Abortion debate thread

lazygal · 13-05-2013 07:26PM

Nino Brown wrote: »

No, and I never will. And I'm not trying to minimilize pregnancy at all, it really doesn't look like much fun. But if you're first pregnancy was so bad that it may warrant killing the baby why would you go through it again, you stuck it out the first time, you had your child, and because you percevered there is now another life on this planet and it obviously wasn't such a tortuous experience that you couldn't possibly do it again.
If somebody doesn't want to be pregnant so badly that they think abortion is the answer, why not be more careful to avoid it in the first place. If it's so bad that it's worth ending a life, then don't start that life in the first place. There's contraception, which is almost always effective, if you notice that fails there's the morning after pill, a monthly pregnancy test would catch it early enough to medically abort (which I would support). The ability to create life comes with responsibility. If people don't want to be pregnant there's plenty of ways to achieve that. If they still end up being pregnant its through negligence, and is not the baby's fault, they have a responsibility to the life they created to see it out.
And Ireland needs to be more like the US when it comes to support from men. Over there of you don't pay child support they will lock you up, and put your name on public dead beat dad website. We also need a better faster adoption system for couples who don't want to keep the child.

The morning after pill has to be taken within 72 hours to be effective. A home pregnancy test or even HCG bloods may not show up a pregnancy for 14 days.

Do you think child benefit should be paid from the moment of conception? Even if a woman miscarries at six weeks?

You do know many women who abort are already mothers? And may be mothers again in the future? What do they do with their children when they're in hospital for five days post the minor inconvenience of a c section? Suppose a woman has such severe hyperemisis that she's vomiting 40 times a day and can't care for the other children, what does she do during that minor inconvenience? Suppose a woman, during the minor inconvenience of labour, ends up with a third degree tear and had stitches, and then develops a postnatal infection, all while giving birth to a child she doesn't want, is that a minor inconvenience.

And the 'adoption' argument is bull. Women may not want to be pregnant. Why on earth would you force a women to gestate a child she doesn't want, maybe suffer nausea and vomiting for nine months, develop gestational diabetes or pre ecplamsia, suffer the 'minor' inconvenience of birth - only someone who's no empathy or has never been through it would use the word minor - possibly lose money by having to take unpaid sick leave or time off to attend additional appointments, only to have to then go through the adoption process?

All pro life arguments involve the birth of a baby, live, half alive or dead, at any cost. That sounds pretty inconvenient for women to have to put up with.

FISMA · 14-05-2013 01:03AM

Should a man that does not want to be a father be able to legally walk away from all obligations, no questions asked? Are men in Ireland allowed to walk away from child support if they chose?

Why should a man be forced to be a father if he does not want to be?

These are some questions the States are dealing with as we speak.

In the States, we have an equal protection clause. You cannot apply the law differently based on sex.

Currently, a woman has the right to have an abortion and the right to carry a child full term and safely abandon the child with a church, hospital, or EMS/firestation. That is, just because she is pregnant, she does not have to be a mom.

However, a man has to be a father if the woman has the child.

Isn't that a double standard?

Why is the man not legally allowed to walk away, no strings attached?

Slippery slope...

Zombrex · 14-05-2013 05:10AM

FISMA wrote: »

Should a man that does not want to be a father be able to legally walk away from all obligations, no questions asked? Are men in Ireland allowed to walk away from child support if they chose?

Why should a man be forced to be a father if he does not want to be?

These are some questions the States are dealing with as we speak.

In the States, we have an equal protection clause. You cannot apply the law differently based on sex.

Currently, a woman has the right to have an abortion and the right to carry a child full term and safely abandon the child with a church, hospital, or EMS/firestation. That is, just because she is pregnant, she does not have to be a mom.

However, a man has to be a father if the woman has the child.

Isn't that a double standard?

Why is the man not legally allowed to walk away, no strings attached?

Slippery slope...

A man has the same right to refuse to have his body used to sustain his child's life as a woman does in countries with abortion. I'm unaware of any country that would force an invasion of a mans bodily privacy for the benefit of his child, let alone one with legal abortion.

