Abortion Discussion

Zubeneschamali · 27-08-2014 3:53pm

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I am atheist / agnostic / non religious and would be against abortion. Not all forms thou. Rape = ok. Fetal abnormality resulting in death = ok. Suicide = ok. Legal on the basis that back street abortions are worse because both woman and child die.

That's a pro-choice position, as is usual for atheists/agnostics.

The thing that tends to mark out the so called Pro-Life crew is that they believe in souls. A fertilized egg can't have thoughts or feelings, happiness or pain. It's a single cell with less independent life than an amoeba.

But apparently, it can have a microscopic little eternal soul.

Tim Robbins · 27-08-2014 3:57pm

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The thing that tends to mark out the so called Pro-Life crew is that they believe in souls. A fertilized egg can't have thoughts or feelings, happiness or pain. It's a single cell with less independent life than an amoeba.

But apparently, it can have a microscopic little eternal soul.

They believe the fertilized egg is something special as do many atheists / agnostics / non - religious people.

Cabaal · 27-08-2014 4:00pm

Tim Robbins wrote: »

They believe the fertilized egg is something special as do many atheists / agnostics / non - religious people.

If you believe a fertilized egg is so very special then what are your thoughts on fertilized eggs not being used by IVF doctors?

Is that abortion in your eye's?

lazygal · 27-08-2014 4:02pm

Tim Robbins wrote: »

They believe the fertilized egg is something special as do many atheists / agnostics / non - religious people.

What about natural abortions, are they special? What should women who don't want to be pregnant do?

Cabaal · 27-08-2014 4:03pm

lazygal wrote: »

What about natural abortions, are they special? What should women who don't want to be pregnant do?

ah lazygal, sure you know the answer to that.
They should wait 9 months and then they won't be pregnant anymore....simples!
:pac:

Brian Shanahan · 27-08-2014 4:18pm

Balmed Out wrote: »

I agree there is more on the anti side but if you look logically at what people on both sides believe its easy to see why.

It. Is. A. Simple. Question. Name. Me. One.

If you can't drop that line of arguement.

Brian Shanahan · 27-08-2014 4:22pm

Tim Robbins wrote: »

No. You destroy all cells when you abort. You only destroy a percentage when you exfoliate. You also destroy the DNA. You don't do this when you exfoliate.

And your answer to my response shows the kind of ridiculous reasoning that Terry Pratchett lampooned in Men At Arms when describing the Pork Futures Warehouse.

Unless you include all possible future human cells as having a current existence, you absolutely do destroy most cells in everyday grooming processes than you do with early term abortions.

Stark · 27-08-2014 4:27pm

Tim Robbins wrote: »

No. You destroy all cells when you abort. You only destroy a percentage when you exfoliate. You also destroy the DNA. You don't do this when you exfoliate.

What about killing an identical twin? You're only destroying 50% of the DNA then.

Tim Robbins · 27-08-2014 4:37pm

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

And your answer to my response shows the kind of ridiculous reasoning that Terry Pratchett lampooned in Men At Arms when describing the Pork Futures Warehouse.

Unless you include all possible future human cells as having a current existence, you absolutely do destroy most cells in everyday grooming processes than you do with early term abortions.

You understand the concept of a percentages etc?

Tim Robbins · 27-08-2014 4:39pm

lazygal wrote: »

What should women who don't want to be pregnant do?

Consider not killing the baby who might actually want to live + talk to the Father who should also get a say surely.

Tim Robbins · 27-08-2014 4:42pm

Cabaal wrote: »

If you believe a fertilized egg is so very special then what are your thoughts on fertilized eggs not being used by IVF doctors?

Is that abortion in your eye's?

Not all couples abort the fertilized eggs. What's your opinion on killing a baby as soon as it is born? Is that worse than killing the baby 5 seconds before it is born when it is still in the Woman's body?

Cabaal · 27-08-2014 4:43pm

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Consider not killing the baby who might actually want to live + talk to the Father who should also get a say surely.

Sure you can apply you're very same argument to a women thats raped,

The rapists off spring might want to talk to its father some day, who are you to say its ok to abort them?

