their will because in the past they agreed to it. If you agree to give a kidney and then later change your mind your kidney is not forcibly removed against you will because previously you agreed. A woman can decide at any point during her pregnancy that she no longer consents to her body being used to sustain the foetus, just like you can at any time walk out of a blood transfusion or at any time refuse to continue being a bone marrow donor. The blood clinic does not come around to your house hold you down and take blood from you because 3 weeks ago you agreed to give blood.

Utterly irrational. Even if the analogy was comparable (which it is not) the situation does not arise so why on earth would there be an obligation. People don't die in Ireland for insufficient blood donation. With kidneys etc any shortage could be removed by granting assumed donation after death. Anyway there are several reasons why it is not comparable. The most principal reason is that the unborn is the offspring of the parents. The parents have legal and moral obligations that are derived from million of years evolutionary selection, those obligations are unique to parents and their offspring and require a quite a bit of propaganda and euphemisms to even come close to overcoming.

Morbert wrote: »

Also, identical twins emerge after conception.

That is an illogical reason for life not to have begun. A sample of your DNA could be taken and in theory you could be cloned (illegal but possible). A clone is an identical twin so does that mean your life hasn't started yet.

Zombrex · 10-05-2013 10:33AM

robp wrote: »

Utterly irrational. Even if the analogy was comparable (which it is not) the situation does not arise so why on earth would there be an obligation. People don't die in Ireland for insufficient blood donation. With kidneys etc any shortage could be removed by granting assumed donation after death.

Well it is some what beside the point, but yes people die all the freaking time due to shortages of blood and/or donor organs. Through out the western world there is a blood shortage, from the USA, to UK to Ireland, largely due to the increase in operations available. And people die on the transplant list all the time because a donor has not been found in time.

Despite this we do not mandate that anyone give up blood or organs or violate their bodily privacy in any way without consent, even parents of children who require blood or organs from them.

robp wrote: »

Anyway there are several reasons why it is not comparable. The most principal reason is that the unborn is the offspring of the parents. The parents have legal and moral obligations that are derived from million of years evolutionary selection, those obligations are unique to parents and their offspring and require a quite a bit of propaganda and euphemisms to even come close to overcoming.

So why do we not legally require parents to give blood or organs without consent to help their children?

Zombrex · 10-05-2013 10:42AM

robp wrote: »

That is an illogical reason for life not to have begun. A sample of your DNA could be taken and in theory you could be cloned (illegal but possible). A clone is an identical twin so does that mean your life hasn't started yet.

How old is the clone?

If their life started at my conception (because life "starts" at conception, right?) that means that they are 33 years old, even though they would have the body and mind of a baby.

See, doesn't make much sense. You could say their life starts at the moment you choose the cell to clone, but since there is no conception that also invalidates the point. It is all arbitrary. I'm alive, the clone is alive, the clone's clone is alive. The whole process nothing starts, just changes.

As soon as you start seriously examining it the idea that life "starts" at conception turns out to be ridiculous (e.g what about all the life forms that reproduce asexually, do they not start?).

Life, in the biological sense, started 4 billion years ago and hasn't stopped since. It is a continuous chemical process, every part of you, your parents, your grand parents, your great grand parents, your great great grand parents ... were alive, nothing began to be alive, any more than life would "begin" if I cloned a cell of mine.

Any point where you pick for when biological life starts is arbitrary, since you are assigning a starting point to an on going and never stopping chemical process (ie something that doesn't have starting points other than the very original starting point billions of years ago).

It would be like trying to decide the exact point the Atlantic ocean turns into the Mediterranean. You can certainly pick a point and say the Mediterrranean "starts" here, but it is arbitrary and at the end of the day it is just one continuous body of water.

Morbert · 10-05-2013 02:59PM

robp wrote: »

That is an illogical reason for life not to have begun. A sample of your DNA could be taken and in theory you could be cloned (illegal but possible). A clone is an identical twin so does that mean your life hasn't started yet.

