Abortion whats your stance?

eveie · 05-09-2008 2:38pm #1

this is pretty much a continuation of "abortion right or wrong"
mods i not sure if you'l allow this thread, so just giving it a go. also it is obvious that opinions will be very varied so if everyone could be civil with no personal slander or abusive posts.

MrPudding · 05-09-2008 2:52pm

eveie wrote: »

this is pretty much a continuation of "abortion right or wrong"
mods i not sure if you'l allow this thread, so just giving it a go. also it is obvious that opinions will be very varied so if everyone could be civil with no personal slander or abusive posts.

In before the lock.

My stance is simple. I am pro choice. If you want to call that pro baby murdering then that is fine by me.

I would prefer if a woman did not need to have an abortion but I believe she should have the right to have one if she wishes, regardless of her reasons.

As for cut off point, I reckon around the time when the foetus could survive outside the womb seems reasonable. Beyond that I feel it should only be for medical reasons, where the mothers life is at risk, for example.

I personally believe that the woman's rights should take precedence over that of the foetus. For this reason I not really care whether it is human or not, whether it has a soul or any of the other arguments against. Whatever it is, it is inside the woman's body and if she wants to get rid of it then she should be entitled to do so.

MrP

eveie · 05-09-2008 2:59pm

mr P im hoping there wont be a lock as long as we all stay civil.
the problem with what youur saying is that every baby is different, a child of 20 wks could survive outside of the bidy whereas a child of 24 weeks may not.
your use of the word "foetus" isnt accurate when describing a being that can live outside the womb....."oh mary its a beautiful foetus"
can i ask why you do not care weather it is human or not? is that not just a cop out? to avoid considering it human so you can justify the abortion?

MrPudding · 05-09-2008 3:12pm

eveie wrote: »

mr P im hoping there wont be a lock as long as we all stay civil.

Here's hoping.

eveie wrote: »

the problem with what youur saying is that every baby is different, a child of 20 wks could survive outside of the bidy whereas a child of 24 weeks may not.

So make it 20 weeks then.

eveie wrote: »

your use of the word "foetus" isnt accurate when describing a being that can live outside the womb....."oh mary its a beautiful foetus"

Is it not a foetus when it is in the womb? Perhaps I am mistaken but that is what I thought, and given that we are talking about something that is still inside the womb I thought feotus was appropriate.

eveie wrote: »

can i ask why you do not care weather it is human or not? is that not just a cop out? to avoid considering it human so you can justify the abortion?

I don't care because I feel the mother's rights are more important. It is not a cop out. Quite the opposite in fact. Even if I believed it was human I would still consider the mother's rights to be of higher importance.

MrP

eveie · 05-09-2008 3:32pm

ok so how would you feel if it was your child the women was pregnant with would you still be of the opinion that its her choice?
your being quite flipent by saying "make it 20 weeks then" it isnt a straight cut as that, so prior to 20 weeks the unborn has no rights and is considered non-human? can you see how unfair that is?

Kinetic^ · 05-09-2008 3:36pm

Abortions for all!!!!! Pro choice.

eveie · 05-09-2008 3:41pm

kinetic is there any reasoning behind your opinion?

MrPudding · 05-09-2008 3:50pm

eveie wrote: »

ok so how would you feel if it was your child the women was pregnant with would you still be of the opinion that its her choice?

That woudl depend on the circumstances. I can imagine that it would be possible I would not be happy, in some cases. But I can see that when making decisions about emotive subjects you have to be objective about it.

eveie wrote: »

your being quite flipent by saying "make it 20 weeks then" it isnt a straight cut as that, so prior to 20 weeks the unborn has no rights and is considered non-human? can you see how unfair that is?

I thought I made it quite clear. I don't care if it is human or not. As far as I am concerned the mother rights are more important. So what if it is unfair? There are many many things in life that are unfair. I don't think it says anywhere life has to be fair.

MrP

eveie · 05-09-2008 3:55pm

it sure doesnt but i think as humans we have an obligation to be fair to man kind in general.
i totally disagree with you that the mothers rights are more important, no one has the right over another person, be they1 or 100 yrs old.

MrPudding · 05-09-2008 3:56pm

eveie wrote: »

it sure doesnt but i think as humans we have an obligation to be fair to man kind in general.

