Abortion whats your stance?

Zulu wrote: »

What I was hinting at is that basic rights (should) exist regardless of race, creed, or development status. Basic rights like the right to life.

In that case, we will have to agree to disagree. The right to life does, in my opinion, very much depend on the development status or age of the creature involved.

Law awards adults the ability to decide for themselves. Society acknowledges that children require care for their well being and attempts to protect them from themselves and negligent parents by enforcing age restrictions on certain thing. Cigarettes, drink, adult content material etc.

I am sorry if you have answered this before, I just want to be sure: Do you think it is okay to use the Morning After Pill? Irish society itself does. So clearly, it awards less rights to the human being that is not yet at the stage of implantation in the womb. The crucial thing is, it denies this human being the right to life. My believe is that it is also okay to abort a human being up to 12 weeks of age. Many people share my believe. Irish society (including you) does not share it, but then, Irish society doesn't share the believe 16 year olds should have the right to consensual sex. Many societies disagree.

However, some rights supersede these restrictions.
The right to life.
The right to an education.
The right to worship without interference, to name a few.

So embryos should be getting an education too since this right according to you supersides restrictions?

So, do I believe that the state is justified to enforce laws that protect children: absolutely, so long as these restrictions don't impede the childs basic human rights.

You see, societies and people disagree on what exactly protects children and for how long this protection is needed - see above. What it comes down is judgement calls in which children are hardly ever heard. Hell, even parents disagree on which rights their child should have in order to protect them. Who are you to say that a woman opting for abortion is not making a judgement call that says it is in the best interest of ALL for her pregnancy to be terminated?

F.A. wrote: »

I am sorry if you have answered this before, I just want to be sure: Do you think it is okay to use the Morning After Pill? Irish society itself does. So clearly, it awards less rights to the human being that is not yet at the stage of implantation in the womb. The crucial thing is, it denies this human being the right to life. My believe is that it is also okay to abort a human being up to 12 weeks of age. Many people share my believe. Irish society (including you) does not share it, but then, Irish society doesn't share the believe 16 year olds should have the right to consensual sex. Many societies disagree.

Other societies are irrelevant to Ireland's legal decision on abortion. If 16 year olds wish to have consenual sex, they can either 1) lobby for it or 2) migrate. Likewise the same applies for you with the case for abortion.

Jakkass wrote: »

Other societies are irrelevant to Ireland's legal decision on abortion. If 16 year olds wish to have consenual sex, they can either 1) lobby for it or 2) migrate. Likewise the same applies for you with the case for abortion.

This discussion, however, is about our stance on abortion. It is therefore perfectly legitimate to point out that societies disagree. Just because Irish law is what it is, doesn't make it right or wrong. And thanks, there is no need for me to lobby or migrate as I am not Irish (sigh of relief, I know ).

kizzyr wrote: »

LOL you sound like a sign in the zoo:)

Feeding was not my intention but it did make me think of how intelligent primates are and how very close we are to them. Yet we still will use them to our own ends.
Take this hypothetical scenario: you're walking home one evening and on your way you happen across a burning building. The building is a medical facility. You rush in to see if anyone is left behind and needs your help. You spot a 3 month old baby that has been left behind, an orangutan locked in a cage but is screaming loudly and reaches out to you for help when it sees you, and finally a tray of embryos. You have time to rescue only one of these items, what do you go for? The baby, everyone takes the baby, its something the can see and hear, something they can identify with.
If we go back to the burning building and this time there is no baby just the orangutan and the tray of human embyros. Which do you rescue?
I'd go for the orangutan, its a living breathing entity, the embryos are embryos and as far as I am concerned aren't alive.

good post BTW - it really gets to the essense of how we percieve the unborn.

what we are dealing with is an intangible concept and trying to fit it into a semblance of order.

Well I wouldnt come accross a try of embryos or know what they were if I did but if you put a container with a human heart ready for transplant it would be closer to the point.

the embryos in an abotion sense are not quite alive but and this" aliveness"
kindof increases in the same way as the heart for transplant isnt quite alive but is.

Zulu wrote: »

I know - and you have the manners not to misquote me. Thank you for that Kizzyr. If it wasn't for poster like yourself I'd have left this thread a long time ago.

However, you don't support the choice of the child to live though.

This debate can be very interesting when those involved in it play nicely. It is good to talk things out with people of differing opinions when people manage to stay civil.
I am a strong advocate of children's rights. I also think it is dreadful to see women who are pregnant abuse their body and the foetus through alcohol and / or drug consumption. I think any woman who decides to have a child has a moral obligation to be as healty as possible and so allow the developing foetus to be as healty as she can. However, I do think, in the early stages of pregnancy that a woman be allowed to examine her options and if she comes to the conclusion that a termination is the only option for her then yes, her rights at this stage trump those of the developing foetus.
I strongly disagree with the concept of abortion on demand just for the sake of it. I think people should always practice safe sex not only to avoid an unwanted pregnancy but also for their health and the impact that has on society. I quite simply support a person's right to chose, as I said before I supported the man involved in the frozen embryo case, I think he was entitled to exercise his choice not to become a parent.
This issue isn't for me, a male female thing, it isn't about rape, or religion, it is about the right to bodily integrity and privacy, the right to decide what will and won't happen to it. I simply do not see a foetus as having a greater claim on her body than a woman does herself.

your wrong ye mad biscuit. eveie should be kicked.

