Abortion- Right or Wrong

Zulu · 28-08-2008 2:47pm

Drive on whatever side of the road I like. No, because this affects other people

So does abortion. It affects the father - in that his child is being killed. And it affects the child that is being killed.

[*]Own and operate semi-automatic weapons. Same as above

Indeed - same as above.

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.

So you believe that it's ok to kill humans who aren't as valuable as other humans? Who determines this value? Where is the cut off point? (Between life and death) How do I qualify for life? How do I increase my value?
And while we're on that point; if I'm more valuable than you, can I exterminate you?

Publin · 28-08-2008 2:47pm

seamus wrote: »

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.

I think it was a reasonable enough comparison to be honest. He asked why someone should have to suffer for a "drunken mistake". I was merely pointing out if you killed someone or assaulted a Garda etc., you certainly wouldn't get away without suffering the consequences. If you choose to drink, and choose to have sex - as is your right - then you should accept the responsibility for your actions.

Anyway, even if you don't accept this argument, then I will say in relation to the original point about suffering for a "drunken mistake" - 1. Morning after pill and 2. adoption.

seamus wrote: »

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.

I was waiting for this kind of point to be made, and to be honest, it's an interesting area of the debate IMO. I would say yes, she should carry it to term and I would still be against abortion in this instance. From a law-making point of view, I think it would be too difficult to draw a line in the sand here. What is the child will live 3 months, should they terminate then? ok so... what about 3 years?... and so on.

If we go down the route of legalising abortion in cases where the child will likely only live a few hours,I'd also have a concern that if a couple found their baby would be born with a severe defect/disability, that they'd decide to terminate because it isn't a "perfect" baby.

seamus wrote: »

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.

Well I'm against abortion even if both the mother and the father want it, so I'd only really be concerned about the father's rights if abortion was legalised here. However, to resond to your question, the father can walk away, but he has to pay child support/maintenance costs, so it's not like he can dispose of his "asset" by leaving. Just as I don't believe the mother should be able to without the father's consent.

Malari wrote: »

But why have an operation when it may not be necessary? You can have one (an abortion) if it is needed afterwards.

Why risk needing 2, 3, 4+ abortions when a simple, safe procedure can eliminate the risk of getting pregnant in the first place? It is also more cost effective. The MMR comparison that Earthhorse makes it a good one. Getting injections against tropical diseases before going on holidays would be a similar comparison.

HalloweenJack wrote: »

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.

Again, morning after pill or adoption.

carlybabe1 wrote: »

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

The father will have to pay child support. Children's allowance is also available. There are charities who help and support agencies. But even if you still don't accept this argument, once again - give the baby up for adoption.

carlybabe1 wrote: »

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.

Ok, well what about the comparison I made earlier (drugs). Drug-taking is going to happen anyway, so should we legalise them here just because they're legal and available in some other countries?

Zulu · 28-08-2008 2:49pm

Malari wrote: »

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.

No, we were talking about having an operation as a consequence of your actions.

Publin · 28-08-2008 2:53pm

Malari wrote: »

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.

So you see it as a human life, but not valuable? Interesting. Is it okay to end a life that's not seen as valuable, and also how do we define valuable?

Edit: Don't mean to go off topic, but that sounds a bit like Hitler's justification for killing the Jews (i.e. their lives were less "valuable").

Malari · 28-08-2008 2:57pm

Publin wrote: »

So you see it as a human life, but not valuable? Interesting. Is it okay to end a life that's not seen as valuable, and also how do we define valuable?

Edit: Don't mean to go off topic, but that sounds a bit like Hitler's justification for killing the Jews (i.e. their lives were less "valuable").

Zulu wrote: »

So you believe that it's ok to kill humans who aren't as valuable as other humans? Who determines this value? Where is the cut off point? (Between life and death) How do I qualify for life? How do I increase my value?
And while we're on that point; if I'm more valuable than you, can I exterminate you?

I'm talking about unborn humans, not born ones. I've said this before. When it's in my womb, I and the father determine it's value.

Zulu · 28-08-2008 3:01pm

ehhhh, Godwin's law...

