Abortion- Right or Wrong

Earthhorse · 27-08-2008 7:42pm

gcgirl wrote: »

Some people i know have got divorces in other counties, one in the uk and the other in the us both were married in Ireland

And that's legally binding in Ireland? Were they citizens of the UK or US in their respective case? I did not know you could do that.

gcgirl · 27-08-2008 7:48pm

Earthhorse wrote: »

And that's legally binding in Ireland? Were they citizens of the UK or US in their respective case? I did not know you could do that.

Both are Irish and both have been in the last 5 years !!
Though i should point that the Catholic church will never recongnise it !!
unless you got an annulment you can only get a marrige blessing in a church!
Its all ado civil marriage v Church Marriage

carlybabe1 · 27-08-2008 7:49pm

In this day and age people will find the money when it comes down to either having an abortion or having an unwanted baby. If you cant afford to have an abortion then you definitley cant afford to have a child, a huge financial commitment for at least 18yrs......and abortion over here will not be any cheaper than an abortion in England, quite frankly I doubt you'll get one on the medical card, so your financial justification for not legalising abortion doesn't hold water

Earthhorse · 27-08-2008 7:53pm

carlybabe1 wrote: »

In this day and age people will find the money when it comes down to either having an abortion and having an unwanted baby. If you cant afford to have an abortion then you definitley cant afford to have a child, a huge financial commitment for at least 18yrs......and abortion over here will not be any cheaper than an abortion in England, quite frankly I doubt you'll get one on the medical card, so your financial justification for not legalising abortion doesn't hold water

The state currently provides support for children in the form of various social welfare benefits. Abortions will be cheaper here purely on the basis of booking flights and accomodation etc.

This is rather a minor issue as far as I'm concerned. Certainly legalising abortion won't lead to a reduction in their number.

CDfm · 27-08-2008 8:13pm

carlybabe1 wrote: »

my intention in posting was just to state things as i see them - but I also do think the model of woman as victim of patriarchal society is overblown and is a myth.my male ancestors didnt have the vote until 18?? or whenever. So what and as far as I know there are no Egyptian pharoes there either.
Im sticking to my guns here off topic - maybe - but as I see it rewrite the constitution as a Bill of Rights and responsibilities - argue about it for 6 or 12 months - vote on it. Everyone would know where they stand men women and off we go. Clean slate and all that

You're well off topic here, what has votes or whe ye got them have anythin to do with this????? And correct me if I'm wrong but I dont believe anythin in this thread even suggests that women are a victim of anything patriarchal..... And who in they're right mind would even assume that something as serious as abortion is used as a contraceptive?????
ans ok you say you're not a dole model, I wasn't refering to blokes on the dole not supporting thier kids, I was refering to blokes who have a wage and just plain dont want to know........ Heres somethin for ye to ask yourself, how often do ye take your kids over night???? Is the financial support your payin realistic or are your kids goin without stuff that they would have if you were still together????? does your ex work, and if she does do you hand over anythin for daycare costs, or does she have to work around the kids????? Or can she afford to work at all i.e. would she be workin to pay the childminder????? Heres a question I'd love you to answer honestly did you even consider the whole work situation before I asked the question???? Or is it just a situation where you assumed that she ought to stay home and mind them, it bein her choice to have them an all that, and you had little to do with it????
are ye feeling a bit bitter???

eek carlybabe.your personalising this

me thinks you have your own battle of the sexes

my point was its not for me to judge. pro-abortion etc as a philosophical debate is also bundled in with womens rights, rightly or wrongly- the interest groups are the same .It doesnt affect me either way but as a moral issue having a vote I am anti- abortion on moral and ethical grounds -thats the way I would vote.

But philosophical arguments no matter how sophist spill over into the real world.Thats reality.

Women are not kiddies and as such are capable of making decisions and taking responsibility earning money for themselves being financially responsible their own lives. The idea that a woman cannot do this is unrealistic - we dont live in an anti-woman society. I believe that.

carlybabe1 · 27-08-2008 8:17pm

The total price of your tickets will be 50.00 GBP this is how much it costs to get to england at a weekend!!!!!! they're return tickets. And yes the government gives lone parents, but not until the child is born and then there is a wait for it. What about buggy's, clothes, a cot, steriliser, blankets etc thats needed before the baby is born. And no, legalising it wont reduce numbers, but it wont increase them either, which is what you originally said. And its not just people on the lower rungs of society that have abortions

JC 2K3 · 27-08-2008 8:20pm

jim o doom wrote: »

I might just be being cynical here, but is anyone here who's either pro choice or pro life willing to state whether or not they are religious?.

