Abortion debate thread

Morbert · 22-05-2013 05:53PM

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Is that not an argument from potentiality?

Yes, just as I would be in favour of punishing a drunk driver even if he/she does not injure anybody.

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?

There are two positions if the latter is true. The first is the pro-life position. The second, pro-choice position, would be that, while the death of millions is a tragedy, it is wrong to commandeer the bodies of women to ensure pregnancies are carried out and the lives are saved.

Geomy · 22-05-2013 06:44PM

Jernal wrote: »

Fair enough, I do get the point about intent but it strikes me as odd that absolutely nothing is being done. To take your analogy about anti-war folk. Even within their demographic you'd find plenty of people involved or wishing for better sanitation and health facilities for every human alive. In the case of spontaneous abortions I couldn't find any single thing. Anyway, I think I'll leave it

I do have one more question though:
If you were in burning building filled with a puppy and a container that contained those 400 million embryos and you only had time to save the container or the puppy but not both, which would you save?

Easy tuck in my top, put puppy down my top and run out the door with the container. ..

Turtwig · 22-05-2013 07:54PM

Geomy wrote: »

Easy tuck in my top, put puppy down my top and run out the door with the container. ..

...and you would spontaneously combust for cheating.

otto_26 · 22-05-2013 08:19PM

JimiTime wrote: »

In the words of the late Ronald Reagan, "I notice all the people who are pro-abortion are conveniently already born"

What more needs to be said, great quote.

Delirium · 22-05-2013 08:45PM

otto_26 wrote: »

What more needs to be said, great quote.

No it's not. Everyone that is pro-choice isn't already born unless someone wants to make the daft claim that everyone born from dateX will be opposed to abortion.

It's a soundbite. The discussion deserves more thought than that quote.

PopePalpatine · 22-05-2013 09:37PM

Ah, is this the same Ronald Reagan who funded the muhjadeen of Afghanistan and far-right dictators in Latin America? What a fine example of morality. :rolleyes:

Fanny Cradock · 22-05-2013 10:25PM

Jernal wrote: »

I do have one more question though:
If you were in burning building filled with a puppy and a container that contained those 400 million embryos and you only had time to save the container or the puppy but not both, which would you save?

Ah, yes! I enjoy this thought experiment. Like the violinist analogy it is initially powerful, and it really should make pro-life/ anti-abortion folks stop and think, but ultimately I think it fails for a number of reasons.

I'm in the middle of wedding preparations and I don't have the time I would otherwise. Hopefully I'll get the chance to respond over the next few days. So apologies for the non-answer.

BTW, still haven't forgotten the Peter Singer PM. Again, busy times!

Turtwig · 22-05-2013 10:47PM

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Ah, yes! I enjoy this thought experiment. Like the violinist analogy it is initially powerful, and it really should make pro-life/ anti-abortion folks stop and think, but ultimately I think it fails for a number of reasons.

I'm in the middle of wedding preparations and I don't have the time I would otherwise. Hopefully I'll get the chance to respond over the next few days. So apologies for the non-answer.

BTW, still haven't forgotten the Peter Singer PM. Again, busy times!

I also think it fails.

No rush.
Have a wonderful time.
(Should we be congratulating you too?:D)

Fanny Cradock · 22-05-2013 11:31PM

Ah, that would be telling

But thank you nevertheless.

Geomy · 23-05-2013 12:12AM

Jernal wrote: »

...and you would spontaneously combust for cheating.

Sure im burning in hell now, so better sooner rather than later lol

Zombrex · 23-05-2013 01:26PM

nagirrac wrote: »

You didn't answer my question. Does the right you are asserting extend all the way to birth?

Your question is loaded because you seem to be working under the assumption that the right to an abortion is the right to kill your child. The right to remove the foetus from the woman's body should extend for as long as the foetus is inside the woman. As you point out often it doesn't, but that is a different question to whether it should or not.

You are claiming that the right isn't to remove the foetus, but to kil the foetus, and appear to be asking should she have that right after birth. The woman does not have that right outside of the context of doing what is necessary to remove the foetus from her body. Birth is only relevant from the point of view of after birth the foetus isn't in the woman's body. If some how the baby was put back in the woman she would retain the right to remove it.

This goes back to what I was saying. Abortion is not the right to kill your child. It is the right to remove another person from your body. Some times that requires that you damage or kill the foetus. But that is not what the right is, any more than the right to self defence is the right to kill people.

nagirrac · 23-05-2013 03:44PM

Zombrex wrote: »

Your question is loaded because you seem to be working under the assumption that the right to an abortion is the right to kill your child. The right to remove the foetus from the woman's body should extend for as long as the foetus is inside the woman. As you point out often it doesn't, but that is a different question to whether it should or not. You are claiming that the right isn't to remove the foetus, but to kil the foetus, and appear to be asking should she have that right after birth. The woman does not have that right outside of the context of doing what is necessary to remove the foetus from her body. Birth is only relevant from the point of view of after birth the foetus isn't in the woman's body. If some how the baby was put back in the woman she would retain the right to remove it.