You mean the way I did? Look up child again. The very FIRST definition is the one I continously refer to.

Laura Appleby wrote: »

Nature eliminates milions of unfit foetuses of its own accord every year. Nature gives life but it also takes it away just as easily

The idea that because foetues die of natural causes abortion is ok is hardly a logical one in a debate such as this. Children 'naturally' have a higher mortality rate than adults, but we're not allowed go around slaughtering them at a whim.

If Jakkass equates a fetus to a human life, then his comparison is valid from his perspective.

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

The idea that because foetues die of natural causes abortion is ok is hardly a logical one in a debate such as this. Children 'naturally' have a higher mortality rate than adults, but we're not allowed go around slaughtering them at a whim.

If Jakkass equates a fetus to a human life, then his comparison is valid from his perspective.

and for someone who doesn't see the foetus as anything other than a foetus and so doesn't see a termination as murder then their things are valid from their perspective.

Hagar wrote: »

The Nazis murdered everyone who got in the way of their plans. Men, women children and babies. We all know the reasons for the killings were specious. Much like killing babies because it's going to upset your social calendar. Abortion is another Holocaust going on under our noses perpetrated by the people we least expect, the mothers of the children being murdered.

Again what is murder to one is nothing like it for another. Also are you a mother the very second you become pregnant simply an expectant one? Isn't it only post birth that a woman becomes a mother?

kizzyr wrote: »

This debate can be very interesting when those involved in it play nicely. It is good to talk things out with people of differing opinions when people manage to stay civil.
I am a strong advocate of children's rights. I also think it is dreadful to see women who are pregnant abuse their body and the foetus through alcohol and / or drug consumption. I think any woman who decides to have a child has a moral obligation to be as healty as possible and so allow the developing foetus to be as healty as she can. However, I do think, in the early stages of pregnancy that a woman be allowed to examine her options and if she comes to the conclusion that a termination is the only option for her then yes, her rights at this stage trump those of the developing foetus.
I strongly disagree with the concept of abortion on demand just for the sake of it. I think people should always practice safe sex not only to avoid an unwanted pregnancy but also for their health and the impact that has on society. I quite simply support a person's right to chose, as I said before I supported the man involved in the frozen embryo case, I think he was entitled to exercise his choice not to become a parent.
This issue isn't for me, a male female thing, it isn't about rape, or religion, it is about the right to bodily integrity and privacy, the right to decide what will and won't happen to it. I simply do not see a foetus as having a greater claim on her body than a woman does herself.

seeing your pro-choice and all that

pro-choice campaigners are like the US gun lobby saying its not guns that kill people its people that kill people.

the pro-life campaigners are like the gun control lobby saying but what controls do you want

the pro-choice group always say well no controls at all and thats what I have difficulty with

You propose abortion in certain circumstances but from experience in other countries it is in fact unrestricted abortion with little or no actual control. In the same way as the gun lobby we are being asked to accept collateral damage as a way of life

So what are you proposing and what controls would you have in place?

Whats wrong with the current status quo lets face it anyone who wants it can go to the UK cheaply enough- so is there someting special about aborting in Ireland with your own people? If people dont care about it and its not traumatic and its just a procedure - whats the big deal about needing it in Ireland?

Zulu wrote: »

That is your prerogative.

I know it is. I make full usage of it, trust me. This is the last time I am going to entertain you as it is getting totally ridiculous now. Why? Well...:

I only read through the first 54 definitions cited in the dictionary. I didn't check the "American Heritage Dictionary's" definition. You'll have to excuse me. Although I'll let you make up your own mind on American English.

You are actually lying. If you had gone through the first 54 definitions cited in the dictionary, you would have seen that the one I gave you is the VERY FIRST. Just like with the word child if you remember. What is it with you and first entries in the dictionary? 'Doesn't suit = not valid'??

Isn't it your whole post slightly hypercritical though? In the first half of your post you claim it's acceptable to only select one definition of a word.

My post is hypercritical (sic)?? Lol! I have never claimed that the definitions I use are the only ones the dictionary gives you. You, however, have claimed that a word you chose would not contain the word kill in a dictionary when it actually comes up in the very first entry. That is not hypocritical, that is correcting blatant lies spread in an attempt to score a cheap point.

However, that's neither here nor there.

Oh, but it is. How come you are the one who can choose not only when to apply their own morals with regard to killing and when to just ignore them, and you are also the one who gets to condescendingly try to present lies for facts and, when caught red-handed, can just dismiss it as neither here nor there? You seem to labour under the illusion that normal rules of rational discussion do not apply to you.

Can you not understand the original point I was making though?

Not really, no. Making associations with a word such as abortion does not mean it actually means what you consider it to. That is why we have dictionaries in the first place. Otherwise, I will happily claim that 'Zulu' is the same as ignorant, hypocritical, self-righteous fundamentalist. But we all know that's not the case. Or do we?