Pro-abortion and a cold hearted atheist

carlybabe1 · 27-08-2008 8:23pm

Apologies cdfm, but a few of your posts came across (imo) that you were a bit of a woman hater, and I am pleased to say I am an independant mother of two kids and a mature student....am not a man hater (cant find smilies)

CDfm · 27-08-2008 8:41pm

carlybabe1 wrote: »

Apologies cdfm, but a few of your posts came across (imo) that you were a bit of a woman hater, and I am pleased to say I am an independant mother of two kids and a mature student....am not a man hater (cant find smilies)

mirth - thats ok

You need a chocolate strawberry- Ive got some and you dont :P

carlybabe1 · 27-08-2008 8:45pm

Ah I see, ye dont hate women, in fact ye love to torture us

CDfm · 27-08-2008 8:53pm

not that mature if ya like chocolate strawberries

bet you pick blackberries too:rolleyes:

Earthhorse · 27-08-2008 9:32pm

carlybabe1 wrote: »

And no, legalising it wont reduce numbers, but it wont increase them either, which is what you originally said.

I know what I said thanks. I was saying something in addition to that.

carlybabe1 wrote: »

And its not just people on the lower rungs of society that have abortions

Never said it was.

Zulu · 27-08-2008 10:50pm

jim o doom wrote: »

Just to contribute (I signed up to add to this )

point one; Regardless whether or not abortion should or shouldn't be legal, it will still occur, legalising makes it safer, and removes the necessity of those who wish/need to have abortions to travel to a country where it is legal.

So will murder & rape, whats your point?

point two; In NY in the 80's the crime rate lowered when abortion was legalised, I am not going to go into the smaller details because its another argument

If we legalise rape, theft and murder the crime rate will drastically drop off. Serious crime will be all but gone. Do you suggest thats a good idea?

Zombrex · 27-08-2008 11:31pm

Zulu wrote: »

So will murder & rape, whats your point?

+1

the idea that abortion will happen anyway so we might as well legalise it is ridiculous. If abortion is morally wrong then it should not be allowed, even if people continue to do it illegally.

Publin · 28-08-2008 1:24am

trowelled wrote: »

It surprises me that noone has brought up the the idea as to whether a woman who has become pregnant as a result of rape/sexual abuse from a family member etc. Is abortion totally wrong in these incidents. I know someone's gonna say but it's not the baby's fault. I just don't think abortion is wrong in all incidents.

I would refer you to this post:

Thaedydal wrote: »

IF you go do your dr and say you were raped you will be examined and the emgerency contraceptive pill will be prescribed to you.

trowelled wrote: »

Abortion i wrong if it's used as a means of after contraception but I think if someone has a valid reason for abortion then they should have the right to do it and should not be jjudged for it

So what are valid reasons?

Piste wrote: »

What choice? Why should the father get a choice?

Because it's as much "his" unborn baby as it is the mother's.

Piste wrote: »

I suppose you'd "own" it as much as a tapeworm in your intestine. I think a woman should be able to remov her her services as an involuntary incubator, and if that results in the death of the foetus then I don't really care.

Involuntary?? How so? (unless she was raped, in which case, see above).

Piste wrote: »

A foetus does not value its own life nor does anyone else, so it's not wrong to kill it.

What if the father values it?

xshazarx wrote: »

Who is to judge? What about the likes of a rape victim or someone who knows they cannot support a child, they neither have the finance or emotional strength to cope, who is to say whether they are doing the right or wrong thing.

As above. Also, it's hardly the unborn child's fault. There's also the option of giving the baby up for adoption.

Zulu asked: Interesting, is a humans life particularly "special" if it's not valued?

Piste wrote: »

In my opinion, no

So is it okay to kill a human whose life is not valued?

Publin · 28-08-2008 1:45am

theozster wrote: »

I'm not going to say whether it is right or wrong, but since this obviously is never going to be agreed upon, the only moral thing to do is to let people decide for themselves.

Anti-choice is wrong, as it forces one person's religion down anothers' throat.

who mentioned anything about religion?? Who's forcing religion on anyone?! We're all free to worship whoever or whatever we want. I don't understand what you're talking about??

