Woman uploads abortion video - goes viral

Czarcasm wrote: »

Is it possible for the unborn baby to survive outside the womb without medical intervention? I feel it is unconscionable too to have them aborted too..

You can't find something unconscionable, yet also endorse it - that makes no sense.

.. but, as you said yourself - life is tough. You say people should take personal responsibility for their actions, yet you would wish to prevent them from doing so when they choose to take responsibility for what happens to their own body.

Me) Life is Tough: women should not be able to avail of second trimester abortions.
You) Life is Tough: women should be able to have abortions at any stage of their pregnancies.

There is a vast difference between what YOU feel should be worthy of falling under the heading of 'Life is Tough' and what I do. When I say 'Life is Tough', I say it in the context that a women in the second trimester of her pregnancy, that have no health issues, should accept that they are going to have a child and come to terms with it. When you say 'Life is Tough' however, you are saying that in the context that a growing second trimester fetus (and beyond) should be aborted and lose the chance it has of living. Quite a difference between what you are willing to mark down as life is tough and what I am.

First off, I don't find anything amusing or funny about people suffering. Some people do, I'm not one of them.

I think it is quite obvious, from the context in which I used that word, that it was funny peculiar that you were not picked apart for not using that term, not funny haha.. but good to know that you don't approve the 'middle aged fat men clogging up hoovers' type nonsense that was being posted. Hopefully it won't make a return.

Don't stress yourself, I wouldn't expect you to answer any of the above questions on a whim, but I would ask that you go away and have a think about them. When you advocate for another person's right to life, you make yourself responsible for their quality of life. If you're not willing to take on that burden on yourself, you have no right to expect anyone else should.

I don't need to go away and think about this, as it is not pertinent to the discussion. I agree 100% with what you are saying about 'quality of life' but I am not making the argument that women who are 21-24 weeks pregnant (and wish to have an abortion) should instead all just have c-sections and let some hospital attempt to keep them alive by means of incubation. If I was making that point, you would have a point, but I'm not, and so you don't. Again, the point about incubators is made in an effort to show that it is possible for premature babies to live independent from their mothers at that stage and so therefore should not be referred to as 'part of a woman's body'.. as they are much more than that, at that stage, far much more.

If a person then, fails to empathise with the suffering of another person, then I think it's safe to say that they have the emotional intellect of a machine. I understand that you empathise with the human life growing inside the woman, but your empathy for the woman seems to end with an arbitrary time limit. If you know anything about human development and pregnancy, you know that human body clock is only an expression, it's not an actual thing.

I have said that I support abortions for women if their health (or indeed the health of the child) is at risk, should the pregnancy to proceed. I'm not sure what else I am supposed to be concerned about here exactly. Do you have specific examples that trump the health of a growing fetus. If so, I would like to hear them. I mean, I understand that a woman might not want to have a child due to the negative effects that she feels it will have on her life and that is precisely why I support abortions up to the 12th week. However, after that time period, I just feel that it's not fair on the rapidly developing fetus to have it aborted for reasons other than health related ones.

Remember when I said that thing about human beings not being black and white? For me there are no sides. It's quite straightforward for me - I would not want any human being to suffer unnecessarily. If personal responsibility is to mean anything, then the only person a person has to answer to for their actions is themselves. If that means ending a pregnancy because they do not want to be pregnant, then that should be their choice, because they alone will have to live with the consequences of their decision. Life, as you said yourself, is tough.

You seem to be looking at this solely from a woman's viewpoint and no other. You are dismissing the fact that there is a consequence for the unborn child in that he or she will not be born. How does that not qualify as a consequence of abortion in your mind? Also, if the woman is part of a couple and the father of the child does not agree with terminating the pregnancy, then there would undoubtedly be consequences for him. So I would like you tell me why these consequences seem to pail in significance and relevance compared to those of the mother's.

There's no need to inflict unnecessary suffering on another person to make their life any more insufferable. If you allow for the continued suffering of another human being, then you are responsible for allowing them to continue to suffer unnecessarily, for your own good, because it sure as hell isn't for theirs, and despite your claims to show concern for the unborn child, your stance is quite the contrary, because your stance only advocates for taking personal responsibility from another human being.