I don't understand your response at all. Yes, my DNA is not a person. That is the very point I am making. A person is more than DNA. Or do you believe the somatic cell used to produce the clone is a person?

The pro-life side maintains that a zygote is not just genetic material, but is a person. Yet twins emerge when the genetic material in the womb gets pulled apart and separated. This would imply a person can comprised of multiple persons. This is clearly an absurdity. The genetic material is not a person. Instead, it is spun and folded into individuals, just as my DNA can be placed in an egg, developed into a new individual.

Morbert · 10-05-2013 03:06PM

robp wrote: »

The most principal reason is that the unborn is the offspring of the parents. The parents have legal and moral obligations that are derived from million of years evolutionary selection, those obligations are unique to parents and their offspring and require a quite a bit of propaganda and euphemisms to even come close to overcoming.

That is a meaningless statement. Moral obligations cannot be derived from evolution, and parents are not legally obliged to give up their bodies (E.g. donate a kidney) to save their child's life.

MrPudding · 10-05-2013 05:11PM

robp wrote: »

The parents have legal and moral obligations that are derived from million of years evolutionary selection, those obligations are unique to parents and their offspring and require a quite a bit of propaganda and euphemisms to even come close to overcoming.

What are these legal obligation and what limits do they have?

And moral obligations? So what? Whilst they are a "nice to have" they are worthless, from a making a person do something perspective.

As an example, a parent has various legal obligations in relation to the safety and well being of their children. In addition we can argue that parent often have certain moral obligations in the same area. But, even with these legal and moral obligations a parent is still not under any obligation to do certain things. So, even if a child their child was dying there is no legal obligation for the parent to give blood or an organ to save the child. Of course you could argue, and I would agree with you, that the parent has a moral obligation to do what they have to in order to save their child, but that moral obligation has no coercive force to make the parent give blood or an organ to save the child.

MrP

lmaopml · 10-05-2013 09:22PM

MrPudding wrote: »

What are these legal obligation and what limits do they have?

And moral obligations? So what? Whilst they are a "nice to have" they are worthless, from a making a person do something perspective.

As an example, a parent has various legal obligations in relation to the safety and well being of their children. In addition we can argue that parent often have certain moral obligations in the same area. But, even with these legal and moral obligations a parent is still not under any obligation to do certain things. So, even if a child their child was dying there is no legal obligation for the parent to give blood or an organ to save the child. Of course you could argue, and I would agree with you, that the parent has a moral obligation to do what they have to in order to save their child, but that moral obligation has no coercive force to make the parent give blood or an organ to save the child.

MrP

There is something inherently irrational about people that see themselves as rational by placing a 'value' system on some individuals above others.

The mere fact that a child passes down the birth canal or is stopped from doing so - even in the third trimester if the legs don't leave the womb, that a 'law' could be passed on their 'value' is daft.

A born child is more dependent than a born cat - yet we wouldn't dream of cutting the cerebral cortex of a born child, just one who still has their legs in the womb because the law says they don't 'exist' with rights, yet we see them, or at least we hear about them because we don't like the idea of looking at our irrationality too close.

I don't understand the 'reason' behind undermining the value of human life in all it's stages - and there is no convincing rational that exists that makes it plausible to place a 'value' system - because human rights are actually 'built' the ones that adults cock up so badly - on the idea that human life is, that 'we' do possess a right to life, not a right to power over another or weaker one. There is an equality - or else there is no equality, and 'equality' is merely some romantic idea that has been twisted so badly that it's meaningless and without foundation.

lazygal · 10-05-2013 09:30PM

lmaopml wrote: »

There is something inherently irrational about people that see themselves as rational by placing a 'value' system on some individuals above others.

The mere fact that a child passes down the birth canal or is stopped from doing so - even in the third trimester if the legs don't leave the womb, that a 'law' could be passed on their 'value' is daft.