So where is the double standard? The only double standard is that we don't require this of men but we do, in countries without legal abortion, require it of women.

Fanny Cradock · 14-05-2013 01:23PM

lazygal wrote: »

Why are we special?

If you are asking me as a Christian then I would say it is because we are created in the image of our creator, which of course would need to be unpacked. Beyond that I would argue from both scientific and philosophical ground that the unborn is human and that humans have certain inalienable rights. I'm not quite sure how an atheist who argues against abortion would argue for the specialness of humanity - possibly they would point to potentiality. As I've said I think that it is a tricky problem for them However, we do meet at the point where be both agree that the unborn is human just like the rest of us and therefore are entitled to certain rights - life being chief amongst them.

Do you think that humans are special, lazygal?

lazygal wrote: »

All pro life arguments involve the birth of a baby, live, half alive or dead, at any cost. That sounds pretty inconvenient for women to have to put up with.

That's not quite true. There is a spectrum of opinion within the pro-life movement that ranges from no abortion whatsoever (and I haven't personally encountered many who subscribe to this) to abortion under limited circumstance - and even here there is a range of opinions.

Morbert · 14-05-2013 03:05PM

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Thanks for the response. And let me be clear that I also have some sympathy for the pro-abortion side when it comes to the hard cases such as rape. Indeed, I really only began seriously considering the topic of abortion within the last couple of months and these are the objections that threw me. However, I've also found answers to these objections.

This aside, I'm wondering if you could answer my scenario regarding your gin loving wife?

My answer was yes. The choice to go through with a pregnancy carries many responsibilities. I would support any law which would make drinking alcohol during pregnancy a criminal offence. Similarly, I would support a mother's choice to give up a child for adoption if they feel they are not mentally prepared to raise a child, but I would oppose drinking in front of children.

Also, can you explain to my what happens after 20-22 weeks that you thereafter impose bodily responsibilities on the mother and presumably on the father after birth? It seems to me that if we logically follow the "kidney defence" for abortion (my term) that we can't then ever compel either of the parents to provide a basic level of care to dependent children (born or unborn) so long this involves placing limits upon their (the parent's) bodily autonomy.

I feel the right to bodily integrity carries a huge amount of weight when considering situations, but I do not see it as an automatic trump card, just as I would not see conception or implantation as trump cards either. Instead, I attempt to weigh rights, and do not agree with how the pro-life community weighs those rights.

However, I do sometimes take categorical stances. Rape is one of those stances. Early abortions are another. However difficult it might be to define person-hood, I maintain that it is the important factor, and I reject any definition contingent on genetic material or potential. I dismiss any moral objection to the morning-after pill or IVF.

Morbert · 14-05-2013 03:12PM

robp wrote: »

Well its a perfectly normal occurrence in countless other organisms. Why are we so different? It is like insisting a Siamese twin MUST have two bodies as there are two individuals, even they actually share a body. I can understand you arguing that personhood has a fuzzy start but really and truly the beginning of human life doesn't. Before conception there is no offspring but after conception there is offspring. Simple as that really.

Yes, it is very simple. I am arguing that, while it is simple, it is irrelevant. I am arguing that genetic properties of a zygote, while fascinating, don't grant it any more rights than any somatic cell.

Siamese twins are a good example. Even though there is (often) only one body, there are two individuals. The status of person-hood is not derived from genetic material. It is instead derived from what that genetic material becomes.

Morbert · 14-05-2013 03:18PM

Aiel wrote: »

18-21 days after conception:before many women will even realise they are pregnent,the baby's heart is beating.

At 8 weeks:every organ to be found in a fully grown adult person is already formed.

At 11 weeks:fingerprints and fingernails can be clearly seen.

At 12 weeks:the baby's lips open and close.The baby can turn his/her head and move around the womb.

At 16 weeks:the baby reacts to sound,sucks,swallow's and yawn's.

At 18 weeks:most mothers feel the baby moving.The baby exercises his/her developing muscles by pushing with his feet and head.The baby now sucks his/her thumb.