In your moral argument, you appear to be trying to redefine abortion to include the outcome of a live birth. The right to abortion is the right to kill the embryo/fetus, nowhere is this more clearly stated than in the Roe v. Wade decision which determined that the right to life of the mother is greater than the right to live of an embryo/fetus, and hence the mother has the right to an abortion which kills the embyro/fetus.

Abortion is "the deliberate removal (or deliberate action to cause the expulsion) of a fetus from the womb of a female, at the request of the mother, so as in fact to result in the death of the fetus". There is no getting around this fact with waffle about the right to remove a fetus being separate to killing a fetus in the context of abortion.What you are effectively arguing for is that a woman's right to an abortion should extend throughout the duration of the pregnancy. In the context of the abortion debate, I dont believe this is a morally defensibly position. A 26 week premature baby is as close to a human person as a 26 week fetus in the womb, so in my view if aborting a 26 week fetus is morally permissible, then killing a 26 week premature baby should also be permissable.

The problem with the abortion debate is the extreme views on both sides which serve to polarize the debate. The extreme pro-life side want to categorize a blastocyst as a human being and the extreme pro choice side (as expressed by Mary Warren, "On the moral and legal status of Abortion", 1971) want to define a human being in terms that a 2 year old wouldn't meet. Both sides need to at least try to meet in the middle.

Bannasidhe · 23-05-2013 06:21PM

nagirrac wrote: »

In your moral argument, you appear to be trying to redefine abortion to include the outcome of a live birth. The right to abortion is the right to kill the embryo/fetus, nowhere is this more clearly stated than in the Roe v. Wade decision which determined that the right to life of the mother is greater than the right to live of an embryo/fetus, and hence the mother has the right to an abortion which kills the embyro/fetus.

Abortion is "the deliberate removal (or deliberate action to cause the expulsion) of a fetus from the womb of a female, at the request of the mother, so as in fact to result in the death of the fetus". There is no getting around this fact with waffle about the right to remove a fetus being separate to killing a fetus in the context of abortion.What you are effectively arguing for is that a woman's right to an abortion should extend throughout the duration of the pregnancy. In the context of the abortion debate, I dont believe this is a morally defensibly position. A 26 week premature baby is as close to a human person as a 26 week fetus in the womb, so in my view if aborting a 26 week fetus is morally permissible, then killing a 26 week premature baby should also be permissable.

The problem with the abortion debate is the extreme views on both sides which serve to polarize the debate. The extreme pro-life side want to categorize a blastocyst as a human being and the extreme pro choice side (as expressed by Mary Warren, "On the moral and legal status of Abortion", 1971) want to define a human being in terms that a 2 year old wouldn't meet. Both sides need to at least try to meet in the middle.

Yes. Absolutely. However in the current 'debate' I haven't seen anyone from the pro-choice side espouse an extreme view - that is not to say these views do not exist but they are certainly not being shoved in our faces, through our letter boxes and brandished outside private houses.

Ironically the vocal extremists are damaging the anti-abortion campaign due to their shrill, bullying tactics.

I, personally, cannot conceive (pardon the pun) of a situation where I, personally, would have had an abortion where the fetus was viable. But that is me. My choice. I do not have the right to decide for other women. I suspect that many of those who like me are absolutely pro-choice are the same and realise that we do not know the pressures faced by some women - that their life experiences are not the same as our life experiences and we must trust them to make their own choices.

nagirrac · 23-05-2013 07:46PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I, personally, cannot conceive (pardon the pun) of a situation where I, personally, would have had an abortion where the fetus was viable. But that is me. My choice. I do not have the right to decide for other women. I suspect that many of those who like me are absolutely pro-choice are the same and realise that we do not know the pressures faced by some women - that their life experiences are not the same as our life experiences and we must trust them to make their own choices.

I agree the tactics of many of those on the pro-life side are despicable. There is no excuse for this regardless of how sincere one's beliefs are. However, you have to also consider how significant a role the claim of an absolute right to abortion fuels their fanaticism. Although equating the right to life of a zygote or blastocyst to an adult is to all of us on the pro choice side an unreasonable position, ethical concerns with the making abortion an absolute right in my view is not.

"Absolutely pro-choice" to me means an absolute legal right to an abortion at any stage of pregnancy. I cannot accept that morally or legally as I believe society has to set reasonable standards in this ethical area just like any other ethical area. I base this on the belief that a viable fetus has the same right to life as its mother, save for a medical emergency. I do not see abortion of a viable fetus as any different to killing an infant, as in both cases you are denying them their viable future. The argument that the fetus is completely reliant on its mother is a weak one in my view as a new born is just as reliant on someone to survive.

I would also not agree that we should trust the judgement of someone who is considering abortion of a viable fetus due to personal circumstances, any more than we should trust the judgement of someone considering suicide due to personal circumstances. In those instances I believe the state has the obligation to offer support and protection to both lives concerned, just as the state has the obligation to offer support to the suicidal. It is an absolute shame that such services are not widely available and some women resort to late term abortion. I believe demanding the state offer such services is worth fighting for, not demanding an absolute right to abortion.