Also, you said above you weren't going to say it was right or wrong, then you say "anti-choice is wrong" in your very next sentence? :pac:

jim o doom wrote: »

point one; Regardless whether or not abortion should or shouldn't be legal, it will still occur, legalising makes it safer, and removes the necessity of those who wish/need to have abortions to travel to a country where it is legal.

Drug-taking will happen still happen, legalising it would remove the necessity of those who wish to take certain drugs having to travel to another country where it is legal......

jim o doom wrote: »

The fact is me an my fiancee never want children, and we use contraception to prevent it happening, but if the contraception failed, we both agree that abortion is the best way.

Get the snip?

jim o doom wrote: »

A lot of people have underage sex, and do not understand the consequences of what they do. If an underage person is forced to have a child its like a life sentence of problems, it would be like sentencing a child to life as a criminal for stealing when they didnt truly understand those consequences.

They're not being given a life sentence. They can give the baby up for adoption. I would wager that the vast majority of kids having underage sex know they can get pregnant from having sex - they aren't that naive.

jim o doom wrote: »

The same goes for people who are inebriated. Maybe they shouldn't get drunk and do foolish things, but they do because they are people, and people are not perfect. Should they have to suffer because of a drunken mistake?

So if I kill a person or beat up my wife/girlfriend or start a fight with a Garda, I shouldn't have to suffer because of a "drunken mistake"?

square_igloo wrote: »

I am pro-choice. I don't believe that aborting a cluster of cells is equivalent to taking away a human life.

When then do you see a human life as having formed, when a baby is born? So is it okay to terminate up until the moment before birth? Or at 10 weeks, 16 weeks, 24 weeks etc?

CDfm wrote: »

to kill or not to kill that is the question

Agreed. For me, you've summed it up there.

seamus · 28-08-2008 8:56am

Publin wrote: »

Get the snip?

Well, that's what I thought when I read his post. I don't see the logic in paying for contraception when you could easily organise a permanent solution. Male sterilisation can now be organised so that the procedure can be reversed in the event that you change your mind later on.

They're not being given a life sentence. They can give the baby up for adoption. I would wager that the vast majority of kids having underage sex know they can get pregnant from having sex - they aren't that naive.

You'd be surprised what myths get thrown around. There are people in their twenties and thirties who still think that they can't get pregnant if the woman is on top when they have sex. I would say you're naive to assume people in general are that intelligent/educated.

So if I kill a person or beat up my wife/girlfriend or start a fight with a Garda, I shouldn't have to suffer because of a "drunken mistake"?

Tenuous comparison tbh. If I break down a door because I fell over when I was drunk, I can fix the mistake without any further repurcussions. Likewise if I get something pierced while drunk, I can remove the piercing and there's no further repurcussions. Again, this comes down to how you value the zygote - if it's a ball of cells, then getting rid of it is inconsequential. If you think it's a human, then getting rid of it is a big deal.

When then do you see a human life as having formed, when a baby is born? So is it okay to terminate up until the moment before birth? Or at 10 weeks, 16 weeks, 24 weeks etc?

If you saw my post before, this is what it all boils down to - drawing a line.

Just as a curiosity, imagine that a woman has been pregnant now for 22 weeks. She goes in to do a scan and it turns out that her child is Anencephaly. There is a good chance that if she carries the child to term, it will be stillborn, and if not the child will undoubtedly die soon after birth. The child born will lack the major parts of the brain which make us human, and for all intents and purposes will have no more brain power than a chicken when it arrives.

Is this child a human being, deserving of the "special" label, and therefore deserving of life? If so, would you insist that the mother carry it to term?
If you don't believe the child is "special" or a "human being", then what is the difference between this child and a ball of cells. Both are effectively braindead balls of cells, one is just slightly bigger than the other. What's the difference? "Potential" doesn't cut it, because "potential" is a complete acknowledgement that a zygote is not a human being.

Because it's as much "his" unborn baby as it is the mother's.

So how do you resolve the issue when the mother wishes to relinquish her "part" of the child? If the father wished to relinquish his "part" of the child, that's easy - he can just walk away. But the mother can't implant the baby into the father and walk away.