At 24 weeks:the baby continues moving,hearing.

At 30-40 weeks:the baby,if protected from harm,will continue to grow bigger and stronger until it is time to be born.

For a more relevant and accurate description of foetal development:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetus

Fanny Cradock · 14-05-2013 06:32PM

Morbert wrote: »

My answer was yes. The choice to go through with a pregnancy carries many responsibilities. I would support any law which would make drinking alcohol during pregnancy a criminal offence. Similarly, I would support a mother's choice to give up a child for adoption if they feel they are not mentally prepared to raise a child, but I would oppose drinking in front of children.

So is it fair to say that you think that the unborn has the right to protection under law from harmful practices (heavy drinking, use of certain drugs - both legal and illegal - and so on) but not necessarily from a premeditated death i.e. abortion?

Morbert wrote: »

However, I do sometimes take categorical stances. Rape is one of those stances. Early abortions are another. However difficult it might be to define person-hood, I maintain that it is the important factor, and I reject any definition contingent on genetic material or potential. I dismiss any moral objection to the morning-after pill or IVF.

That's probably the next point of discussion. What do you think personhood is?

Morbert · 14-05-2013 08:26PM

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

So is it fair to say that you think that the unborn has the right to protection under law from harmful practices (heavy drinking, use of certain drugs - both legal and illegal - and so on) but not necessarily from a premeditated death i.e. abortion?

The rights of the foetus would not be what motivates my position. Instead, I would say that, if you choose to bring a child into this world, you are obliged to make sure that child is as healthy as possible. I.e. The "born", rather than the unborn, has rights. And if the born was deformed due to the mother's negligence, I would find that to be criminal. If you choose to have an abortion, on the other hand, you choose to not bring a child into this world.

That's probably the next point of discussion. What do you think personhood is?

That is opening a can of worms, and is a discussion that requires a great commitment. For the time being, I will say that, whatever personhood might be, I would not call a blastocyst a person.

FISMA · 14-05-2013 11:21PM

Zombrex wrote: »

So where is the double standard?

In the States, the law allows several instances for a woman to: (a) not become a mother or (b) cease being a mother. This choice is not legally afforded to men.

That's a double standard.

Quid pro quo Zombrex. Should a man be legally allowed to walk away from all custodial rights and responsibilities for a child that he has fathered?

Bannasidhe · 15-05-2013 05:17PM

FISMA wrote: »

In the States, the law allows several instances for a woman to: (a) not become a mother or (b) cease being a mother. This choice is not legally afforded to men.

That's a double standard.

Quid pro quo Zombrex. Should a man be legally allowed to walk away from all custodial rights and responsibilities for a child that he has fathered?

Every try and get child support from a 'father' who is not resident in the same country as 'his' children.

My son's 'father' had pretty much zero to do with my son apart from giving him a lick of an icecream once. He experienced zero legal repercussions.

robp · 15-05-2013 08:06PM

Zombrex wrote: »

How can there be "one female tiny human" but that isn't either Mary Kate or Ashley? Who is the "one female tiny human" and what happens to them when Mary Kate and Ashely appears?

I don't know why you keep banging on about this. Its really elementary. It wouldn't be Mary Kate and Ashley as it would have a name yet and it is only one embryo. Yet if the embryo had a name it would keep that name and you would select a new name for the new embryo which had split off.

Zombrex wrote: »

Well again it does arise, doctors regularly re-arrange and prioritize operations based on how much blood is available, and if they don't have the blood they won't perform an elective surgery, who is to say that not performing that elective surgery didn't adversely effect the patient.

I think if you could prove that you would have quite a news story and indeed a national scandal.

Zombrex wrote: »

Secondly there is no reason why you shouldn't be able to answer the question, given that this problem is not some impossibility. The idea that those in need of organs will die without them is not a hypothetical.