Publin · 28-08-2008 3:03pm

Malari wrote: »

I'm talking about unborn humans, not born ones. I've said this before. When it's in my womb, I and the father determine it's value.

Ok... so 1 minute before birth you determine it's value, and a minute later you don't? And you believe it's ok to terminate right up until the moment before birth?

Zulu · 28-08-2008 3:04pm

Malari wrote: »

I'm talking about unborn humans, not born ones. I've said this before. When it's in my womb, I and the father determine it's value.

Ok, so, just as long as it's in your womb, you get to determine whether or not it lives.

I just can't agree with that rationality. According to that, can you kill the child as it's being born?

Malari · 28-08-2008 3:10pm

Publin wrote: »

Ok... so 1 minute before birth you determine it's value, and a minute later you don't? And you believe it's ok to terminate right up until the moment before birth?

Zulu wrote: »

Ok, so, just as long as it's in your womb, you get to determine whether or not it lives.

I just can't agree with that rationality. According to that, can you kill the child as it's being born?

I knew this would be the response. I'm sorry, I can only speak for myself. I would abort very early in a pregnancy and it's not black and white. As the foetus grows and the more it develops the harder it would be to abort, of course, that's natural. There's no way I would kill a baby on it's way out!

This debate is extremely challenging, as it should be, and I've thought an awful lot more about how I would justify an abortion in the past few days than I ever have before. I would still do it - that's what it comes down to for me. I don't think I can ever explain properly or satisfy anyone's demanding cut-off point retorts because even if I say "4 weeks or under" I will get a facetious response.

Zulu · 28-08-2008 3:15pm

Which is the whole reason I moveed from being pro-choice to anti-abortion.
In my view, any human deserves the benifit of the doubt, and since noone can clearly provide a line in the sand while the child is being developed in the womb, we can only clearly see conception or birth. Anywhere in between has doubt.

Hence, I feel contraception + morning after pill are enough.

Earthhorse · 28-08-2008 3:40pm

Malari wrote: »

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.

In other words, the issue of choice is a red herring. You support the legalisation of abortion not because you value someone's choice but because you believe that choice is about something of no value.

Malari wrote: »

I don't think I can ever explain properly or satisfy anyone's demanding cut-off point retorts because even if I say "4 weeks or under" I will get a facetious response.

With respect, I don't think those responses were facetious necessarily. The fact that you can't give a satisfactory cut off point, the fact that none of us can, at least not one that satisfies all parties, is the whole reason this debate is a contentious one.

In essence, by your answers, you have given a cut off point which is while it's in the womb (because the parents get to determind it's value while it's in the womb).

carlybabe1 · 28-08-2008 3:49pm

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.
I dont recall ever making that connection, but since YOU brought it up there is no denying that a decade or so ago when the referendum came up that the church held monumental sway with regard to the outcome, and to deny that would be naive and ignorant. As for drug taking, clearly it has an effect on other people, family friends etc. ask any recovering addict and they will tell you their behaviour alone has an effect. As far as a couple is concerned, if they are deciding to abort sais baby then it has NO effect on anyone else, even the feotus, as it is just a group of cells that looks remarkably like a fish feotus. In england they dont do terminations after 14 wks. As far as your argument goes about termination at birth or shortly beforehand, it holds about as much weight as your argument about legalising rape etc. And from my reading of jims post,I didnt see where he said, "people are doing it anyway, so just legalise it". And though I agree with you that the father should have a voice, how likely do you think it is that instead of having an abortion the father steps up and assumes full custody and all responsibility?

Publin · 28-08-2008 3:52pm

Malari wrote: »

When it's in my womb, I and the father determine it's value.

I'd never really thought about the "value" of the life in relation to the abortion argument before you raised it to be honest. A thought did pop into my head though - do the grandparents get any say in determining the "value" placed on the unborn child? Or cousins, uncles, aunts etc.?

I just think it all gets too subjective going down this route. I'd agree with what Earthhorse and Zulu have said above.

seamus · 28-08-2008 3:54pm

And just to throw another spanner in the works;

Imagine you believe that a child in the womb is not a human being up to X point (whenever X is). An attacker comes along and stabs/kicks a woman in the stomach before point X and causes irreperable damage to the feotus and otherwise causes the end of the pregnancy, which she fully intended to carry to term. Is this murder? Or is it assault with material damages?
Does the charge depend on the value that the mother placed on their unborn child? I.e. if the mother didn't know she was pregnant, or intended to abort, then it's simply assault. If she intended to carry it to term, it's murder?