You don't really though. Making a woman continue with a pregnancy when she doesn't want to is not fair on her, is it?

eveie wrote: »

i totally disagree with you that the mothers rights are more important, no one has the right over another person, be they1 or 100 yrs old.

Tell that to someone on death row.

MrP

Kinetic^ · 05-09-2008 6:21pm

eveie wrote: »

kinetic is there any reasoning behind your opinion?

I can choose whatever I want, hence the pro choice statement. I thought that was clear!

philologos · 05-09-2008 6:35pm

I'm pro-life. I believe the child has rights to be afforded to it as well as to the mother. There is a right to live for all humanity. However I would recognise that there may be a need to abort in extreme medical emergencies where the mothers life is endangered. Basically my view is already supported in Irish law on the matter.

Bottle_of_Smoke · 05-09-2008 7:14pm

Pro-Abortion. Once it's done before the child has ability to feel pain I can only see a religious objection. If a God's against abortions is shown to exist I'll change my mind.

kizzyr · 05-09-2008 8:00pm

Pro choice. I think, save for circumstances where there is a threat to the life of the mother or significant foetal defects are discovered late into the pregnancy then the cut off should be 16 weeks.
Ultimately I do not see a foetus at 12 weeks as being a person, it is a developing clump of cells, cells with great potential yes but cells nonetheless. I think the woman who is an independent entity in her own right has rights that trump those of the foetus at this point.

CDfm · 05-09-2008 11:31pm

MrPudding wrote: »

You don't really though. Making a woman continue with a pregnancy when she doesn't want to is not fair on her, is it?

Tell that to someone on death row.

MrP

a question is with all the contraception options available including the morning after pill - why would someone need an abortion?Its a simple question - women dont just become pregnant? What would someone need an abortion other than no access to contraception?

given the inaccuracy of calculating the actual date of conception what cut off time would you choose and why?

also - Ireland has no death row. However the Foetus/child has done nothing so why terminate - just for convenience- please explain - if you have a moral stance you should elaborate.

rainbow kirby · 05-09-2008 11:37pm

Pro-choice, and I believe there should be a heavy focus on sex education and contraception to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies in the first place. The rights of a woman are more important than that of a ball of cells incapable of independent survival.

CDfm · 05-09-2008 11:45pm

rainbow kirby wrote: »

Pro-choice, and I believe there should be a heavy focus on sex education and contraception to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies in the first place. The rights of a woman are more important than that of a ball of cells incapable of independent survival.

what rights does a woman have that are superior to the rights of a child? By getting pregnant by definition she has diluted those rights and has a responsibility to her unborn child?

Does a woman have proprietory rights over an unborn/child foetus? Then in what circumstances should she be able to exercise these rights?

Does the father have rights?

Laphroaig52 · 05-09-2008 11:56pm

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Pro-Abortion. Once it's done before the child has ability to feel pain I can only see a religious objection. If a God's against abortions is shown to exist I'll change my mind.

Why do you think it is acceptable to terminate a child's life as long as it doesn't feel pain? Could the same approach be applied to a child of,say, 5 years old?

Zombrex · 05-09-2008 11:57pm

My position can be summaries as follows -

Human beings are special because of their brains and the personality/sentience/consciousness stored in them. A human that has this ability is considered a "being" rather than simply a life form.
A human being already in existence should have expectation that his/her personhood will be respected as well as the right to continued existence.
A foetus before it has developed a brain capable of generating personality/sentience/consciousness is not considered a living human being despite the fact that it is a living life form. The person does not yet exist.
A human that has irreparably lost the brain capacity to form personality/sentience/consciousness is not considered a living human being, despite the fact that it is a living life form. The person has been lost.
Abortion of a foetus before this ability has materialised is the killing of a living creature but not a person as no person yet exists.
Termination of life support or assistance such as feeding, to a living human who has lost this ability is the killing of a living creature but not of a person as the person has ceased to exist.
It is not unethical or immoral to prevent a as yet non-existent person from coming into existence.

Abortion is moral if it is carried out before the foetus has developed a brain capable of human personality and sentience. And no I don't know exactly when that happens, but that is irrelevant to the moral argument. It is an issue for the practicalities of adhering to the moral argument.

CDfm · 06-09-2008 12:07am

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Pro-Abortion. Once it's done before the child has ability to feel pain I can only see a religious objection. If a God's against abortions is shown to exist I'll change my mind.

Please can you be more precise.