Malari · 28-08-2008 10:14am

seamus wrote: »

Well, that's what I thought when I read his post. I don't see the logic in paying for contraception when you could easily organise a permanent solution. Male sterilisation can now be organised so that the procedure can be reversed in the event that you change your mind later on.

But why have an operation when it may not be necessary? You can have one (an abortion) if it is needed afterwards. Anyway, a lot of women are on the contraceptive pill for other reasons, such as predictability of periods, lighter periods, skin problems, etc.

Also the reversal of male sterilisation is not always possible. A non-invasive popping of a pill every morning is much easier and preferable to a male having this operation for most couples. And for most responsible couples, abortion is never needed.

Zulu · 28-08-2008 10:17am

Malari wrote: »

But why have an operation when it may not be necessary?

That cuts both ways Malari (pun intended)

carlybabe1 · 28-08-2008 10:20am

So will murder & rape, whats your point?

EH hello? murder and rape aren't likely to be legalised, and why would they be, thats a bit of an ott comparison :eek:

and no cdfm, I dont pick blackberries, I know they would be covered in rat piss at least they would where I live

seamus · 28-08-2008 10:27am

Malari wrote: »

But why have an operation when it may not be necessary? You can have one (an abortion) if it is needed afterwards. Anyway, a lot of women are on the contraceptive pill for other reasons, such as predictability of periods, lighter periods, skin problems, etc.

Indeed, but if you've no intention of having children, then surely it makes sense to prevent the possibility from occuring in the first place? The cost of an abortion + the cost of years of the pill is more expensive than a simple snip.

I'm aware that many women prefer the control that the pill gives them over their own body, but that's an entirely separate issue to the contraceptive one.

And for most responsible couples, abortion is never needed.

Even the most responsible couple isn't perfect. They have up to 30 years of fertility to make a mistake.

Malari · 28-08-2008 10:37am

seamus wrote: »

Indeed, but if you've no intention of having children, then surely it makes sense to prevent the possibility from occuring in the first place? The cost of an abortion + the cost of years of the pill is more expensive than a simple snip.

I'm aware that many women prefer the control that the pill gives them over their own body, but that's an entirely separate issue to the contraceptive one.
Even the most responsible couple isn't perfect. They have up to 30 years of fertility to make a mistake.

Yes true, but most people will only have an operation when they know it's needed (and I mean when they need an abortion) rather than preventative operations. Probably why people don't use contraception as much as they should either.

Malari · 28-08-2008 10:38am

Zulu wrote: »

That cuts both ways Malari (pun intended)

I assume you mean it is not necessary to have an abortion, but that is your opinion. For many it is needed.

Earthhorse · 28-08-2008 10:54am

Malari wrote: »

I assume you mean it is not necessary to have an abortion, but that is your opinion. For many it is needed.

In the case of someone who doesn't want children it would not be necessary to get an abortion if the man got the snip.

Malari · 28-08-2008 11:02am

Earthhorse wrote: »

In the case of someone who doesn't want children it would not be necessary to get an abortion if the man got the snip.

But do you not see my point? It wouldn't be necessary to have an operation unless the woman was pregnant. I would choose to have an operation if it was needed, not try to get my man to have an operation just in case.

Earthhorse · 28-08-2008 11:08am

Malari wrote: »

But do you not see my point? It wouldn't be necessary to have an operation unless the woman was pregnant. I would choose to have an operation if it was needed, not try to get my man to have an operation just in case.

I do see your point. Do you not see Zulu's? You claim that the operation is not necessary, that it is just in case. But in a long term relationship that case is pretty likely. Remember, we are talking in the context of a couple who have agreed they do not want children.

Also, under current Irish law one of these procedures is illegal.

Malari · 28-08-2008 11:33am

Earthhorse wrote: »

I do see your point. Do you not see Zulu's? You claim that the operation is not necessary, that it is just in case. But in a long term relationship that case is pretty likely. Remember, we are talking in the context of a couple who have agreed they do not want children.

Also, under current Irish law one of these procedures is illegal.

I do see the point. However, I see it like this: You can ask your partner now an operation now that would prevent you getting a disease OR you can take simple preventative measures that will reduce your risk of getting a disease to 1% and then have an operation yourself if you do happen to get the disease.

I accept that the second operation is illegal here.

seamus · 28-08-2008 11:36am

Malari wrote: »

I do see the point. However, I see it like this: You can ask your partner now an operation now that would prevent you getting a disease OR you can take simple preventative measures that will reduce your risk of getting a disease to 1% and then have an operation yourself if you do happen to get the disease.