This is the issue with applying relativism to these kinds of things; It generates questions and "what ifs". Absolutism is the easy path because you don't need to confront "what if"'s.

Malari · 28-08-2008 4:00pm

Earthhorse wrote: »

In other words, the issue of choice is a red herring. You support the legalisation of abortion not because you value someone's choice but because you believe that choice is about something of no value.

Yeah I guess you could say that the choice is of no value to someone outside the couple. I think.

Earthhorse wrote: »

With respect, I don't think those responses were facetious necessarily. The fact that you can't give a satisfactory cut off point, the fact that none of us can, at least not one that satisfies all parties, is the whole reason this debate is a contentious one.

In essence, by your answers, you have given a cut off point which is while it's in the womb (because the parents get to determind it's value while it's in the womb).

Yes, none of us can give a cut-off point for all instances. I can for myself, as I've said above.

Malari · 28-08-2008 4:05pm

Publin wrote: »

I'd never really thought about the "value" of the life in relation to the abortion argument before you raised it to be honest. A thought did pop into my head though - do the grandparents get any say in determining the "value" placed on the unborn child? Or cousins, uncles, aunts etc.?

I just think it all gets too subjective going down this route. I'd agree with what Earthhorse and Zulu have said above.

But it is subjective. Anyone who supports having abortion as an option is compelled to give answers to "when, for whom, in what circumstances" questions, which are always subjective. It's easy if you don't support abortion to just say "no, in all cases".

Zulu · 28-08-2008 4:08pm

carlybabe1 wrote: »

...I dont recall ever making that connection

I never said you did. In fact, I made a point of saying you didn't.

... it holds about as much weight as your argument about legalising rape

Ok short of bringing out the finger puppets I can't explain myself any clearer.
You do not want to understand my point, and are deliberately misrepresenting me. As such, I can't discuss this with you.

Earthhorse · 28-08-2008 4:10pm

carlybabe1 wrote: »

As far as a couple is concerned, if they are deciding to abort sais baby then it has NO effect on anyone else, even the feotus, as it is just a group of cells that looks remarkably like a fish feotus.

We are all "just a group of cells". What does it matter that it looks remarkably like a fish feotus?

carlybabe1 wrote: »

As far as your argument goes about termination at birth or shortly beforehand, it holds about as much weight as your argument about legalising rape etc.

If someone asserts that a life is not valuable in the womb, or that it's value is determined by it's parents whilst in the womb, then the argument does hold water in that context. JC 2K3 has even openly stated that he is okay with terminations right up until the moment before birth so the argument is absolutely relevant.

carlybabe1 wrote: »

And from my reading of jims post,I didnt see where he said, "people are doing it anyway, so just legalise it".

If he did not outright state then it was heavily implied. And if it wasn't heavily implied what was the point of bringing it up?

carlybabe1 wrote: »

And though I agree with you that the father should have a voice, how likely do you think it is that instead of having an abortion the father steps up and assumes full custody and all responsibility?

Again, what does it matter if only one person asserts this right? They should either have the right or not. It doesn't matter how many people choose to exercise a right; if we believe they should have it then they should.

Publin · 28-08-2008 4:12pm

carlybabe1 wrote: »

I dont recall ever making that connection, but since YOU brought it up there is no denying that a decade or so ago when the referendum came up that the church held monumental sway with regard to the outcome, and to deny that would be naive and ignorant.

The Catholic Church (and other religious organisations) may well have had a big say in it by encouraging their members to vote against legalising abortion. I don't really see why we're bringing to Church into it though.

carlybabe1 wrote: »

As for drug taking, clearly it has an effect on other people, family friends etc. ask any recovering addict and they will tell you their behaviour alone has an effect. As far as a couple is concerned, if they are deciding to abort sais baby then it has NO effect on anyone else, even the feotus, as it is just a group of cells that looks remarkably like a fish feotus.