A born child is more dependent than a born cat - yet we wouldn't dream of cutting the cerebral cortex of a born child, just one who still has their legs in the womb because the law says they don't 'exist' with rights, yet we see them, or at least we hear about them because we don't like the idea of looking at our irrationality too close.

I don't understand the 'reason' behind undermining the value of human life in all it's stages - and there is no convincing rational that exists that makes it plausible to place a 'value' system - because human rights are actually 'built' the ones that adults cock up so badly - on the idea that human life is, that 'we' do possess a right to life, not a right to power over another or weaker one. There is an equality - or else there is no equality, and 'equality' is merely some romantic idea that has been twisted so badly that it's meaningless and without foundation.

So basically a zygote, embryo or foetus has the right to a woman's body for nine months, regardless of her wishes? How is that 'equality'?

lmaopml · 10-05-2013 09:45PM

lazygal wrote: »

So basically a zygote, embryo or foetus has the right to a woman's body for nine months, regardless of her wishes? How is that 'equality'?

Believe it or not you started off life as a 'zygote' too - as did every single person on this planet. That would be the beginnings of your human development, not another species development, but human - your human development.

You may not even remember the moments after birth, or indeed how you were dependent on another - but you were, before you ever thought you would be arguing that you should have been disposable then, but not now of course.

There is not one human rights issue that doesn't lay it's foundation on being a 'human' - a zygote is a human zygote, any scientist will know a 'human' zygote, or embryo or foetus, the same way as they will diagnose that you are probably six weeks old, or nine months or two years - or indeed folk who go to get a 3d scan these days post the pics of their 'baby' all over facebook etc. or whether a person is 85 with parkinsons or dementia or any other number of illness that we treat the patient because they are 'human' and not disposable...simply because another 'human' grew up and decided as such.

I know that this probably doesn't even register in an atheists ears - but there are some who believe that your belief is redundant, and a dead end, it reduces, and reduces so far that it doesn't even see the value of their own life - and indeed choices - nevertheless, this is the Christian forum, and 'this' is the most rational view I can in all conscience see is true. Not yours.

lazygal · 10-05-2013 09:50PM

lmaopml wrote: »

Believe it or not you started off life as a 'zygote' too - as did every single person on this planet. That would be the beginnings of your human development, not another species development, but human - your human development.

You may not even remember the moments after birth, or indeed how you were dependent on another - but you were, before you ever thought you would be arguing that you should have been disposable then, but not now of course.

There is not one human rights issue that doesn't lay it's foundation on being a 'human' - a zygote is a human zygote, any scientist will know a 'human' zygote, or embryo or foetus, the same way as they will diagnose that you are probably six weeks old, or nine months or two years - or indeed folk who go to get a 3d scan these days post the pics of their 'baby' all over facebook etc. or whether a person is 85 with parkinsons or dementia or any other number of illness that we treat the patient because they are 'human' and not disposable...simply because another 'human' grew up and decided as such.

I know that this probably doesn't even register in an atheists ears - but there are some who believe that your belief is redundant, and a dead end, it reduces, and reduces so far that it doesn't even see the value of their own life - and indeed choices - nevertheless, this is the Christian forum, and 'this' is the most rational view I can in all conscience see is true. Not yours.

I know the value of my life. I value it enough not to leave my children without a mother if pregnancy was to cause me harm.
Why does the zygote's rights trump those of a woman living her life?

lmaopml · 10-05-2013 10:29PM

In Ireland at the moment a woman's life is protected, and despite publications recently this has been pretty 'sound' judgement - so too is the life of her child. They are not weighed one against the other - in a 'value' assessment.

What you are asking is totally different; you are asking why human 'life' should not be undervalued to give you freedom, because you don't see the value of human life from beginning to end. Only the value of choice without consequences - Every single thing that a human being does involves consequences, that's how we grow - removing them in order to set you free is not setting 'others' free - I don't know if you actually 'get' the idea that your choice to claim that 'legally' any mother who carries another 'unborn' child that it reduces that child's 'right' to life - so you are not making a 'singular' claim - you are making a claim on the value of a child from conception of every single mother who conceives a child today and tomorrow and forever to be enshrined in law.