I'd go for the elective surgery myself, thanks. Particularly when it can be done under a local anaesthetic without requiring any hospitalisation.

One surgery > a lifetime of taking preventative measures. IMO.

Malari · 28-08-2008 11:47am

seamus wrote: »

I'd go for the elective surgery myself, thanks. Particularly when it can be done under a local anaesthetic without requiring any hospitalisation.

One surgery > a lifetime of taking preventative measures. IMO.

The beauty of pro-choice.

Earthhorse · 28-08-2008 11:50am

Malari wrote: »

I do see the point. However, I see it like this: You can ask your partner now an operation now that would prevent you getting a disease OR you can take simple preventative measures that will reduce your risk of getting a disease to 1% and then have an operation yourself if you do happen to get the disease.

1%? Where are you getting that figure from? Do you mean there is a 1% chance every time they have sex?

Many people get laser eye surgery these days even though simple measures, such as wearing glasses or contact lenses, can't correct the problem. You would never do that though, right?

HalloweenJack · 28-08-2008 11:52am

I'm pro-choice.

Pregnancy is a life-changing thing and some people aren't ready for it. Imo, it's better than having someone raise a child who they (might) despise.

CDfm · 28-08-2008 11:53am

I really dont get most of it

most womens groups who talk about abortion use a Marxist model. Marxist in the economic social and political sence.

Now i can understand a bus strike etc for higher wages as part of an industrial relations thingy.

what i dont get is this proprietory rights to babies and reproductive rights thing as If a baby was a unit of production that could be halted.

I dont get that bit.

Malari · 28-08-2008 11:55am

Earthhorse wrote: »

1%? Where are you getting that figure from? Do you mean there is a 1% chance every time they have sex?

Many people get laser eye surgery these days even though simple measures, such as wearing glasses or contact lenses, can't correct the problem. You would never do that though, right?

1% is arbitrary. Whatever the risk rate is of the contraception you use.

No I would never get laser eye correction. That's my choice, but I know a good few people who have.

Earthhorse · 28-08-2008 12:00pm

Malari wrote: »

1% is arbitrary. Whatever the risk rate is of the contraception you use.

No I would never get laser eye correction. That's my choice, but I know a good few people who have.

Do you disagree with getting the MMR injection too?

seamus · 28-08-2008 12:02pm

Earthhorse wrote: »

1%? Where are you getting that figure from? Do you mean there is a 1% chance every time they have sex?

Actually, that's quite a good point.

If you imagine that the couple are responsible, then that means that every time they have sex, there is a 99% chance that it will not result in a pregnancy. (To pick what is considered an almost-perfect form of contraception).

Now, if you take that over 30 years (say), with them having sex say twice a month (they're boring, OK?

). The odds of them having gotten to the end of that 30 years without ever having become pregnant, is a shockingly low 7 in 10,000.

Or to put it another way, if 10,000 couples took this approach, after 30 years only seven of those couples will have not had a pregnancy.

[Edit:

This compares with a lifetime failure rate for vasectomies of less than 1%.

To be fair to the figures, 7 in 10,000 is a worst-case scenario. In reality, since fertility reduces with time, the odds are probably little better. But this may be balanced out by increased fertility and reduced responsibility in younger years.

Malari · 28-08-2008 12:15pm

seamus wrote: »

Actually, that's quite a good point.

If you imagine that the couple are responsible, then that means that every time they have sex, there is a 99% chance that it will not result in a pregnancy. (To pick what is considered an almost-perfect form of contraception).

Now, if you take that over 30 years (say), with them having sex say twice a month (they're boring, OK? ). The odds of them having gotten to the end of that 30 years without ever having become pregnant, is a shockingly low 7 in 10,000.

Or to put it another way, if 10,000 couples took this approach, after 30 years only seven of those couples will have not had a pregnancy.

Only if they are having sex while she is ovulating. Anyway, odds are the same for the each time. If it was a 1 in 2 chance it wouldn't mean that the second time you get pregnant.

Malari · 28-08-2008 12:18pm

Earthhorse wrote: »

Do you disagree with getting the MMR injection too?

