Woman uploads abortion video - goes viral

Jerrica wrote: »

Which is entirely subjective, and makes debating abortion on that point a bit of a waste of time. You and I will almost certainly have different ideas about when life begins so it's like running a race on two different tracks, neither of us will win.*

*and before you say it, no, neither will the "child"

It does have a beginning, biologically human life begins at conception.

Jerrica wrote: »

You'll find that biologists debate that topic at length amongst themselves. Again, it's subjective.

So when does it being in your opinion and why ?

ryan101 wrote: »

So when does it being in your opinion and why ?

Sorry Ryan, I'm not going to get drawn into this with my personal beliefs because, like I said, I don't think there's a right or wrong side on the topic of where life begins. And that's what makes it such an unsteady foundation on which to build an abortion debate.

ryan101 wrote: »

If you don't want to involve yourself in the discussion fair enough.
It is important in order to decide if you're killing a human life or not, as ultimately that decision affects that human life.

Its possible to accept that it is killing a human life but still support the idea of making it legal in order to regulate it/make it safe for those who do choose to have one.

Muise... wrote: »

If you had not used the word 'you' - I would not have thought you were addressing Morag.

The word I used in the text you highlighted was "you're", and it would be clear to most people who read the rest of what you highlight that I was referring to people as a collective who advocate for abortion.

I still think the video-maker is brave, no matter what I make of her video.

Putting your face up on youtube is considered an act of bravery now? I suppose when you set the bar that low, any act of self-promotion could be considered bravery. I suppose it depends on your perspective.

Did you come up with those analogues for shock value? Like, oh, I don't know, the people you are sneering at?

You question me about shock value while applauding a woman who posted her abortion video on youtube? You question my sneering at someone when, well, I don't think you've made a single useful comment in this thread or the other one, apart from sneering from the sidelines.

There was that one useful comment where you pulled another poster up on his use of the word "tards", when you knew the context in which he meant it, in reference to people being stupid, as you pointed out to me before, but apparently because this time the poster who disagreed with your opinion used the word, you point out their error to them because it suited you to be all morally indignant about it, this time!

Also, you don't do pissing contests on the internet? LOL!

Sneer on, whatever, that's very brave of you when some people who are pro-choice would prefer that they weren't judged to be a pack of rabid nut jobs who get bogged down in the minutiae of the etymology of words.

KyussBishop wrote: »

Personally, I think it's impossible to resolve the foetus/parasite and when-does-life-begin semantic divide - there are valid (and invalid) viewpoints on all sides there, and I don't think it's something that even biologists/scientists will be able to solidly draw lines on, so it maybe isn't a good focus for debate (well - not a good focus for a debate that will ever be resolved anyway).

It is important in order to decide if you're killing a human life or not, as ultimately that decision affects that human life.

KyussBishop wrote: »

That's a debate which there is no real objective way to provide an answer for, so it just seems like a really big can of spermatozoa worms, open to endless philosophical debate.

The same could be said for all laws.

ryan101 wrote: »

They both have an equal right to life, no one has a superior right to life, at what point does the child matter to you ?

Equal right to life but one life has to suffer in return for the others existence. Which one do we choose? The life that is breathing, thinking, maybe already has children or the one that has potential to be a life?

For me, the "child" matters once it can exist without the need of causing harm to the life it is dependent on.

ryan101 wrote: »

When is one life human more valuable than another ? Is a disabled person less entitled to life than the able bodied ? Is a child less entitled to life than an adult ? When is a boy more entitled to life than a girl ?
In civilised modern societies we don't choose, we consider them equally entitled to life.
Killing human beings before they are born might be easier, but it is not a moral solution to circumventing someone's right to life.

By forcing a person to risk their life for another you are placing more value of the other life. We place value on life all of the time. People who are injured in a accident with no help of recovery, not reducing our lifestyles to the basics so those in poorer countries dont starve, someone who dies breaking the law is seen as less than the guy who helps with a charity all of the time, women and children first to get to life boats, family members above strangers.

It is not moral to risk someones life in favour of another and yet it is what you want.

ryan101 wrote: »

The majority of abortions in countries where abortion is legal are not done for medical reasons.
When medical reasons come into play it must be remembered there are two patients involved, not just one.

Are pregnancies not medically taxing? Being sick often, tired, blood loss, what if someone has a high risk of miscarriage like someone I know? They wouldnt be able to get an abortion until it was a full risk to her health, if not already too late, instead of taking the precaution at the start in a controlled environment with doctors.

ryan101 wrote: »

When is one life human more valuable than another?

When one human life is already born, and one human life form is yet to BE born. When the woman sustaining the life of the unborn foetus says she does not want it to be born. When the woman says she does not want to give birth to a child. By ignoring her will, forcing her to continue to sustain the unborn foetus, you are diminishing her value as a human being, in order that the human life you want to live, continues to develop within her womb, and then force her to give birth against her will.

You are immediately placing more value on the human life you want to live, at the expense of the quality of life of the human life you want to suffer so that the one you want to live is born.

Is a disabled person less entitled to life than the able bodied ? Is a child less entitled to life than an adult ? When is a boy more entitled to life than a girl ?
In civilised modern societies we don't choose, we consider them equally entitled to life.

"In modern societies" my ass. Apologies for being so blunt about it but there's nothing modern about willingly watching another human being suffering. That is exactly what you are doing when you force a woman to continue with a pregnancy and then give birth against her will.

In modern medicine "in modern societies", doctors examine the quality of life of a person, rather than just the right to life of one human life over another. So no, in modern societies they are much more focused on the quality of life of the individual human being, as opposed to whether they simply be allowed exist. Their quality of life is the more humane approach, than the one that would see them continue to suffer for their belief that everyone has an equal right to life, even those that haven't been born yet.

One person's belief in the right to life, condemns another person to a life of suffering.

Killing human beings before they are born might be easier, but it is not a moral solution to circumventing someone's right to life.

You talk about morals and solutions as if you think an abortion means a quick in and out at the beautician to get your eyebrows done during lunch hour. Debunking that perception however hasn't been helped by publicity hungry women who are now using the issue of abortion to become an overnight internet sensation. That sort of bollocksology only serves to trivialize the issue of abortion, and is not a reality for many thousands of women who have abortions carried out in far less sterile conditions where their own lives are at risk - in hospitals, in the bathroom at home and dump the evidence in a black bag down a laneway and never speak of it again.



What would your moral solution be to prevent a pregnant woman from suffering and then being forced to give birth against her will? Because what you call circumventing someone's right to live, is exactly what you're doing when you look in a woman's eyes and tell her that the life growing inside her is more important than her own.

In "modern society" Ireland, women have been conditioned by that idea their whole lives. So if you think an abortion is as easy as the nice lady on youtube makes it look, well, thank fcuk she isn't representative of anyone but herself and her own experience.