Festus · 23-05-2013 08:42PM

Jernal wrote: »

Fair enough, I do get the point about intent but it strikes me as odd that absolutely nothing is being done. To take your analogy about anti-war folk. Even within their demographic you'd find plenty of people involved or wishing for better sanitation and health facilities for every human alive. In the case of spontaneous abortions I couldn't find any single thing. Anyway, I think I'll leave it there.

I do have one more question though:
If you were in burning building filled with a puppy and a container that contained those 400 million embryos and you only had time to save the container or the puppy but not both, which would you save?

Jernal, I've been looking back over your posts regarding the millions of human lives lost to miscarriage, or spontaneous abortions, and your contention that nothing is being done about this loss, and trying to figure out if you know anything about the human reproductive process. Or research methodologies.

With regards to the latter it does not take much effort using an internet search engine to locate medical papers detailing the research that has gone into this area. Additionally one can find many websites that have distilled this research down into the relevant information for those who have suffered miscarriage or think they may be at risk. Quite simply, you have no argument.

The fact is miscarriages happen. Sometimes a doctor, if he or she is good enough, can figure out what's going on and provide assistance. In other cases, and probably the majority of cases, the miscarriage or spontaneous abortion happens because the child is fatally flawed. Something went wrong and the body terminates the pregnancy and expels the baby's remains. This is nature at work. Your argument that nobody cares about misscarriage is false.
If it wasn't for the medical advice, investigation and intervention following the loss of our daughters we would not now have a living son.

To answer your other question, when it comes to a decision between saving the lives of animals and the lives of humans there is only one choice - save the humans.

One problem with your thought experiment is that you haven't given much thought to the volume occupied by 400, 000, 000 human embryos.
Given the time constraint I do not believe it is possible to achieve a rescue single handed without heavy equipment in which case you can put the dog on top of the container and rescue it too.

If that answer does not satisfy you then the dog is toast.

Festus · 23-05-2013 08:50PM

Zombrex wrote: »

This goes back to what I was saying. Abortion is not the right to kill your child. It is the right to remove another person from your body.

Surely though, if that person is not viable then it is about killing that person through the use of surgical procedures or chemicals, or both.

Turtwig · 23-05-2013 09:12PM

Obviously there research has been done. How else would we be aware of the problem? The problem is though that no solutions are being proposed and this research is in an extreme minority. To go back to cancer for a moment you can't even put the volumes of research on the same scales. Yet the death count from spontaneous abortions is millions of times greater.

Finally in the research it states that the majority of all spontaneous abortions occur before the woman is even consciously aware of them. Over 50% of all spontaneous abortions will have occurred within the first two weeks.
I'm not talking about miscarriages here in the traditional sense.

Would you not accept that spontaneous abortions are the biggest threat to humanity right now? That is what I find so strange. Some people won't acknowlege this.

Festus wrote: »

probably the majority of cases, the miscarriage or spontaneous abortion happens because the child is fatally flawed.

Do you have anything to back up this statement?
Also are you going to say that non viable embryos aren't people? Does the tiny difference in a chromosome really make that significant a difference.

Regarding the thought experiment it was a thought experiment. It doesn't have to make sense from a pragmatic point of view. The point is to explore a person's understanding of the concept of being what they consider as human life.
But fair enough I take your point on the dog being toast.

Zombrex · 23-05-2013 09:17PM

nagirrac wrote: »

In your moral argument, you appear to be trying to redefine abortion to include the outcome of a live birth.

As anti abortion campaigners are at pains to constantly point out, abortion has always inluded the possibility of a live birth. The vast majority of abortions take place within the first 15 weeks, so it isn't much of an issue.

The right to abortion is the right to kill the embryo/fetus, nowhere is this more clearly stated than in the Roe v. Wade decision which determined that the right to life of the mother is greater than the right to live of an embryo/fetus, and hence the mother has the right to an abortion which kills the embyro/fetus.

No that isn't what the right is. The right is to bodily privacy, and the right to control your own body. It has never been the right to "kill the foetus". Roe vs Wade said that the right of the mother to bodily privacy can be balanced in law only once the foetus is viable.

Abortion is "the deliberate removal (or deliberate action to cause the expulsion) of a fetus from the womb of a female, at the request of the mother, so as in fact to result in the death of the fetus".

You don't understand the purpose of that definition. Legally if you have a procedure that terminates the pregnancy but the baby is simple born you have not had an abortion. This is why inducing labour when you are 9 months is not considered an abortion, but if you had that procedure when the foetus is 6 weeks it is.

The practicalities are the same. The woman has the same right to terminate the pregnancy at 8 weeks as she does at 9 months, one is called an abortion the other induced labour.

There is no getting around this fact with waffle about the right to remove a fetus being separate to killing a fetus in the context of abortion.What you are effectively arguing for is that a woman's right to an abortion should extend throughout the duration of the pregnancy. In the context of the abortion debate, I dont believe this is a morally defensibly position.