No effect on anyone else? What about the would-be grandparents, aunts, uncles? I'd also suggest that the psychological effects may well have an effect on her friends, family etc. To suggest that aborting the baby has "no effect on anyone else even the foetus" is nonsensical.

carlybabe1 wrote: »

In england they dont do terminations after 14 wks. As far as your argument goes about termination at birth or shortly beforehand, it holds about as much weight as your argument about legalising rape etc.

I presume you were refering to Zulu's comments here, but seeing as how I also made a comment about termination just before birth I will say that I made this comment in response to Malari's statement that she believed that when it's in her womb she determined it's value - and such a life could be terminated as it is of no value.

carlybabe1 wrote: »

And from my reading of jims post,I didnt see where he said, "people are doing it anyway, so just legalise it".

Taken from post #133 on this thread (page 9):

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.

carlybabe1 wrote: »

And though I agree with you that the father should have a voice, how likely do you think it is that instead of having an abortion the father steps up and assumes full custody and all responsibility?

Regardless of the likelihood, do you not think they should have this right?

Also, I'd say there are quite a few who'd like full custody and the responsibility, given the choice. Have you ever heard of the campaign for Fathers' Rights? I'm don't mean that to sound condescending, just I realise many may genuinely not have heard of it. The group have felt the need to pull high-publicity stunts in order to get media attention and support for their cause.
http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fathers'_rights_movement_in_the_UK . I think these people would quite like the full custody and responsibility.

Zombrex · 28-08-2008 4:14pm

Zulu wrote: »

Which is the whole reason I moveed from being pro-choice to anti-abortion.
In my view, any human deserves the benifit of the doubt, and since noone can clearly provide a line in the sand while the child is being developed in the womb, we can only clearly see conception or birth. Anywhere in between has doubt.

Hence, I feel contraception + morning after pill are enough.

Thats not really true. I draw a line in the sand when the foetus doesn't have a brain. I still think it is safe to proceed when the foetus has a brain that hasn't developed the areas associated with higher brain functions. I get nervous when it has but we are not sure if they are active yet.

I don't think conception is any more a line in the sand than anything else, nor is birth. People just pick conception because it is an easy point to pick (two cells become one)

JC 2K3 · 28-08-2008 4:17pm

nacho libre wrote: »

A sperm does not at any stage have a cns or any of the vital appendanges that are needed for human life.

Neither does a zygote.

nacho libre wrote: »

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.

Well every living thing is just a being. Humans are not special or sacred. Society functions better with rights and laws stemming from these rights. As a society we must come up with a philosophical model to decide which beings should have rights conferred to them and what rights should be conferred on them. Assuming there exists no God, souls or invisible pink unicorns, the model we choose must ensure for a secure and safe society while being realistic and practical about human tendencies and ensuring the most freedom possible.

I propose the philosophical model that grants human rights to human beings at birth, seeing as it is a clearly discernible point and due to the fact that it gives us more control over when new humans are introduced to society and doesn't place the unfair burden of having to carry a child she doesn't want on any woman.

Publin · 28-08-2008 4:29pm

seamus wrote: »

And just to throw another spanner in the works;

Imagine you believe that a child in the womb is not a human being up to X point (whenever X is). An attacker comes along and stabs/kicks a woman in the stomach before point X and causes irreperable damage to the feotus and otherwise causes the end of the pregnancy, which she fully intended to carry to term. Is this murder? Or is it assault with material damages?
Does the charge depend on the value that the mother placed on their unborn child? I.e. if the mother didn't know she was pregnant, or intended to abort, then it's simply assault. If she intended to carry it to term, it's murder?

I would recognise the point of conception and I don't buy into the "value" placed on the life argument put forward by Malari so I can't really answer your question. A (tragic) real-life example of your scenario above was Omagh. A woman pregnant with twins was killed.

seamus wrote: »

This is the issue with applying relativism to these kinds of things; It generates questions and "what ifs". Absolutism is the easy path because you don't need to confront "what if"'s.

I agree with you there. That's why I think we need to have it as either legal or illegal i.e. not "legal if..." scenarios

seamus · 28-08-2008 4:32pm

Publin wrote: »

I would recognise the point of conception and I don't buy into the "value" placed on the life argument put forward by Malari so I can't really answer your question.