So, you are not only asking that you should be 'free' to choose, but that all mothers in this country who consider that they carry a 'human' not a 'potential' human will have to have the status of that child's right to life re-evaluated in law - and that is a hairy road.

I feel sorry if a girl finds themselves in a situation where an unwanted pregnancy occurs, but it's not an illness, it requires support - not the undermining of another life because of anothers power of speech who once had none themselves and was dependant, just like everybody else.

lazygal · 10-05-2013 10:38PM

So a zygote still trumps the wish of a child or woman who'd rather not be pregnant and give birth. I don't understand why.
And pregnancy and birth can have serious short and long term consequences. But it seems a pregnant woman or girl can't chose to not face those, because the 'life' inside her has to continue gestation, and be birthed, at any cost. Sounds mighty tragic and unequal to me.

lmaopml · 10-05-2013 10:59PM

lazygal wrote: »

So a zygote still trumps the wish of a child or woman who'd rather not be pregnant and give birth.

I don't understand why.
And pregnancy and birth can have serious short and long term consequences. But it seems a pregnant woman or girl can't chose to not face those, because the 'life' inside her has to continue gestation, and be birthed, at any cost. Sounds mighty tragic and unequal to me.

Well, lazy gal, that's where we as 'women' separate in our value assessments that we fight for - we're female, but probably continents apart really and the population of both is not quantified.

I see the carrying of a child as the most amazing thing, and as a mum/female I think it's important that I verbalize this, and also protect other feminists those females who aren't necessarily 'Atheist' who value life from the time of conception to a right to treatment as a 'human' not as a 'potential' human being - I believe that's undermining mums and females. That's my opinion.

I'm a mum from the time I conceive - it's terrifying at times, but so too is anything in life, but it is ultimately what we're naturally built for and children are fabulous - all of them, and there is always a better way, something better to seek, than like in the states where fifty five million abortions have taken place. Not all of them were obviously 'hard' cases.

That statistic, to me as a female sounds more scary that women feel - well 'free' yay - despite the trauma they suffer afterwards, that doesn't even remotely get the same publication -

Also, to the honest debate taking place here between people who are women but have obviously got very different values. I won't deny I have different values to you, but I won't say that you represent me as a female either - that's my and every other woman's prerogative to express - that you don't represent me as a female. Or as a feminist, or as a mum - you've gone too far.

lazygal · 10-05-2013 11:14PM

Why do you feel the need to "protect" women from the option of abortion? What are you protecting them from?
I'm a mum, and that's why I feel forced pregnancy and birth are something no woman should have to endure. I don't think abortions are always the right choice, but no choice at all is not what women should endure.

lmaopml · 11-05-2013 12:05AM

lazygal wrote: »

Why do you feel the need to "protect" women from the option of abortion? What are you protecting them from?
I'm a mum, and that's why I feel forced pregnancy and birth are something no woman should have to endure. I don't think abortions are always the right choice, but no choice at all is not what women should endure.

So basically, you are saying that you are the one, who should get the right to say no matter - what child is a person or isn't a person depending on your mood or situation.

That's not how other women think. I'm sorry but you don't get to decide - mainly because you are speaking for not only yourself but every other mum, but also because your idea of what a persons worth or value is dependant on you either whether they are at the very early beginnings or the very end means nothing, just your opinion and value assessment -

Ironically, it's based on merely your opinion having been allowed to develop by they grace of another who gave you life in all your dependent stages, and NOT on the value of life at all - which is not yours to value in the first place! never was.

I especially, as a female think that you are asking far too much of women who think very very different to you - who may have empathy, but there is such a thing as asking too much - and you are.

Abortion debate thread

Comments