Well you are wrong, but that is some what of a side issue. The main issue is your fundamental misunderstanding for the justification for abortion in the first place.

A 26 week premature baby is as close to a human person as a 26 week fetus in the womb, so in my view if aborting a 26 week fetus is morally permissible, then killing a 26 week premature baby should also be permissable.

Case in point.

A woman does not have the right to kill a foetus just because it is 26 weeks old. She has only the right to remove it from her body, to terminate the state of pregnancy, because her body is being used as part of the pregnancy.

Once the foetus is outside the woman's body she has no right to do anything to it under her right to bodily autonomy.

The problem with the abortion debate is the extreme views on both sides which serve to polarize the debate. The extreme pro-life side want to categorize a blastocyst as a human being and the extreme pro choice side (as expressed by Mary Warren, "On the moral and legal status of Abortion", 1971) want to define a human being in terms that a 2 year old wouldn't meet. Both sides need to at least try to meet in the middle.

The problem with the abortion debate is that most people participating in it have no freaking clue what they are talking about.

Turtwig · 23-05-2013 09:29PM

nagirrac wrote: »

I agree the tactics of many of those on the pro-life side are despicable. There is no excuse for this regardless of how sincere one's beliefs are. However, you have to also consider how significant a role the claim of an absolute right to abortion fuels their fanaticism. Although equating the right to life of a zygote or blastocyst to an adult is to all of us on the pro choice side an unreasonable position, ethical concerns with the making abortion an absolute right in my view is not.

"Absolutely pro-choice" to me means an absolute legal right to an abortion at any stage of pregnancy. I cannot accept that morally or legally as I believe society has to set reasonable standards in this ethical area just like any other ethical area. I base this on the belief that a viable fetus has the same right to life as its mother, save for a medical emergency. I do not see abortion of a viable fetus as any different to killing an infant, as in both cases you are denying them their viable future. The argument that the fetus is completely reliant on its mother is a weak one in my view as a new born is just as reliant on someone to survive.

I would also not agree that we should trust the judgement of someone who is considering abortion of a viable fetus due to personal circumstances, any more than we should trust the judgement of someone considering suicide due to personal circumstances. In those instances I believe the state has the obligation to offer support and protection to both lives concerned, just as the state has the obligation to offer support to the suicidal. It is an absolute shame that such services are not widely available and some women resort to late term abortion. I believe demanding the state offer such services is worth fighting for, not demanding an absolute right to abortion.

I'm personally against late term abortions but it's a little bit nuanced. I accept there may be some medical situations where a late term abortion is necessary. However, it is my understanding that after 30 weeks it's safer, for both mother and baby, to deliver the baby rather than abort it. So, the only circumstances I'd be favour of late term abortions would be medical emergencies to the life of the mother. I'd expect though that in most of these the baby could be delivered.
The other little caveat I have though is that every woman's situations is different so I do think there should be some scope for leeway allowed to accommodate this. For instance, it might be discovered late into the pregnancy that carrying through the pregnancy may have an adverse affect on the mother's long term health. Then I think it should be her decision to make. I'd expect that such situations are exceptionally exceptionally rare. But I wouldn't say, willingly, force paralysis on someone. (Yes, I did say exceptionally rare.:))

Obliq · 23-05-2013 09:36PM

Festus wrote: »

Surely though, if that person is not viable then it is about killing that person through the use of surgical procedures or chemicals, or both.

Yes, yes it is. I'm not trying to answer for zombrex or jernal here - just adding my opinion - hope you don't mind.

Festus wrote: »

The fact is miscarriages happen. Sometimes a doctor, if he or she is good enough, can figure out what's going on and provide assistance. In other cases, and probably the majority of cases, the miscarriage or spontaneous abortion happens because the child is fatally flawed. Something went wrong and the body terminates the pregnancy and expels the baby's remains. This is nature at work. Your argument that nobody cares about misscarriage is false.
If it wasn't for the medical advice, investigation and intervention following the loss of our daughters we would not now have a living son.

I too am of the opinion that so many people who have suffered from miscarriages, care deeply about their losses and their continuous struggle for a viable pregnancy. I have friends in just that situation, and my own grandmother had 4 miscarriages before she had my mother. It is nature, in all it's flawed and unforgiving aspects. And it's sad and sorrowful - and frequently very unfair. For people who want a child, it's got to be one of the worst kinds of pain imaginable.

I'm also of the opinion though, that nature causes reproductive issues to the opposite extreme. Frequently, women become pregnant when they had no intention of that, and even when they took measures to try and make sure they wouldn't. Nature has a habit of being unfair to everybody, and in completely different ways - Jack sprat would eat no fat, his wife would eat no lean - one man's meat is another man's poison.....these sayings didn't spring from nowhere.

For all that there are people like yourself, who desperately wanted a child and struggled so hard to achieve that, there are also those that are in circumstances or state of mind who cannot think of anything worse than to be pregnant. (Leaving aside for now the circumstances of TFMR, for the purpose of this illustration, as those are wanted pregnancies with fatal abnormalities).