...

I agree with you there. That's why I think we need to have it as either legal or illegal i.e. not "legal if..." scenarios

So the morning-after pill is murder, no argument?

xshazarx · 28-08-2008 4:37pm

seamus wrote: »

So the morning-after pill is murder, no argument?

Technically, there is no being there. It takes a certain amount of hours for a sperm to reach an ovary. The morning after pill just prevents them from entering it.

Although I can see your going with your statement.

carlybabe1 · 28-08-2008 4:51pm

No effect on anyone else? What about the would-be grandparents, aunts, uncles? I'd also suggest that the psychological effects may well have an effect on her friends, family etc.

Am I to assume that you believe that the would-be aunts uncles and grandparents ought to have a vote in the decision to abort??? are you serious??? first it was the fathers rights that were being overlooked, now its would-be grandparents, aunts, uncles? Next it will be friends and neighbours, its all very well giving these people a say, but they are not the ones in the end that have to assume responibility 24/7, that in my book takes the vote away from them. As for the psychological damage after an abortion, what about the post natal depression she would suffer after having a baby she never really wanted? And as I've pointed out before, ye cant get a termination after 16 wks, no hospital will do it, either here or in england. This is why (but not only) often when a feotus is dead, the women is forced to continue to carry it to full gestation.\
How about that for psychological damage

Publin · 28-08-2008 4:54pm

seamus wrote: »

So the morning-after pill is murder, no argument?

xshazarx got there before me. For what it's worth, and I'm not speaking for everyone who is anti-abortion, or even those in this thread, but personally I'm not in favour of it. I'd imagine most people would disagree with me on this however.

seamus · 28-08-2008 4:54pm

xshazarx wrote: »

Technically, there is no being there. It takes a certain amount of hours for a sperm to reach an ovary. The morning after pill just prevents them from entering it.

It works to ultimately prevent implantation of a fertilised ovum, but there's no way of telling at what point the process has been interrupted. Since it's often quoted that they can be used up to 72 hours after copulation, there's every chance that a viable blastocyst has been destroyed. Which is effectively the destruction of the cells after conception.

Earthhorse · 28-08-2008 4:55pm

seamus wrote: »

Imagine you believe that a child in the womb is not a human being up to X point (whenever X is). An attacker comes along and stabs/kicks a woman in the stomach before point X and causes irreperable damage to the feotus and otherwise causes the end of the pregnancy, which she fully intended to carry to term. Is this murder? Or is it assault with material damages?
Does the charge depend on the value that the mother placed on their unborn child? I.e. if the mother didn't know she was pregnant, or intended to abort, then it's simply assault. If she intended to carry it to term, it's murder?

Hard cases make for bad law. But I agree that these scenarios are important to think about. There are philosophical implications no matter what side you end up on.

Malari wrote: »

Yes, none of us can give a cut-off point for all instances. I can for myself, as I've said above.

This debate is broader than that though. In law we have to have a cut off point.

Malari wrote: »

It's easy if you don't support abortion to just say "no, in all cases".

That's easy if you're stance is no to abortion in all circumstances, which wouldn't be mine. I think a lot of people who are anti-abortion would allow for it in certain circumstances.

Wicknight wrote: »

Thats not really true. I draw a line in the sand when the foetus doesn't have a brain. I still think it is safe to proceed when the foetus has a brain that hasn't developed the areas associated with higher brain functions. I get nervous when it has but we are not sure if they are active yet.

Isn't that part of the problem with this though? That it's more difficult to measure?

Wicknight wrote: »

I don't think conception is any more a line in the sand than anything else, nor is birth. People just pick conception because it is an easy point to pick (two cells become one)

Conception isn't so much an easy point to pick as it is an easy point to identify.

carlybabe1 · 28-08-2008 4:58pm

We are all "just a group of cells". What does it matter that it looks remarkably like a fish feotus?

This is quite funny I think. some people retain that resemblance more so than others :-)

Publin · 28-08-2008 5:01pm

carlybabe1 wrote: »

No effect on anyone else? What about the would-be grandparents, aunts, uncles? I'd also suggest that the psychological effects may well have an effect on her friends, family etc.

