Does anyone feel insulted by the abortion proposals?

lazygal wrote: »

What's really silly is how stupid they are. I had a pregnancy which was aborted/terminated at 39 weeks for medical reasons. My child suffered no ill effects. They equate abortion/termination with 'killing de baaayyyybeeeess' while failing, or refusing, to admit that it is a pregnancy which is aborted or terminated, not a child. Women have terminations every hour of the day in Irish hospitals, up to perhaps 42 weeks gestation, which does not mean de tinnneeee baaaaybbbeeeees are being killed every time.

Hi, can you expand on this?

Are you talking about early deliveries etc??

Interesting findings from an Irish maternal health study

http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/0624/458532-maternal-health-pregnancy/

FouxDaFaFa wrote: »

I think referring to abortion in such blasé terms will only give the pro-life side more ammunition.

Deciding whether or not to have an abortion is a big decision. It might be an easy or obvious one for some but it shouldn't be dismissed as "nothing".

Obviously, I agree with the main gist of your post though.

In all honesty, I dont care about the other side and Im not concerned about giving them ammunition. The case is so clear cut, it should mean absolutely nothing what my opinion is.

I could rant all manner of nonsense and it should have no bearing on anyone in the decision making process.

I agree that having an abortion is a big decision, I didnt mean to sound as if it was something the person involved should take lightly. What I meant was that it means nothing to me. Ive heard stories of people who have been outcast in their communities because it got out that they had an abortion at one point of another. To me, whether somebody had an abortion or not means nothing, it literally is totally insignificant and I wouldnt even judge them in the tiniest way. Even if they justified it by saying something like "I just didnt want a kid, so I aborted it", it would still mean nothing to me. I strongly believe that each person must choose their own path in life and I think its wrong for other people, especially Governments, to have any say in such matters.

This is an extreme example, but when I see pro-life spokespeople branding people as murderers for aborting a foetus which resembles no life at all, I wonder how on earth they can justify killing live animals for food and clothing.

MaxWig wrote: »

"a foetus which resembles no life at all" ????

At least let's keep it reasonably scientific, just for perspective.

A foetus is life, no matter what way you look at it.

Simply not up for debate.

And the comparison to eating what's below us on the food-chain is chillingly detached from reality

You are right. I should have continued what I was saying earlier. It is aborting a foetus without consciousness.

Im not a vegetarian, I love eating meat, but from what Ive read we are not naturally meat eaters. So perhaps animals shouldnt even be considered in the food chain of humans. As I said, it was an extreme example, but one could consider the taking of any life, whether for food or otherwise as wrong.

Its easy to justify pretty much any action if we are determined enough. I think the debate should be about freedom of choice and why we feel we should have some say in what personal choices others make. The fact that its widely accepted in most countries is telling. Its quite bizarre this shambles has taken so long to be addressed.

Ireland is meant to be a first world country, from some of the views Ive heard its more like Medieval Ireland.

Obliq wrote: »

who was that comedian who asked a very pertinent question? The only thing we have to decide is WHEN it's acceptable to start killing embryos...(in relation to sending them off to war when they're born).

That is incredibly insightful.

Obliq wrote: »

The drum where you say comparing animals and foetuses is irrelevant. That one. Tell me why they don't compare? I, for one, have to square it with myself every time I kill a chicken. I would square things with myself if I needed an abortion too. It's a personal moral decision and the two do equate because they both involve taking a life. Human life is no more/less important than any other, but we of course empathise and care more for humans because we are human. Doesn't stop us killing each other in the name of some god, or right.....who was that comedian who asked a very pertinent question? The only thing we have to decide is WHEN it's acceptable to start killing embryos...(in relation to sending them off to war when they're born).
Won't be replying soon - making birthday cake and dinner.

Saying human life is no more important than any other life is all fine and dandy. Of course in an objective sense its true. The only problem is that none of us are objective, as you quite rightly point out. Hence, we are more important than chickens, if only in our own minds.
But it is through our own minds that we perceive the world, and this debate. Therefore I don't see any relevance to the comparison. If you need to square it off every time you kill a chicken, I commend your sense of empathy and guilt.
However where I lose you, is where your empathy does not stretch to the thoughts of others who are struggling with the idea of abortion. I do not expect you to alter your opinion, or your stance. But I do find it difficult to understand anyone who truly claims to see no ethical dilemma in abortion, or who compares abortion to killing a chicken.
Of course each side of a philosophical debate will push towards the extremes on either side in an effort to illustrate the rationale of their less extreme stance. However sometimes I find the this tendency dehumanising, especially in the context of this debate.
So I guess what I'm saying is that the difference between a chicken and a foetus is ultimately in their potential.
I see no benefit to be gained from leaving this aspect of the debate aside.
A foetus has the potential to be anything that we have been and more.
A chicken has the potential to be a snack box, or if it is a truly remarkable chicken, a sunday roast.

MaxWig wrote: »

Not really.

Sending people to war is a figure of speech.

They go to war for money, by choice.

Kinda like a job.

Well, exactly like a job.

Id love to reply, but it would go way off topic!

The reality of this debate is that people who are pro-life have it totally ingrained in them, no amount of information, facts, figures, examples is EVER going to change their mind. In fact, the more anyone tries to justify the option of abortion, the more they are convinced they are right and they stand up and make a huge fuss.

In general it is countries with a strong religious backbone who abhor abortion. If it wasnt abortion, it would be something else. They tend to enjoy a good crusade, and be damned to hell all who might have a different opinion!