Festus, this is also nature. It is natural for many women to have an unwanted pregnancy, because unfortunately many of us get pregnant without intending to (no matter what precautions or lack of, are taken, it is a terrible burden sometimes to be so bloody fertile, if you don't want to be). It is also natural for a woman to decide for herself that this is an unbearable problem, depending on her circumstances, and where in the past we would have taken poisonous plants/taken a fall/come near death/used an implement in some way in order to kill the fetus, now thankfully it is less risky for the woman at least. But it is natural. And sad that anyone should be in that situation.

With more education about contraception, and better access to it, the need for abortions can be halved at least. There is a study from the US that shows this ( I can look it up if needed). I do not think that prohibition of something that is a natural urge, can ever work though. You cannot compel a woman to remain pregnant when she knows it is not the right thing to do. If that means killing a small fetus (as small a possible is the majorly preferred option, with I don't know of any exceptions), then, well, that's also nature and it is often unfair to one.

Festus · 23-05-2013 09:53PM

Jernal wrote: »

Obviously there research has been done. How else would we be aware of the problem?

Why do you describe it as a "problem"? It is a tragedy, certainly. I would also agree it is a problem for women who want to have children.

Jernal wrote: »

The problem is though that no solutions are being proposed and this research is in an extreme minority. To go back to cancer for a moment you can't even put the volumes of research on the same scales. Yet the death count from spontaneous abortions is millions of times greater.

Finally in the research it states that the majority of all spontaneous abortions occur before the woman is even consciously aware of them. Over 50% of all spontaneous abortions will have occurred within the first two weeks.

Solutions can be proposed but unfortunatly the reason for the miscarriage is difficult to determine, so proposals only work if you know the patients history. Even then it could be a crap shoot. Prediction is difficult. With cancer you can see the patient and examine them. With a miscarraige the patient is a little on the small side and is reliant on the mother presenting for examination. In most cases the mother does not know there is a problem until it is too late to do anything. In the majority of cases nothing can be done anyway. Spontaneous abortions are natures way of dealing with an issue. As you say many happen before the mother is aware. This is nature at work and if that is the case what is the point of interfeering if nature knows best?

Jernal wrote: »

I'm not talking about miscarriages here in the traditional sense.

Well then, what are you talking about?

Jernal wrote: »

Would you not accept that spontaneous abortions are the biggest threat to humanity right now? That is what I find so strange. Some people won't acknowlege this.

Actually no. Spontaneous abortions are a natural part of the process and so cannot be a threat. The biggest threat to humanity is the falling birth rate due to contraception and abortion, and the changes in attititude to family life. Is anyone acknowledging this?

Jernal wrote: »

Do you have anything to back up this statement?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17304022

Jernal wrote: »

Also are you going to say that non viable embryos aren't people? Does the tiny difference in a chromosome really make that significant a difference.

No. All conceptions involving human ova and sperm produce human beings. People.

Jernal wrote: »

Regarding the thought experiment it was a thought experiment. It doesn't have to make sense from a pragmatic point of view. The point is to explore a person's understanding of the concept of being what they consider as human life.
But fair enough I take your point on the dog being toast.

If more people studied science then there would be no question as to what is a human life and what is not. The scientific argument is that life begins at conception. Actually, it's not even an argument. It's an incontrovertible fact.

After that it becomes a matter of ethics and morals - Is it ever right to kill another human being?

Festus · 23-05-2013 10:27PM

Obliq wrote: »

Yes, yes it is. I'm not trying to answer for zombrex or jernal here - just adding my opinion - hope you don't mind.

Not at all. That's what I was doing.

Obliq wrote: »

Festus, this is also nature. It is natural for many women to have an unwanted pregnancy, because unfortunately many of us get pregnant without intending to (no matter what precautions or lack of, are taken, it is a terrible burden sometimes to be so bloody fertile, if you don't want to be). It is also natural for a woman to decide for herself that this is an unbearable problem, depending on her circumstances, and where in the past we would have taken poisonous plants/taken a fall/come near death/used an implement in some way in order to kill the fetus, now thankfully it is less risky for the woman at least. But it is natural. And sad that anyone should be in that situation.

it is equally natural for men to have an unwanted pregnancy too. Don't forget, for every pregnancy a man was involved.

Pregnancy is the end result of sex. That is nature.

Some people can't control themselves. That is morality, or rather the lack of it.

While I accept that some women can find themselves with an unwanted pregnancy I do find it difficult to accept that for them to want to have their child killed, or kill it themselves is natural.
While you may think it is "less risky" it most certainly is not natural. While it may be "sad" when the choice is made to have an abortion it becomes a tragedy, and not only for the child. I think that one of the reasons it is considered as an option is because the pro-abortion people have dehumanized the child and many women do not realize what they have done until the child is dead.

We don't hear about it much, and the Irish Government doesn't want to hear about it but it is reality. Abortion damages women. Mentally as well as physically.