Am I to assume that you believe that the would-be aunts uncles and grandparents ought to have a vote in the decision to abort??? are you serious???

No, I'm not. I don't believe there should be any vote as I don't believe abortion should be legalised.

carlybabe1 wrote: »

first it was the fathers rights that were being overlooked, now its would-be grandparents, aunts, uncles? Next it will be friends and neighbours, its all very well giving these people a say, but they are not the ones in the end that have to assume responibility 24/7, that in my book takes the vote away from them.

They may - what if the mother dies during child birth and the father does a runner? Or the parents are killed a week after the birth in a car crash?
Anyway, I was only using this argument to show that it affects others, just like the taking of drugs (which you claimed affected family and friends, but abortion didn't).

carlybabe1 wrote: »

As for the psychological damage after an abortion, what about the post natal depression she would suffer after having a baby she never really wanted?

Depression can be treated. A baby that has been aborted cannot be treated to return it to full health. Anyway, again my argument was merely to highlight to people whothat felt that some women couldn't cope with giving the baby up for adoption, that abortion can have an equally damaging psychological effect.

CDfm · 28-08-2008 5:06pm

Zulu wrote: »

ehhhh, Godwin's law...

zulu - i hope youre not suggesting that some of the posters are feminazis - if you are I spit on you you John Waters you

Malari · 28-08-2008 5:13pm

CDfm wrote: »

zulu - i hope youre not suggesting that some of the posters are feminazis - if you are I spit on you you John Waters you

The nazi comment was originally made by a boy, unless I'm mistaken?

CDfm · 28-08-2008 5:29pm

Malari wrote: »

The nazi comment was originally made by a boy, unless I'm mistaken?

you got it and a very tongue in cheek take on godwins law:rolleyes:

carlybabe1 · 28-08-2008 5:38pm

Publin wrote: »

No, I'm not. I don't believe there should be any vote as I don't believe abortion should be legalised.

I wasnt talking about avote as in referendum, but i suspect you know that.

They may - what if the mother dies during child birth and the father does a runner? Or the parents are killed a week after the birth in a car crash?
Anyway, I was only using this argument to show that it affects others, just like the taking of drugs (which you claimed affected family and friends, but abortion didn't).

There wouldn't be an issue if they had an abortion, and if the family didnt know (which I suspect is the case for most people) then what effect are you talkin about. something cant effect you if you have no knowledge of it

Depression can be treated. A baby that has been aborted cannot be treated to return it to full health. Anyway, again my argument was merely to highlight to people whothat felt that some women couldn't cope with giving the baby up for adoption, that abortion can have an equally damaging psychological effect.

I dont recall that ever being a factor for discussion, and equally there is counselling services for abortion, both before and after, and as you pointed out resulting depression can be treated.

CDfm · 28-08-2008 5:59pm

Publin makes a point - a close friend has been in councelling for depression relating to an abortion 16 years ago to the point of hospitalisation .

I would say the treatment has not been successful.

Publin · 28-08-2008 6:59pm

carlybabe1 wrote: »

I dont recall that ever being a factor for discussion, and equally there is counselling services for abortion, both before and after, and as you pointed out resulting depression can be treated.

I'm not sure how else to make the point, but I'll try explaining myself again. You stated that the argument to legalise drugs was irrelevant, as drugs affect the friends and family of the person who get addicted and abortion would not.

I'm trying to point out that abortion also affects the family and friends of the person having the abortion. The (negative) psychological impact of an abortion could affect the person and could lead to depression or other changes in behaviour which would be obvious to friends and family - just as you stated in relation to illegal drug use.

carlybabe1 wrote: »

There wouldn't be an issue if they had an abortion, and if the family didnt know (which I suspect is the case for most people) then what effect are you talkin about. something cant effect you if you have no knowledge of it

You could make the same argument for drugs i.e. if the family don't know about the drug use.

carlybabe1 · 28-08-2008 7:14pm

Publin wrote: »

I'm not sure how else to make the point, but I'll try explaining myself again. You stated that the argument to legalise drugs was irrelevant, as drugs affect the friends and family of the person who get addicted and abortion would not.