Zubeneschamali · 27-08-2014 4:46pm

Tim Robbins wrote: »

What's your opinion on killing a baby as soon as it is born? Is that worse than killing the baby 5 seconds before it is born when it is still in the Woman's body?

This is the sort of boring gotcha I'd expect from a Pro-Life atheist.

But since you are pro-choice, the question of where the Pro-Life atheists are hiding remains.

Vivisectus · 27-08-2014 4:51pm

I believe the fetus is more than just a bunch of cells.

You seem to believe that instinctually though, and it leads to a rather inconsistent point of view where someone conceived through rape can be killed but someone who was accidentally conceived cannot.

I do not feel that one's genetics determines that one is a person: if that were the case twins could be considered the same person, or a clone of me could be considered the same person. That is clearly not the case. So a genome does not a person make.

I find it more reasonable to start to suspect personhood may have begun at the moment we can assume the possibility of experience - so not until at least some significant nerve and brain development has taken place. And thus I would afford more and more protection as a fetus develops.

It has the advantage of not leading to bizarre outcomes like legitimizing murder because the victim was conceived in a rape, and I have a non-arbitrary point where we start treating potential persons as persons.

TheChizler · 27-08-2014 4:51pm

What's with the concept of using abortion as a form of contraception? Is a girl, in the heat of the moment, going to throw away a condom thinking "sure I'll just have potentially dangerous and expensive surgery instead".

lazygal · 27-08-2014 4:53pm

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Consider not killing the baby who might actually want to live + talk to the Father who should also get a say surely.

Suppose she and the father consider that and decide killing the baby is the right choice. Should the woman be allowed to travel to kill the unborn or should she be able to kill it here?

Balmed Out · 27-08-2014 5:32pm

kylith wrote: »

Sounds like pro-choice with a time limit to me.

I would be anti abortion from whenever there is brain activity which I believe is the 6th week and to err on the side of caution I would be against it from the 5th week on. Call that what you will but I would prefer never to be called pro choice, pro death, anti choice or pro life.

Later then that I would be in favor of allowing it if there were serious medical problems or if there was a serious risk of suicide. To be honest I wouldn't in the case of rape. Its terrible for someone to have to carry an unwanted baby but once I believe it to be alive I cant justify it being punished for something it didn't do, unless of course mother is suicidal.

MrPudding · 27-08-2014 6:24pm

Balmed Out wrote: »

I think for most people the debate is when they think a foetus is a person. I hate the labels no one is pro death or anti choice

Really? It certainly isn't for me. Initially, a long time ago, I may have followed the personhood idea, but for me there are too many problems with it. The pro-choice side are divided on when personal begins, there is no consistency. The anti-choice side (I will not call them pro-life because a person that is against an abortion where the woman and foetus will likely die if the pregnancy continues cannot be called pro-life, at least in any world I am aware of) tend to be quite consistent, life begins at conception and personhood, as a concept, appears to be less important.

My position on abortion is based on a conflict of rights. For me this is simpler. Whilst it might sound harsh, I simply don't care of the foetus is a person, up to a certain point I believe that the rights of the woman should overrule the rights of the foetus. As the pregnancy continues the right of the foetus gain more strength.

As a result I believe that up to 14 to 16 weeks I believe a women should have a right to an abortion irrespective of reason. The right of the woman absolutely outweigh any right the foetus might rely on. Beyond this I believe abortion should still be available, but the conflict of rights now become more difficult. I would still allow abortion due to rape, FFA or threat to the health and/or life of the mother.

My preference is always that abortion should be avoided where possible, but the choice should be there. I also think it is pointless to try to argue 'personhood' or 'where life begins', it is about a conflict of rights, and it is completely insane to think that a foetus, particularly of less than 10 weeks gestations, should have stronger rights than the born person carrying it. And this is not about the foetus having equal rights, it is about the foetus having stronger rights. Whilst it might be framed as it merely having an equal, to the mother,l right to life the manifestation of this equal rights gives it is greater right. Its right can now force the woman to follow a particular course of action, continue with the pregnancy, against her will. That is not equality of rights.