Obliq wrote: »

With more education about contraception, and better access to it, the need for abortions can be halved at least. There is a study from the US that shows this ( I can look it up if needed). I do not think that prohibition of something that is a natural urge, can ever work though. You cannot compel a woman to remain pregnant when she knows it is not the right thing to do. If that means killing a small fetus (as small a possible is the majorly preferred option, with I don't know of any exceptions), then, well, that's also nature and it is often unfair to one.

Ah, that old canard. It has been used many times in arguments to relax the abortion and contraceptive laws where they exist and all that happens is the number of abortions increases. The fact is abortion exists because contraceptives don't work, or fail - same difference, and people seem to think that sex is about recreation and not procreation. The countries with the highest availablity of contraceptives also have the highest abortion rates. There is almost nowhere in the world where condoms are not available one way or another. The US and the UK make chemical contraceptives available to teenagers too and still they have high abortion rates.

The problem with education is that sex education is telling kids it's ok to have sex, but not telling them that there are consequences, especially if you are young and unmarried. There is also a problem in that there is no practical aspect to the education. I'm not saying there should be, in fact I think schools should rethink their whole sex education programs. What I am saying is that the current sex education programs will not work without a practical aspect.
There are ways and means of teaching kids about sex but the way it is currently being done in schools is clearly not working.
A better way would be for parents to teach their kids about sex.
But I think that really deserves a thread of its own.

Anyway, you seem to think there is such a thing as a right to complication free sex. Or casual sex as the rest of us call it.

We are human beings, So, what some of us need to do is learn to control our urges and stop behaving like animals.

otto_26 · 23-05-2013 10:37PM

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Ah, is this the same Ronald Reagan who funded the muhjadeen of Afghanistan and far-right dictators in Latin America? What a fine example of morality. :rolleyes:

When you read a quote like that there is no response to it; because it's 100% right. The only thing left to do is attack the author and try anything to get his quality opinion discredited. :rolleyes::rolleyes:

nagirrac · 23-05-2013 11:28PM

Zombrex wrote: »

A woman does not have the right to kill a foetus just because it is 26 weeks old. She has only the right to remove it from her body, to terminate the state of pregnancy, because her body is being used as part of the pregnancy. Once the foetus is outside the woman's body she has no right to do anything to it under her right to bodily autonomy.

The problem with the abortion debate is that most people participating in it have no freaking clue what they are talking about.

I understand your argument, as it is exactly that put forth by Judith Thomson in "A Defense of Abortion". However, in my view it is a fatally flawed argument, and with all due respect Zombrex many people differ on these questions because they have different ethical standards, not because they don't know what they are talking about.

The Thomson argument you are embracing is that termination represents the right of a woman to detach a fetus from her body. This might be a reasonable argument if the procedure of abortion was simply to detach the fetus. The fact is it isn't, the procedure of abortion is first to kill the fetus and then extract it. If the fetus survives the procedure, this is an accident or rather a failed procedure. In essence, according to this argument, if the procedure fails a right to life is then bestowed on a viable fetus that it did not have moments earlier. The Thomson argument is unsound, plain and simple.

The issue here which you completely avoid is the relative right of the woman to an enforced termination procedure which is designed to kill the developing fetus versus the right to life of the developing fetus. As a fetus develops the right of the mother changes from one of privacy to one of self defense, if the life or health of the mother is threatened. There are no justifiable ethical or legal grounds for termination once viability is reached, other than a medically determined threat to the health or life of the mother.

Festus · 24-05-2013 12:52AM

otto_26 wrote: »

When you read a quote like that there is no response to it; because it's 100% right. The only thing left to do is attack the author and try anything to get his quality opinion discredited. :rolleyes::rolleyes:

Actually there is a response, to PP at least because he is not 100% right.

For the sake of clarity and accuracy it was Jimmy Carter who signed off on a program to fund anti-communist resistance in Afghanistan. Reagan continued it. It is a bit more detailed than that but suffice to say that the level of funding and who got it was decided by other political lobbyists and the CIA.
Given that the Soviets intervention in Afghanistan effectively became an invasion and occupation, it is difficult to see how an argument can be made for funding the resistance being immoral. Also, the US were not the only source of funds for the Mujahideen. Further, the Mujahideen were seen as freedom fighters and lauded in the west, so much so that they were portrayed as allies in a James Bond movie.

Nobody at the time thought they would turn into the Taliban. Not even PopePalatine.

PopePalpatine · 24-05-2013 07:44AM

otto_26 wrote: »

When you read a quote like that there is no response to it; because it's 100% right. The only thing left to do is attack the author and try anything to get his quality opinion discredited. :rolleyes::rolleyes:

Otto, I was born in England, the home of the "ABORTION ON DEMAND" regime you like to scream about. And yet, I'm still posting. My mother CHOSE to carry me in her womb for 9 months.

Now, I'm aware that neither Reagan nor Carter knew what the muhjadeen would mutate into. The fact still remains that Reagan gave weapons to far-right dictators.