Of course people die on waiting lists but we are only talking about kidney donation for your analogy. Compulsory kidney donation would always be a last resort and fortunately there are other options available so we have never come to that and even without a new kidney there are all sorts of excellent treatments. In countries like Spain organ shortages are so much of an issue. Hypothetical scenarios are like historical 'what ifs' and serve no useful purpose.

Zombrex wrote: »

My friends mother had a rare lung degeneration disease and found a donor only weeks before she would have died, after waiting for years. My friends family had prepared themselves for her not making it.

A living person can't donate a lung.

Flier · 15-05-2013 08:19PM

robp wrote: »

I

A living person can't donate a lung.

Yes they can.

MrPudding · 15-05-2013 11:23PM

Flier wrote: »

Yes they can.

And liver, if I am not mistaken.

MrP

Zombrex · 16-05-2013 04:24PM

FISMA wrote: »

In the States, the law allows several instances for a woman to: (a) not become a mother or (b) cease being a mother. This choice is not legally afforded to men.

That's a double standard.

The law protects the woman's privacy to perform any operation on her body that she wishes.

The same law protects a man to do the same thing.

Again, where is the double standard? You didn't answer the question, you just repeated the existence of the law protecting a woman's right to choose what happens to her body, which applies to the man as well. The "double standard" seems to exist only in your head.

FISMA wrote: »

Quid pro quo Zombrex. Should a man be legally allowed to walk away from all custodial rights and responsibilities for a child that he has fathered?

A man should be allowed decide how his body is used, just as a woman is.

Again, where is the double standard. Point out the law that applies to the woman but doesn't apply to the man?

Zombrex · 16-05-2013 04:31PM

robp wrote: »

I don't know why you keep banging on about this. Its really elementary. It wouldn't be Mary Kate and Ashley as it would have a name yet and it is only one embryo. Yet if the embryo had a name it would keep that name and you would select a new name for the new embryo which had split off.

If a cell splits into two new cells which is the "new" embryo and which is the "old" embryo? :rolleyes:

We keep "banging on about it" because it makes nonsense of your idea that there is a new person, or even life form here". There are cells. Cells that can become other cells that may or may not become a person down the line.

robp wrote: »

I think if you could prove that you would have quite a news story and indeed a national scandal.

Really, you cannot be that naive...

http://www.irishhealth.com/article.html?id=7658

robp wrote: »

Of course people die on waiting lists but we are only talking about kidney donation for your analogy. Compulsory kidney donation would always be a last resort and fortunately there are other options available so we have never come to that and even without a new kidney there are all sorts of excellent treatments.

Do you genuinely believe that the only reason we haven't introduced compulsory blood/kidney/lung donation is because we haven't had a shortage yet?

Again I'm torn between the idea that you are really that naive/ignorant or you are just fanning this ignorance to avoid having to tackle the issue.

robp wrote: »

A living person can't donate a lung.

Yes they can

http://www.kidney.org/transplantation/livingdonors/infoqa.cfm#1g

robp · 17-05-2013 03:50PM

Zombrex wrote: »

If a cell splits into two new cells which is the "new" embryo and which is the "old" embryo?

When we speak of old and new it is metaphorical. They are both the same age. Both would have equal entitlement to keep the old name. Obvious only one would actually get it though.

Zombrex wrote: »

We keep "banging on about it" because it makes nonsense of your idea that there is a new person, or even life form here". There are cells. Cells that can become other cells that may or may not become a person down the line.

Really, you cannot be that naive...

http://www.irishhealth.com/article.html?id=7658

Still waiting for you to demonstrate that delaying non essential operations in Ireland has led to regular loss of life.

Zombrex wrote: »

Do you genuinely believe that the only reason we haven't introduced compulsory blood/kidney/lung donation is because we haven't had a shortage yet?

Well if demand is sufficient why haven't they introduced presumed consent? Presumed consent is perfectly compatibility with the notion of bodily integrity as defined in the EU charter of fundamental rights. About 24 European countries have some from of presumed consent. The real reason why we don't have presumed consent is due to all sorts of pragmatic reasons including effectiveness of the approach and potential loss of trust. Similarly a compulsory donation approach would fail on my practical issues.