MrP

Macha · 27-08-2014 7:45pm

Balmed Out wrote: »

I would be anti abortion from whenever there is brain activity which I believe is the 6th week and to err on the side of caution I would be against it from the 5th week on. Call that what you will but I would prefer never to be called pro choice, pro death, anti choice or pro life.

That's nice. Except the first sign for women to know they're pregnant is that they miss their period, at which time they're considered 4 weeks pregnant. So you're giving them a 7-day window.

Balmed Out wrote: »

Later then that I would be in favor of allowing it if there were serious medical problems or if there was a serious risk of suicide. To be honest I wouldn't in the case of rape. Its terrible for someone to have to carry an unwanted baby but once I believe it to be alive I cant justify it being punished for something it didn't do, unless of course mother is suicidal.

And if the pregnant woman doesn't believe a bunch of cells to be alive?

Like I keep saying - you can donate your organs to save lives but you have to give your consent first. Pregnant women are expected to hand over their bodies to 'save a life' and have no say in the matter. Corpses have more right to bodily integrity than Irish women.

swampgas · 27-08-2014 8:10pm

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I am atheist / agnostic / non religious and would be against abortion. Not all forms thou. Rape = ok. Fetal abnormality resulting in death = ok. Suicide = ok. Legal on the basis that back street abortions are worse because both woman and child die.

Against, drive by abortion on demand, as a form of contraception, because the child is gay, has asthma, someone more interested in their career etc.

It is better we make it as strict - only in certain cases - form of abortion like we did with divorce.

I really don't like this type of argument against abortion. It's one step above "women who get pregnant are sluts who had their fun and now must face the consequences". It's more of the same old misogyny. Except now its "career women" who are being shamed for daring to want to have some control over their own bodies. The ball-busting man-hating career woman is obviously a callous baby killer and must be "punished" by forcing her to continue with her unplanned pregnancy - after all, it's what she was designed for, right?

It is repugnant to me how quick so many people are to judge why a woman might not want to continue with a pregnancy, and to feel that they know better than she does herself about whether that pregnancy should continue or not.

Balmed Out · 27-08-2014 8:13pm

MrPudding wrote: »

The anti-choice side (I will not call them pro-life because a person that is against an abortion where the woman and foetus will likely die if the pregnancy continues cannot be called pro-life, at least in any world I am aware of) tend to be quite consistent, life begins at conception and personhood, as a concept, appears to be less important.

I think the overwhelming majority of people who would vote no to a yes / no in an all cases abortion referendum would be completely supportive of it in the case whereby the pregnancy is non viable.

MrPudding wrote: »

And this is not about the foetus having equal rights, it is about the foetus having stronger rights.

That would only be the case where the continuation of the pregnancy will result in life for the child and death for the mother. Again I think the overwhelming majority of people who would vote no to a yes / no in all cases abortion referendum would be completely supportive of it in the case whereby the mothers life is at risk.

You're very first sentence states that for you the issue isn't whether a fetus is a person or not but to me the whole post and you're opinion seems predicated in that the fetus isn't a person which is a fair enough point of view, It's impossible to say when a bunch of cells becomes a person and there would be a million different opinions.

swampgas · 27-08-2014 8:15pm

Balmed Out wrote: »

I would be anti abortion from whenever there is brain activity which I believe is the 6th week and to err on the side of caution I would be against it from the 5th week on. Call that what you will but I would prefer never to be called pro choice, pro death, anti choice or pro life.

Later then that I would be in favor of allowing it if there were serious medical problems or if there was a serious risk of suicide. To be honest I wouldn't in the case of rape. Its terrible for someone to have to carry an unwanted baby but once I believe it to be alive I cant justify it being punished for something it didn't do, unless of course mother is suicidal.

There's a hell of a lot more brain activity going on in the pregnant woman than there is in the foetus. Doesn't that count for something? Or is the non-sentient, unformed, unconscious brain activity in a tiny foetus automatically more important than the much more complex brain activity of a grown woman?

swampgas · 27-08-2014 8:22pm

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Something getting pregnant not giving a sh8t, getting an abortion and not giving a sh*t either.

I assume you are happy with such a person (if she exists) being allowed to carry on with the pregnancy unsupervised? What if she is binge drinking and smoking while pregnant? Should she be restricted there too? What about if the baby is born and she keeps it but treats it "like sh8t", as you put it, is that a good outcome?