Obliq · 24-05-2013 08:34AM

Festus wrote: »

Some people can't control themselves. That is morality, or rather the lack of it.

The arrogance of your 'holier than thou' position is actually not leaving you on the moral high-ground I'm afraid. It illustrates to me that your head is either firmly stuck in the sand or up in the clouds. Certainly not in reality.

While I accept that some women can find themselves with an unwanted pregnancy I do find it difficult to accept that for them to want to have their child killed, or kill it themselves is natural.
While you may think it is "less risky" it most certainly is not natural. While it may be "sad" when the choice is made to have an abortion it becomes a tragedy, and not only for the child.

I think that one of the reasons it is considered as an option is because the pro-abortion people have dehumanized the child and many women do not realize what they have done until the child is dead.

We don't hear about it much, and the Irish Government doesn't want to hear about it but it is reality. Abortion damages women. Mentally as well as physically.

Untrue, for the most part. The majority of people you are not hearing from are those who do not regret their abortions. It is unfortunately only too natural for a significant proportion of women to experience an unwanted pregnancy and make every effort to terminate it. To say that this is because of a lack of morals or control is devaluing women/men and their choices. Sex is a fact of life, as is death.

Ah, that old canard. It has been used many times in arguments to relax the abortion and contraceptive laws where they exist and all that happens is the number of abortions increases. The fact is abortion exists because contraceptives don't work, or fail - same difference, and people seem to think that sex is about recreation and not procreation. The countries with the highest availablity of contraceptives also have the highest abortion rates. There is almost nowhere in the world where condoms are not available one way or another. The US and the UK make chemical contraceptives available to teenagers too and still they have high abortion rates.

You are SO wrong, it's not even funny. 2012 study for you: http://healthland.time.com/2012/10/05/study-free-birth-control-significantly-cuts-abortion-rates/
I suggest you read the whole article as you seem sadly misinformed.

"Over the course of the study, which lasted from 2008 to 2010, women experienced far fewer unintended pregnancies than expected: there were 4.4 to 7.5 abortions per 1,000 women in the study, after adjusting for age and race — much fewer than the national rate of 19.6 abortions per 1,000 women and lower also than the rate in the St. Louis area of 13.4 to 17 abortions per 1,000 women."

Anyway, you seem to think there is such a thing as a right to complication free sex. Or casual sex as the rest of us call it.
We are human beings, So, what some of us need to do is learn to control our urges and stop behaving like animals.

Again with the superiority. Again, you are blinkered if you think your disapproval will make one whit of difference to this culture. TBH, you are polarising your position here by being so far removed from the reality of people's lives.

HurtLocker · 24-05-2013 09:33AM

Festus wrote: »

Pregnancy is the end result of sex. That is nature.

Yes and us clever humans have designed ways of preventing and terminating pregnancies. The end result of sex is not guarenteed pregnancy unless your saying all contraception is wrong.

Festus wrote: »

Some people can't control themselves. That is morality, or rather the lack of it.

No its not lack of morality. People have different morals. People having recreational sex doesn't mean they can't control themselves, quite insulting but then again that's why practicing Christians are on the decline. Young people don't share these 1950's morality systems.

Festus wrote: »

While I accept that some women can find themselves with an unwanted pregnancy I do find it difficult to accept that for them to want to have their child killed, or kill it themselves is natural.
While you may think it is "less risky" it most certainly is not natural. While it may be "sad" when the choice is made to have an abortion it becomes a tragedy, and not only for the child. I think that one of the reasons it is considered as an option is because the pro-abortion people have dehumanized the child and many women do not realize what they have done until the child is dead.

So other people's life view's shouldn't be allowed because it doesn't sit well with yours.

Festus wrote: »

We don't hear about it much, and the Irish Government doesn't want to hear about it but it is reality. Abortion damages women. Mentally as well as physically.

Yes the Irish government has shown its hand as this big abortion loving group.

Yes the pro-life camp believe abortion damages the women So they have decided to make up these women's choices. This sits well with them and now all women shall bring the child to term. The women may have been adamit about terminating the foetus but Pro-Life knows best. Women should thank them for making up their minds and forcing their superior morals on them.

Festus wrote: »

People seem to think that sex is about recreation and not procreation. The countries with the highest availablity of contraceptives also have the highest abortion rates.

What gives you the right to decide that what others think of sex is wrong. Sex is for recreation for the majority until they see fit to produce a child. Up until that point it is for enjoyment. If you want morals like that I suggest you move to Saudi Arabia.

As for the abortion rates I believe that's because they are the most progressive. Can't really think of any nice country's with low access to contraceptives.

Festus wrote: »

The problem with education is that sex education is telling kids it's ok to have sex, but not telling them that there are consequences, especially if you are young and unmarried. There is also a problem in that there is no practical aspect to the education. I'm not saying there should be, in fact I think schools should rethink their whole sex education programs. What I am saying is that the current sex education programs will not work without a practical aspect.
There are ways and means of teaching kids about sex but the way it is currently being done in schools is clearly not working.