Em, no. I think it's a good choice!

seamus · 28-08-2008 12:19pm

Malari wrote: »

Only if they are having sex while she is ovulating. Anyway, odds are the same for the each time. If it was a 1 in 2 chance it wouldn't mean that the second time you get pregnant.

Nope, but that's the wonder of probabilities. You could have sex 10 times with a 1 in 2 chance of pregnancy and not end up pregnant, but the odds of that are 1 in 1024. In other words, fairly unlikely.

I stuck in an edit there to say 7 in 10,000 is a worst-case scenario. I might do a compound calculation on it just to give a better indicator, but I fear we're straying a little off the topic.

{edit:
Actually, it's not that complex if we try keep the figures simple enough. Let's say the woman is "fertile" 7 days in 28. So if you have sex at a random point in the cycle, there's a 1 in 4 chance that you will have sex on a "fertile" day.
If we up the figures for sex to 4 times per month, at random intervals, then we can say that every cycle on average you will have sex on a day where the women is at a 1% risk of pregnancy.

Their are 13 cycles in a year, which means that over the course of 30 years, you will on average have sex on 390 "fertile" days.

So the odds of never becoming pregnant over the course of those 30 years is (99^390)/(100^390) = 0.0199.
Or 2%. Which is yes, much more reasonable, but it still means that you've a 98% of falling pregnant over 30 years.

Again, figures are simple cos there are too many factors to take into account, but the numbers are against you.

Earthhorse · 28-08-2008 12:25pm

Malari wrote: »

Em, no. I think it's a good choice!

Why?

seamus wrote: »

I stuck in an edit there to say 7 in 10,000 is a worst-case scenario. I might do a compound calculation on it just to give a better indicator, but I fear we're straying a little off the topic.

Agreed. The points been made though, which is that the probability of getting pregnant when regularly having sex in a long term relationship is higher than the probability of getting pregnant when having sex just once.

Malari · 28-08-2008 12:43pm

Earthhorse wrote: »

Why?

Do you want me to go into the advantages of the MMR or that people should be allowed choose this option and not have it forced upon them?

carlybabe1 · 28-08-2008 1:13pm

Hey seamus, do you give maths grinds by any chance

CDfm the statistics show that most women who have abortions aren't financially secure. like it or not being able to afford to have a baby plays a big part in a womens choice to have an abortion, that and whether or not they are ready for the commitment it takes, and whether the father is going to play a role or not, i.e. whether they are going to be bringing up baby alone. And I dont like chocolate strawberrries

Zulu · 28-08-2008 1:17pm

carlybabe1 wrote: »

EH hello? murder and rape aren't likely to be legalised

So? Have a think about what I've posted - you've clearly missed my point. Entirely.

thats a bit of an ott comparison :eek:

Not really. Some would view abortion... ...look, you've missed my point. Have another look.

Malari wrote: »

Yes true, but most people will only have an operation when they know it's needed (and I mean when they need an abortion) rather than preventative operations.

The point I'm making is: if you don't want to have children and you want to have unprotected sex, the operation is needed.

carlybabe1 · 28-08-2008 1:30pm

I do understand your point, i also know that what you were going to say was that some people would consider abortion as murder. I still think it was an ott comparison for this reason, there is no way there will be a referendum to legalise rape or murder and to suggest such is nonsensical at best....there is a significant chance that if there was another referendum for abortion in not so catholic ireland that it just might be passed. I also understand that a lot of people are against it and I can see why, but I really dont think that anyone would undertake a decision like this lightly

Earthhorse · 28-08-2008 1:37pm

Malari wrote: »

Do you want me to go into the advantages of the MMR or that people should be allowed choose this option and not have it forced upon them?

Answer the question however you see fit.

What I'm really interested in is the consistency of your reasoning.

You tell us earlier in the thread that you would not have, or have your partner have (I'm not sure if you're a man or a woman), a vasectomy because the procedure is unnecessary. However, pretty much every preventive procedure is unnecessary - it's just a question of the consequences that follow from it.

Would also like to know how consistent you are in favour of legalising things so people can exercise choice. For instance, do you support my choice to:

Drive on whatever side of the road I like.
Own and operate semi-automatic weapons.
Consume any and all types of recreational drugs.

nacho libre · 28-08-2008 1:41pm

"a human life is not particularly special if it is not valued. "

Even, if i did agree with this it doesn't in my view justify the taking of the suppossed valueless life. As such a view reminds me of those who argue in favour of eugenics

Zulu · 28-08-2008 2:01pm

carlybabe1 wrote: »

I do understand your point

I don't think you do.

i also know that what you were going to say was that some people would consider abortion as murder. I still think it was an ott comparison for this reason, there is no way there will be a referendum to legalise rape or murder and to suggest such is nonsensical at best....