I'm trying to point out that abortion also affects the family and friends of the person having the abortion. The (negative) psychological impact of an abortion could affect the person and could lead to depression or other changes in behaviour which would be obvious to friends and family - just as you stated in relation to illegal drug use.

You could make the same argument for drugs i.e. if the family don't know about the drug use.

Point conceded, I hadn't thought about it like that. I wouldn't imagine it would be to the same extent though, i.e not as many women would behave to the extent where families would suspect somethin was wrong, where as its much more likely that an addicts family would notice (I dont think im phrasin this properly)
I do still think its a womens individual choice though, and the father if its a thing that he wants to be part of it. My stance is this, I am assuming that any woman/couple that would consider abortion would only do so in dire circumstances, and for that reason alone I think the option should be there and she shouldnt be judged for it, her conscience would be her biggest problem. I dont think its used as a method of contraception,
and there are guidlines and laws to adhere to in england as well as here

Publin · 28-08-2008 7:22pm

carlybabe1 wrote: »

I do still think its a womens individual choice though, and the father if its a thing that he wants to be part of it.

You see, this is where it'd get messy legally speaking. The girl could pretend to not know who the father is, and have the abortion without the father knowing/against his wishes. How would this be prevented?

I understand your point of view and in theory it's great. Practically speaking though, I don't think it would be possible.

CDfm · 28-08-2008 7:47pm

carlybabe1 wrote: »

Point conceded, I hadn't thought about it like that. I wouldn't imagine it would be to the same extent though, i.e not as many women would behave to the extent where families would suspect somethin was wrong, where as its much more likely that an addicts family would notice (I dont think im phrasin this properly)
I do still think its a womens individual choice though, and the father if its a thing that he wants to be part of it. My stance is this, I am assuming that any woman/couple that would consider abortion would only do so in dire circumstances, and for that reason alone I think the option should be there and she shouldnt be judged for it, her conscience would be her biggest problem. I dont think its used as a method of contraception,
and there are guidlines and laws to adhere to in england as well as here

carlybabe1 - are you are suggesting stuff like spousal/partner notification or not.
You are suggesting that women only consider abortion in dire circumstances. What are dire circumstances - it would interfere with my career, my lease sez I cant have kids, olympic team place or in some countries India where girl babies are not wanted.Define dire circumstances.

Roe vs Wade was the US landmark ruling on abortion. Norma McCorvey was Roe and tried to roll back the decision in McCorvey vs Hill. She changed her mind.

carlybabe1 · 28-08-2008 8:31pm

Of course spousal/partner notification, absolutely I believe that as long as there is a relationship with the father he should be consulted. As for dire circumstances, I guess i would say that that would be when single mother-to-be/couple believe that they cannot provide everything a baby would need.......a terminal disease that would result in the mother having to carry a dead feotus to full term (sorry to be blunt but can I cant imagine what that would do to a person/couple) a rape that has resulted in pregnancy, (and I would also include a woman who has been taken advntage of while inebriated), If the mother finds out that she has cancer and needs to recieve chemo/radiation therapy, theres quite a few circumstances. As to the court case you mentioned, I have no idea about that and so cant comment, could you explain

carlybabe1 · 28-08-2008 8:44pm

Heres something interesting, if a pregnant woman is assaulted and miscarriages as a result, the perpetrator wont be done for infanticide/murder under irish law. He/she may be done for assault with intent to procure micarriage, but I dont think the sentence = murder. I'm tryin to find out if the law still stands that a foetus is not viable till birth
anyone in the know?

Publin · 28-08-2008 10:54pm

carlybabe1 wrote: »

Heres something interesting, if a pregnant woman is assaulted and miscarriages as a result, the perpetrator wont be done for infanticide/murder under irish law. He/she may be done for assault with intent to procure micarriage, but I dont think the sentence = murder. I'm tryin to find out if the law still stands that a foetus is not viable till birth
anyone in the know?

To the best of my knowledge, and I'm no expert in the area, but my understand is that it's not murder. My wording may be wrong here but... basically it's not seen as a baby that has been killed, as it is not yet born. For example, in the Constitution it's the "right to life" of the unborn that is protected, it doesn't not classify an unborn baby as a child. I am of course open to correction on all of this.

carlybabe1 wrote: »

Of course spousal/partner notification, absolutely I believe that as long as there is a relationship with the father he should be consulted.