To say what? Sex is not okay and and overstate the avoidable consequences.

How do you currently think sex is taught in our majority Catholic run schools?

Festus wrote: »

A better way would be for parents to teach their kids about sex.

The majority see sex as recreational thing as well. Wear contraceptives and and abortion if it comes down to it. Very few parents would tell their children to get a grip,control themselves, stop acting like animals and how if it comes to an abortion how they would not agree with it. Generally parents should be loving and supportive not judgemental and righteous.

Festus wrote: »

Anyway, you seem to think there is such a thing as a right to complication free sex. Or casual sex as the rest of us call it.

But there is a right? Wear contraceptives and if all goes wrong go to the UK for a termination. There may be emotions involved but nothing to stop consenting adults from having sex at a spur of the moment without emotions or complications.

Festus wrote: »

We are human beings, So, what some of us need to do is learn to control our urges and stop behaving like animals.

Really? Wow. Again your morals don't adapt to a modern young irish person very well.

Zombrex · 24-05-2013 11:04AM

nagirrac wrote: »

I understand your argument, as it is exactly that put forth by Judith Thomson in "A Defense of Abortion". However, in my view it is a fatally flawed argument

The argument is that a woman has the right to do what ever she wishes to her own body, even if that action is detrimental to another person who is reliant on her body to sustain their own life.

No offense but I don't think you do understand that argument because your responses to it have been to argue things like that if we allow a woman to terminate her foetus inside her body why not outside her body, which demonstrates that you are not following that it is the action on the woman's own body that is the issue.

What is the argument to counter the idea of bodily autonomy and the idea that a woman has the right to control completely how her body is used?

nagirrac wrote: »

The Thomson argument you are embracing is that termination represents the right of a woman to detach a fetus from her body. This might be a reasonable argument if the procedure of abortion was simply to detach the fetus. The fact is it isn't, the procedure of abortion is first to kill the fetus and then extract it.

Only in rare cases and only if terminating the foetus is first required to remove it. This is a specific type of abortion, not all abortion, in most abortions the procedure is to simply medically induce the body to expel the foetus or embryo

And as has been mentioned, the right to control how her body is used extends to doing what is necessary to remove the foetus, in the same way you have the right to violently defend your own body, for example if someone jumps on top of you and refuses to let go.

nagirrac wrote: »

If the fetus survives the procedure, this is an accident or rather a failed procedure. In essence, according to this argument, if the procedure fails a right to life is then bestowed on a viable fetus that it did not have moments earlier. The Thomson argument is unsound, plain and simple.

The argument is not that the foetus does not have the right to life, so again you are not following the argument.

nagirrac wrote: »

The issue here which you completely avoid is the relative right of the woman to an enforced termination procedure which is designed to kill the developing fetus versus the right to life of the developing fetus. As a fetus develops the right of the mother changes from one of privacy to one of self defense, if the life or health of the mother is threatened. There are no justifiable ethical or legal grounds for termination once viability is reached, other than a medically determined threat to the health or life of the mother.

The right to termination of the pregnancy is the same right you have to forcibly remove someone who has jumped on top of you.

The idea that you would just have to put up with me grabbing you for as long as I wish to hold on lest you harm me while forcibly removing me is ridiculous.

You have failed to deal with the central issue her, that the woman's body is her own, not the foetus' and not the States. No one has the right to use her body for anything she does not wish it to be used for, not the foetus and not the State. She must consent to how her body is used, and if she doesn't she can take all necessary steps to stop another person from using her body.

Again this is obvious if you just think about how you would react if someone just walked up to you and grabbed your neck. You have the right to remove them, irrespective of any damage they may or may not be causing you.

This is even more obvious if you think that the person wants to use your internal body. Why do you think things like rape are considered so horrific? It is because a person's bodily integrity is being violated.

Again you have failed to address this argument, and given responses that you don't seem to understand it. It is not that the foetus does not have the right to life. The principle holds even if you consider the foetus a complete person with rights, including the right to life. But the foetus has no more right to violate the woman's bodily privacy than anyone else does. "I need the body to survive" is not a justifiable excuse for this, any more than it would be for anyone else.

Benny_Cake · 24-05-2013 11:08AM

Festus wrote: »

Actually no. Spontaneous abortions are a natural part of the process and so cannot be a threat. The biggest threat to humanity is the falling birth rate due to contraception and abortion, and the changes in attititude to family life. Is anyone acknowledging this?

At the risk of going off-topic...

Festus, do you really believe this? In the year I was born, there were just short of 4.4 billion humans, today there are over 7 billion. I'd agree that we are facing into a population crisis (although the rate of growth is slowing) but one with too many mouths, not too few.

I'm not saying that abortion is the answer to this, because it isn't. I'm generally opposed to abortion, although it's a complicated issue that leaves me feeling pretty uncomfortable, like many people. Birth control is certainly a large part of the answer, particularly since we're getting so good at death control.

Abortion debate thread

Comments