Zombrex wrote: »

Yes they can

http://www.kidney.org/transplantation/livingdonors/infoqa.cfm#1g

They can only donate part, not the whole lung.

robp · 17-05-2013 03:56PM

At first I was just plain speechless when I saw this.

Then I realised pro choice are just plain creepy.

Delirium · 17-05-2013 04:08PM

Do you really want to judge either side of the argument based on the extremists?

Pro-life activists threaten to slit throat of TD

Ms Doherty told TV3’s Vincent Browne this week about threatening emails she has recently received.

“The level of abuse and physical threats that I am getting at the moment, even though people know exactly where I’m standing, It is off the wall”.

She said she was having “normal conversations” with some people about the proposed legislation but in relation to other people, she added: “I have a number of people at the moment who are going to burn my house down with my children in it, they are going to spit at me when I walk inside my church grounds at Sunday morning at Mass.

“I received an email which I’m sure we all did last week where I’m going to have my throats [sic] cut from my neck to my naval and my entrails are going to spill out. There are some very strange people in this country who call themselves Christians.”

I'm not using the above to state that pro-life supporters all think that way. Just highlighting that there are angry/hateful people on both sides.

Surely it's better to try and engage in a civilised discussion rather than engage in mudslinging?

robp · 17-05-2013 04:23PM

koth wrote: »

Do you really want to judge either side of the argument based on the extremists?

Pro-life activists threaten to slit throat of TD

I'm not using the above to state that pro-life supporters all think that way. Just highlighting that there are angry/hateful people on both sides.

Surely it's better to try and engage in a civilised discussion rather than engage in mudslinging?

Unfortunately enough the TD involved hasn't been forthcoming about publishing the email despite calls for her to do so or even contacting the Gardai. She aught to contact the Gardai at least. It is a tad incredible, more likely a pro choice hoax. I have never uttered abuse here but I do need to give a bit of balance to counter bias media reporting.

Bannasidhe · 17-05-2013 04:31PM

robp wrote: »

Funnily enough the TD involved hasn't been forthcoming about publishing the email despite calls for her to do so or even contacting the Gardai. She aught to contact the Gardai atleast. It is a tad incredible. I have never uttered abuse here but I do need to give a bit of balance to counter bias media reporting.

http://www.thejournal.ie/abortion-protesters-gather-outside-justice-ministers-home-913064-May2013/

Protesters gather outside private home, some brandishing placards of a graphic nature at 8:30 in the morning as children will be heading off to school. Yeah - they are all about protecting children.

No comparison with some eejits twitting comments eh?

Delirium · 17-05-2013 04:33PM

robp wrote: »

Unfortunately enough the TD involved hasn't been forthcoming about publishing the email despite calls for her to do so or even contacting the Gardai. She aught to contact the Gardai at least. It is a tad incredible, more likely a pro choice hoax. I have never uttered abuse here but I do need to give a bit of balance to counter bias media reporting.

Have you a link to where she stated she wouldn't be contacting the police about the death threat?

Also could you give some examples where people on the pro-life side of the discussion were excluded from a panel discussion program? Just seeing this media bias claim being thrown around a bit but haven't seen any evidence to support it yet.

robp · 17-05-2013 05:16PM

koth wrote: »

Have you a link to where she stated she wouldn't be contacting the police about the death threat?

I hope she will but as its already Friday I wouldn't count on it.

koth wrote: »

[/B]Also could you give some examples where people on the pro-life side of the discussion were excluded from a panel discussion program?[/B] Just seeing this media bias claim being thrown around a bit but haven't seen any evidence to support it yet.

I didn't make that claim. I was referring to the media bias in these distraction stories like Regina Doherty's allegations. These anonymous email threat stories have been published twice now in national newspapers even though they have not been verified while the threats of rape and assault and actual episodes of vandalism by pro choice people have not being published in the National papers while they are verified.

Bannasidhe · 17-05-2013 05:55PM

robp wrote: »

I hope she will but as its already Friday I wouldn't count on it.