Again, you are dismissing the fact that life is being destroyed. It doesn't even seem to be on your radar. Also, many of us are born into circumstances which are not ideal and yet go on to live very productive and happy lives. Many women who dreaded having a child and thought it would ruin their lives, end up a few years later in a position where they couldn't imagine life without that child. Of course, some women might be spot on and having a child might just change the direction of their lives in all of the many negative ways in which they fear it will, but.. I still don't see how second trimester abortions can be justified in an effort to circumvent them. I just don't.

You might want to read back through the thread yourself. I have already stated numerous times now that I support abortion at any stage of the pregnancy, and further to that, I support euthanasia at any stage of human development outside the womb.

You would support third trimester abortions and beyond? Are you serious? Then why are you even bothering to argue with me about incubators. Children that have been born at 30 weeks (three months premature) can quite easily survive without means of incubation. And you support abortion at that stage? I'm speechless.

I'm actually working off the assumption that you're not a special sort of righteous cnut, because I prefer to seek out the best in people, rather than acknowledge the worst. That's called hope - something you (not you personally) take away from a woman when you force her to give birth against her will, something you take away from a child when you force them into a world where they are rejected by their own mother. As resilient as children are, rejection by their biological parent leaves an indelible mark on their psychological make-up, right into adulthood.

You have the audacity to speak about taking away hope and yet you support abortions at any stage of a pregnancy? This beggars belief.

I Heart Internet wrote: »

I don't recall anyone at all on this thread mentioning religion, not until you did, just there.

He said like religious fundamentalists, its a simile. They are not the same but is comparing a common characteristic.

shruikan2553 wrote: »

He said like religious fundamentalusts, its a metaphor. They are not the same but is comparing a common characteristic.

Yes and that common characteristic the user said was shared was that their arguments / retorts are faith based and so pointless debating with them. I can't speak for anyone else, but I am an atheist and so my opinions have zero to do with faith.

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

Yes and that common characteristic the user said was shared was that their arguments / retorts are faith based and so pointless debating with them. I can't speak for anyone else, but I am an atheist and so my opinions have zero to do with faith.

Not all are faith based but a lot of pro life groups in Ireland are connected to a church, in searching before I have found 1 which wasn't. So when there is a pro life representative in the media there is a very high chance of the person being religious and thinking they are right because God.

bodice ripper wrote: »

It's a simile.

You are right, have edited my post. It has been a long time since I've had to use these poetry words.

fullaljackeen wrote: »

Babies have no say and no rights? Thats seems so fair and logical! What goes on with the human life inside the woman is whos business?

neither have fathers

green_screen wrote: »

Of course they have no say, they can't talk.

some of them know sign language

Boombastic wrote: »

neither have fathers

This comes up over and over again, but I've noticed that when it does, the person who brings it up inevitably shies away when asked how exactly the prospective father's rights should be asserted.

Should he be able to force the pregnant woman to have an abortion if he does not want to be a father?

Should be be able to force her to continue with the pregnancy if he does want to be a father?

Should he be able to renounce all responsibility for the child when it is born and thus possibly condemn his own child to a lifetime in poverty? (As was very commonly done to children born outside marriage up until the last 50 or so years)

Seriously, I'd love to hear how the prospective father's rights can be asserted without completely overriding the prospective mother's rights to control what happens within her own body.

Boombastic wrote: »

yes he should have the option of signing his rights away, why not? the mother has this option

should a woman be forced to continue with the pregnancy? she can't be forced to do anything but if she aborts without the fathers consent just because she feels like it, there should be consequences, not jail, but a secure psychiatric unit

should a man be forced to be father against his will?

Wowsers.

green_screen wrote: »

Of course they have no say, they can't talk.

There are people who claim they speak for the unborn, the same people who advocate personal responsibility, but don't want to listen to people who can speak for themselves.

They're a bit like backseat drivers in a person's life - everythings hunky dory for them as long as you don't go over the bumps and don't go over 25, and whatever you do, don't veer outside your own lane and don't try to overtake anyone - you're not ready for any of that aspirational stuff yet.

_Redzer_ wrote: »

.......the actual living mother or what's best for her. The ironing is fantastic

I wholeheartedly agree. What's best for any mother is to do fantastic ironing.