There is a margin or error in the dating of the development of a foetus - some people say 22 weeks or whatever. Give a stab at your cut off point? Give reasons if you can.

The objection is not merely religous - some non religous doctors and medical staff have problems with abortions on ethical grounds?So on ethical grounds you must have a view.

CDfm · 06-09-2008 12:19am

nice to see ya posting wicknight

I never understand the biology terms but at what stage does a foetus/ unborn child have a life force other than a group of cells.

From a moral/etical point when does this need to be protected?

Zombrex · 06-09-2008 12:34am

CDfm wrote: »

nice to see ya posting wicknight

I never understand the biology terms but at what stage does a foetus/ unborn child have a life force other than a group of cells.

From a moral/etical point when does this need to be protected?

I wouldn't call it a "life force", that sounds like something out of a children's cartoon :pac:

I would say personhood. When the lump of cells a person and when is it not.

To me the answer is obvious, when it has the ability to form human sentience/personality/conciousness (note, not the same as being conscious, ie not asleep or unconscious. a sleep people are still persons because there exists a person to wake up).

The key component is the brain. The brain is what makes humans special, it what gives us the ability to be self-aware and to have conscious thought.

The easiest way to think about this is a person on life support who has a perfectly functioning body in ever single respect except their brain is destroyed beyond repair. Most people would say the person is gone, they are "dead", despite the fact that the life form is continuing to live and the rest of the body is for all intensive purposes fine.

A person is their brain and their brain is the person.

Until the foetus has developed a brain the person does not yet exist. They no more exist than they do when it is just a sperm and an egg about to join. A life form exists, but simply being a life form has never been considered important, simply being alive has never been considered important. It is what the life form is, not that it is alive, that is important.

CDfm · 06-09-2008 1:55am

are you dissin futerama :pac:

Anyway get your point- great descriptions.

On your example of a brain dead body. If you have someone who is brain dead there are tests to establish that and can quantify brain activity- are these reliable in like the way we hear of people waking up from comas? On from that is there a point in time or stage of development where the unborn life form attains personhood and are there reliable criteria to determine that?

How would you quantify this? Is it a stage in physical development or is it a point in time ie the horrible number of weeks or is it the central nervous system or something else.

The reason I am asking is to understand it myself - so that I can look at it from an "ethical" issue rather than a" religous/ catholic" one. Is abortion ethical in the context of your post and is there a time line/stage of development when it becomes unethical.

In my mind if someone is "Im pro-choice and its cos Im anti-religion" thats a cop out well Daah you must have some ethical conciderations to base your decisions on then matey - so what tell me?

The other issue I see as relevant is posts about sex education/reliability of contraception. Though its beyond your post. Lets call it wreckless sex ( a bit of in line alliteration). This is more personal moral stuff. But do you think there is a point where abortion should not be available for normal pregnancies? That is two conscenting adults and healthy unborn life form?

tallaght01 · 06-09-2008 9:52am

Wicknight wrote: »

The key component is the brain. The brain is what makes humans special, it what gives us the ability to be self-aware and to have conscious thought.

The easiest way to think about this is a person on life support who has a perfectly functioning body in ever single respect except their brain is destroyed beyond repair. Most people would say the person is gone, they are "dead", despite the fact that the life form is continuing to live and the rest of the body is for all intensive purposes fine.

A person is their brain and their brain is the person.

Until the foetus has developed a brain the person does not yet exist. They no more exist than they do when it is just a sperm and an egg about to join. A life form exists, but simply being a life form has never been considered important, simply being alive has never been considered important. It is what the life form is, not that it is alive, that is important.

The problems here, wicknight, as we've said before, is that there's brain development at about 6 weeks gestation. And then the brain isn't fuly developed until childhood.

So, where do we draw the line with regard to when the brain is developed enough to become a human being?

CDfm · 06-09-2008 10:16am

Yes but does this brain give it a will to live.

Not being crude but some miscarriages are like a heavy discharge and get flushed down the toilet. The miscarriage can be emotional but I have to say its like a bloody blob that the body rejects.

So are all early pregnancies bloody blobs that can be ethically gotten rid off?

kizzyr · 06-09-2008 10:23am

CDfm wrote: »

are you dissin futerama :pac:

Anyway get your point- great descriptions.