I didn't make that claim. I was referring to the media bias in these distraction stories like Regina Doherty's allegations. These anonymous email threat stories have been published twice now in national newspapers even though they have not been verified while the threats of rape and assault and actual episodes of vandalism by pro choice people have not being published in the National papers while they are verified.

Linky???

Delirium · 17-05-2013 06:23PM

robp wrote: »

I hope she will but as its already Friday I wouldn't count on it.

So it's just idle speculation on your behalf rather than anything based on what she has said.

I didn't make that claim. I was referring to the media bias in these distraction stories like Regina Doherty's allegations. These anonymous email threat stories have been published twice now in national newspapers even though they have not been verified while the threats of rape and assault and actual episodes of vandalism by pro choice people have not being published in the National papers while they are verified.

Someone emailed an elected official threatening to murder her and her children. If that's not newsworthy I don't know what is.

And I also would like to see a link to evidence (and the pending, or otherwise, trial) that pro-choice people committed the vandalism.

Fanny Cradock · 17-05-2013 07:02PM

Morbert wrote: »

The rights of the foetus would not be what motivates my position. Instead, I would say that, if you choose to bring a child into this world, you are obliged to make sure that child is as healthy as possible. I.e. The "born", rather than the unborn, has rights. And if the born was deformed due to the mother's negligence, I would find that to be criminal. If you choose to have an abortion, on the other hand, you choose to not bring a child into this world.

Is that not an argument from potentiality?

Morbert wrote: »

That is opening a can of worms, and is a discussion that requires a great commitment. For the time being, I will say that, whatever personhood might be, I would not call a blastocyst a person.

It sure is a can of worms, but it's really what the whole debate hinges on. If the unborn are not humans (and I equate personhood with humanness) then having an abortion is no more morally significant then having a tooth pulled. If, however, the unborn is human then what are we to make of the 50 million abortions in the US alone since the 70's?

Fanny Cradock · 17-05-2013 07:03PM

In fairness to Koth, it shouldn't be a surprise when people behave like ****s, especially when anonymity is involved. If anyone has made threats then we condemn their words and we move on.

Delirium · 17-05-2013 07:08PM

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

In fairness to Koth, it shouldn't be a surprise when people behave like ****s, especially when anonymity is involved. If anyone has made threats then we condemn their words and we move on.

Exactly

lmaopml · 18-05-2013 12:45AM

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Is that not an argument from potentiality?

It sure is a can of worms, but it's really what the whole debate hinges on. If the unborn are not humans (and I equate personhood with humanness) then having an abortion is no more morally significant then having a tooth pulled. If, however, the unborn is human then what are we to make of the 50 million abortions in the US alone since the 70's?

Nobody wants to get into the idea of personhood - because it's really not the rational part of the abortion debate and doesn't help to contribute properly to explaining the dependent human properly, or making another sound less human - it's the embarrassing short coming that nobody wants to discuss, it's where the law says one is a person when they travel down the birth canal and if they don't they aren't human - defining what a human is seems difficult, even though it seems perfectly clear how everybody that debates it started out, if only we could remember.

Might means Right, having a 'right' - and free choice for those capable is what counts and choice is absolute. Choice has become the new expression of 'freedom' - freedom to choose because I can.

indy_man · 18-05-2013 01:00AM

Irish women 'traumatised' after abortions, say support group

exerpts:

Hundreds of Irish women are left traumatised, depressed and suicidal after they have an abortion, it was claimed today.

"I had an abortion and I have been deeply damaged by it and I meet hundreds of women now who come to my abortion recovery programme," she said. "I suffered from many years of depression, anxiety, panic attacks, suicidal attempts, suicidal thoughts. "When I work with women in recovery I meet many women who were suicidal. I've visited them in psychiatric hospitals around the country."

They said they would have been prepared to lie and say they were suicidal to get an abortion.

Ms Best, 38, from Belfast, revealed she had one abortion at the age of 25 so she could focus on her career and a second at 30 - but only dealt with the after-effects two years ago after a recovery programme.

Abortion debate thread

Comments