How do you determine if the girl is in a relationship when she turns up for an abortion? How do you know she has the consent of the father?

Nice idea in theory, not possible in practice IMO.

carlybabe1 wrote: »

As for dire circumstances, I guess i would say that that would be when single mother-to-be/couple believe that they cannot provide everything a baby would need.......a terminal disease that would result in the mother having to carry a dead feotus to full term (sorry to be blunt but can I cant imagine what that would do to a person/couple) a rape that has resulted in pregnancy, (and I would also include a woman who has been taken advntage of while inebriated)

Again, how do we prove she was drunk at the time? Would the morning after pill not be enough to cater for these circumstances you mention?

CDfm · 28-08-2008 11:14pm

As for dire circumstances, I guess i would say that that would be when single mother-to-be/couple believe that they cannot provide everything a baby would need.......quote from carlybabe!

Now that would be Utopia where everyone shares the same values etc.

Roe vs Wade is the USA case from 1973 which dealt with abortion.

Whats the law if a woman kills a baby?Can a woman be prosecuted for going abroad for an abortion. I dont know- does anyone?

I think what I am saying is that people have different sets of moral values informed by their values and religion might be one- unlike anthills and beehives - where everything is ordered by society

So its different to be clear cut about whats the norm.Yours seems to be its mother only - not a criticism but informed by experience - yours.

Because this thread is here just shows the level of diversity of opinion.More info and informed opinion here than Questions and Answers.

nacho libre · 29-08-2008 1:40pm

JC 2K3 wrote: »

Neither does a zygote.

Well every living thing is just a being. Humans are not special or sacred. Society functions better with rights and laws stemming from these rights. As a society we must come up with a philosophical model to decide which beings should have rights conferred to them and what rights should be conferred on them. Assuming there exists no God, souls or invisible pink unicorns, the model we choose must ensure for a secure and safe society while being realistic and practical about human tendencies and ensuring the most freedom possible.

I propose the philosophical model that grants human rights to human beings at birth, seeing as it is a clearly discernible point and due to the fact that it gives us more control over when new humans are introduced to society and doesn't place the unfair burden of having to carry a child she doesn't want on any woman.

A zygote has the potential to develop one. A sperm does not.
I disagree with you that humans are not worthy of distinct recognition from other living things like an amoeba for example. However, that's a separate argument.
Based on your views in this thread, granting human rights at birth is not a clearly discernible point, it's just a arbitrary position you take in order to support your position that aborting up until the child pops out is acceptable. I think it is a contradiction to propose suddenly conferring rights at birth because the baby is not a 'person', therefore like the unborn child, you justify aborting, it has no human "value", so it should be ok to cease the existence of the new born baby if it's a burden for the mother.
I believe we give protection to the unborn, by giving it the benefit of the doubt, because as your argument demonstrates no one can clearly provide a line in the sand as to when the developing child should be afforded human rights.

CDfm · 29-08-2008 2:41pm

a sperm is a gift from god -everyone knows that

Malari · 29-08-2008 2:55pm

CDfm wrote: »

a sperm is a gift from god -everyone knows that

How come he gave boys so many more gifts than girls? Assuming an ovum a gift too...:rolleyes:

CDfm · 29-08-2008 3:45pm

Malari wrote: »

How come he gave boys so many more gifts than girls? Assuming an ovum a gift too...:rolleyes:

because boys share and girls dont? dont you know anything - you must be a girl

carlybabe1 · 29-08-2008 3:48pm

Yes boys can be very generous, sharin it all about

:D:D

CDfm · 29-08-2008 4:44pm

carlybabe1 wrote: »

Yes boys can be very generous, sharin it all about :D:D

dont bring sharon into this. I was young OK

carlybabe1 · 29-08-2008 5:07pm

CDfm wrote: »

dont bring sharon into this. I was young OK

I dont even want to know

I'll get booted off for bein off topic :eek: sorry mods

Abortion- Right or Wrong

Comments