On your example of a brain dead body. If you have someone who is brain dead there are tests to establish that and can quantify brain activity- are these reliable in like the way we hear of people waking up from comas? On from that is there a point in time or stage of development where the unborn life form attains personhood and are there reliable criteria to determine that?

How would you quantify this? Is it a stage in physical development or is it a point in time ie the horrible number of weeks or is it the central nervous system or something else.

The reason I am asking is to understand it myself - so that I can look at it from an "ethical" issue rather than a" religous/ catholic" one. Is abortion ethical in the context of your post and is there a time line/stage of development when it becomes unethical.

In my mind if someone is "Im pro-choice and its cos Im anti-religion" thats a cop out well Daah you must have some ethical conciderations to base your decisions on then matey - so what tell me?

The other issue I see as relevant is posts about sex education/reliability of contraception. Though its beyond your post. Lets call it wreckless sex ( a bit of in line alliteration). This is more personal moral stuff. But do you think there is a point where abortion should not be available for normal pregnancies? That is two conscenting adults and healthy unborn life form?

Brain dead is dead you don't come back from that. Essentially someone who is brain dead is a corpse being ventilated by machines. Being in a coma is different to being brain dead.
Contraception doesn't work all of the time even when someone uses it properly.

boobookitty · 06-09-2008 10:23am

I'm pro choice.

But when a woman engages in sex without contraception despite having clear knowledge of the outcome (pregnancy), the ole' "Oh, it will never happen to me." I kind of think she should keep it.

However, if she becomes pregnant due to some form of abuse (rape etc) then I feel she should be allowed to have an abortion.

Also, if a mother does a test and finds out the child will be handicapped/have some sort of disease, what should happen?

CDfm · 06-09-2008 10:31am

kizzyr wrote: »

Brain dead is dead you don't come back from that. Essentially someone who is brain dead is a corpse being ventilated by machines. Being in a coma is different to being brain dead.
Contraception doesn't work all of the time even when someone uses it properly.

fair enough; but do you ethical conciderations a line ya wouldnt crossor is it wayhay ya can have an abortion any time?

CDfm · 06-09-2008 10:41am

fair point boobookitty - anyone know if rape victims get offered the morning after pill? I dont know?

just curious here - but lived in england and you could pop into your GP surgery or A & E for the morning after pill no cost? How readily available is it available in Ireland and is it cost prohibitive for teenagers say? WEll I dont know!

So if there is a sex education/ contraception availability issue here whats the score these days and how can it be improved?

kizzyr · 06-09-2008 10:59am

CDfm wrote: »

fair enough; but do you ethical conciderations a line ya wouldnt crossor is it wayhay ya can have an abortion any time?

I'm not 100% sure I understand your sentence.

I don't agree with abortion at any time. However, I do think that a woman should have the choice to access a termination in her own country up to 16 weeks. It is rare that someone wouldn't realise that they were pregnant by this time and have had time to give consideration to their situation.
After the 16 weeks if severe foetal abnormalities were detected then I do think that the woman should again have the choice to continue or terminate.

CDfm wrote: »

fair point boobookitty - anyone know if rape victims get offered the morning after pill? I dont know?

just curious here - but lived in england and you could pop into your GP surgery or A & E for the morning after pill no cost? How readily available is it available in Ireland and is it cost prohibitive for teenagers say? WEll I dont know!

The MAP is available only on prescription here in Ireland and so that necessitates a visit to your GP or Well Woman Clinic and so that alone costs €50/50. Then there is the cost of the MAP itself. Also it doesn't work for all women all of the time. I think forcing a woman who has been raped to continue with a pregnancy she doesn't want is compounding the act and tragedy of what has first happened to her by the act of rape.

Zombrex · 06-09-2008 11:09am

tallaght01 wrote: »

The problems here, wicknight, as we've said before, is that there's brain development at about 6 weeks gestation. And then the brain isn't fuly developed until childhood.

So, where do we draw the line with regard to when the brain is developed enough to become a human being?

That certain is a problem, but as I said it is a problem for the practicalities of implementing the moral argument, not the moral argument itself.

I think too often people pick a practical point, such as conception, not because there is any moral justification for that point, but simply because it is easy for humans to pick.

With my moral argument it is a lot harder to pick a specific point to say abortions before but not after this point. But, I feel at least, that there is much stronger moral argument behind it.

No one said ethics was going to be easy :pac:

Abortion whats your stance?

Comments