Are you simply arguing that some women cannot be trusted when pregnant not to abort for frivolous reasons, but that they will magically be responsible while pregnant and as mothers?

swampgas · 27-08-2014 8:24pm

Tim Robbins wrote: »

They believe the fertilized egg is something special as do many atheists / agnostics / non - religious people.

And it's more special than a woman and her right to have some say over whether she continues with an unwanted pregnancy or not? Or is a woman's right to some control over her own body not so special as a fertilized egg, something which cannot even be seen with the naked eye?

Balmed Out · 27-08-2014 8:27pm

Macha wrote: »

That's nice. Except the first sign for women to know they're pregnant is that they miss their period, at which time they're considered 4 weeks pregnant. So you're giving them a 7-day window.

That's right I am.

Macha wrote: »

And if the pregnant woman doesn't believe a bunch of cells to be alive?

And if she's wrong ?

Macha wrote: »

Like I keep saying - you can donate your organs to save lives but you have to give your consent first.

I think in emergency situations consent shouldn't be required for organs. Fair enough where possible take them from willing donors but allowing someone to die rather then take from a dead person without their consent is imho crazy.

Macha wrote: »

Corpses have more right to bodily integrity than Irish women.

If one believes that a fetus is a person then how can they ethically support aborting them to ensure a woman's bodily integrity?
If I felt an 8 and a half month fetus was not yet a person, not yet alive I would have absolutely no problem aborting it to ensure a woman's choice.

Balmed Out · 27-08-2014 8:32pm

swampgas wrote: »

There's a hell of a lot more brain activity going on in the pregnant woman than there is in the foetus. Doesn't that count for something? Or is the non-sentient, unformed, unconscious brain activity in a tiny foetus automatically more important than the much more complex brain activity of a grown woman?

Thence if only one can survive abort away, with bells and whistles......

If you feel it is a life then the equation is one person's life vs nine difficult months and lasting emotional trauma which is not to be sneered at but not equal a life.

For me the debate is all about when a fetus is a life. If science could prove that at 6 months there's a moment where all of a sudden a fetus is alive I would be all for giving people the choice until that moment.

swampgas · 27-08-2014 8:39pm

Balmed Out wrote: »

Thence if only one can survive abort away, with bells and whistles......

If you feel it is a life then the equation is one person's life vs nine difficult months and lasting emotional trauma which is not to be sneered at but not equal a life.

For me the debate is all about when a fetus is a life. If science could prove that at 6 months there's a moment where all of a sudden a fetus is alive I would be all for giving people the choice until that moment.

Very few if any women actually want an unplanned pregnancy, or want to have to go through with an abortion at all. Suggesting that they will be "aborting away, with bells and whistles" shows a very poor understanding of this fact.

Tim Robbins · 27-08-2014 8:47pm

TheChizler wrote: »

What's with the concept of using abortion as a form of contraception? Is a girl, in the heat of the moment, going to throw away a condom thinking "sure I'll just have potentially dangerous and expensive surgery instead".

Some people act irresponsibly. Difficult to say what percentage but if everyone was using contraception correctly, I think there would be a lot less than 5,000 Irish abortions per year.

Tim Robbins · 27-08-2014 8:50pm

lazygal wrote: »

Suppose she and the father consider that and decide killing the baby is the right choice. Should the woman be allowed to travel to kill the unborn or should she be able to kill it here?

I don't see how you can stop anyone from travelling.
They should both be given some educational material:
* on contraception
* scientific facts such as DNA being in place at the moment of conception.
* the amount of couples who are finding it impossible to conceive and would love to adopt
* state support should they wish to carry the baby either to adoption or to keep (if there are financial reasons motivating their decision)

lazygal · 27-08-2014 8:51pm

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Some people act irresponsibly. Difficult to say what percentage but if everyone was using contraception correctly, I think there would be a lot less than 5,000 Irish abortions per year.

What about the fact no contraception even with perfect use is 100% effective? What about people who don't ever want children? Women who don't have children will find it virtually impossible to be sterilized in Ireland. What's your solution to women with unwanted pregnancies?

Abortion Discussion

Comments