Whats nonsensical is pursuing this point!
Jim O Doom suggested that as people will continue to have abortions regardless of the law, we should legalise it. I commented that people will continue to rape and murder, yet we wouldn't consider legalising them.
I never suggested that either would be made legal. :rolleyes:
The point I was making was: because something illegal is going to happen (theft, rape, murder, joy riding, tax evasion, shop lifting, drug dealing) isn't a good enough reason to legalise it.
Who said anything about referendums?

Oh wait, that was you:

there is a significant chance that if there was another referendum for abortion in not so catholic ireland that it just might be passed.

There is also a significant chance it wouldn't be passed. Again.
By the by, while Catholicism is against abortion, I for one amn't catholic. Abortion in Ireland is bigger than the church vote, and to assume (I'm not saying you are) that anti abortion = religious is naive and ignorant.

nacho libre · 28-08-2008 2:20pm

JC 2K3 wrote: »

You draw a line at conception. Why doesn't a sperm have rights? It's simply one step behind in the development process.

A sperm does not at any stage have a cns or any of the vital appendanges that are needed for human life. neither, if i'm not mistaken, can we philosophically or scientifically speak of a sperm at any stage as a human entity.
so, why should it have rights? it's irrevelant. the better question is, why, going on your previous argument, should we confer rights on a new born baby if it's just the conclusion of the process? I ask because if you argue in favour of the unborn being aborted - at any stage- on the grounds it's just a "being" then the newborn baby is just a being too - as it's no more a "person", philosophically speaking, than the unborn.

CDfm · 28-08-2008 2:21pm

carlybabe1 wrote: »

Hey seamus, do you give maths grinds by any chance

CDfm the statistics show that most women who have abortions aren't financially secure. like it or not being able to afford to have a baby plays a big part in a womens choice to have an abortion, that and whether or not they are ready for the commitment it takes, and whether the father is going to play a role or not, i.e. whether they are going to be bringing up baby alone. And I dont like chocolate strawberrries

carlybabe1 i have a deep distrust of statistics and people who dont like chocolate strawberries:P

most surveys are biased towards the aghenda of the client and methodoligy used - sample used - field sampled - most research is subjective not objective.I worked in the market research and I would put more faith in greyhound form at the track as its based on verifiable unbiased data.ie McDonalds Happy Meals Happy Mums and any number of cereal ads

the other thing - and i know you wont believe this but people lie in surveys and if you dont believe me ask any group of leaving cert guys how many drink,smoke weed and have regular sex. :pac:

Malari · 28-08-2008 2:22pm

Earthhorse wrote: »

Answer the question however you see fit.

What I'm really interested in is the consistency of your reasoning.

You tell us earlier in the thread that you would not have, or have your partner have (I'm not sure if you're a man or a woman), a vasectomy because the procedure is unnecessary. However, pretty much every preventive procedure is unnecessary - it's just a question of the consequences that follow from it.

Would also like to know how consistent you are in favour of legalising things so people can exercise choice. For instance, do you support my choice to:
Drive on whatever side of the road I like.

Own and operate semi-automatic weapons.

Consume any and all types of recreational drugs.

I don't think these things equate but I think I know where you're coming from. So

Drive on whatever side of the road I like. No, because this affects other people
Own and operate semi-automatic weapons. Same as above
Consume any and all types of recreational drugs. To the extent that only your life is affected.

I would say where we differ is that I think aborting a foetus (I'm a woman, by the way) is not ending a valuable human life and only affects the two parents and you obviously think it has a wider impact.

Malari · 28-08-2008 2:30pm

Zulu wrote: »

So? Have a think about what I've posted - you've clearly missed my point. Entirely.
Not really. Some would view abortion... ...look, you've missed my point. Have another look.

The point I'm making is: if you don't want to have children and you want to have unprotected sex, the operation is needed.

We are talking about contraception versus the snip. But agreed, yes it would be damn silly to have unprotected sex if you don't want rugrats.

Abortion- Right or Wrong

Comments