Legalise abortion

Zulu · 12-05-2010 2:09pm

drkpower wrote: »

If the maternal rights are merely 'conveniences' and clearly rank below the foetal right to life, have you considered what other issues arise as a result of that position? For instance, if a mother is threatening the life of her foetus by:
1) refusing to have a caesarean section, without which the foetus will die;
2) abusing drugs
should the maternal right to privacy and bodily integrity be breached in order to vindicate the life of the foetus, which outranks these rights? If not, why not?

I'm not really interested in discussing your straw-men - this is an abortion discussion, but as an aside:

1) interesting case, I certainly haven't given it too much thought, however, off the top of my hat, the mother isn't opting to undertake an action that is ultimately fatal to the child so it's not really the same.

2) I'm a little unclear as to the purpose of this straw-man. Pregnant women shouldn't abuse drugs. Should we legalise drugs for pregnant women? No. Of course not.

drkpower · 12-05-2010 2:17pm

Zulu wrote: »

I'm not really interested in discussing your straw-men - this is an abortion discussion, but as an aside:

1) interesting case, I certainly haven't given it too much thought, however, off the top of my hat, the mother isn't opting to undertake an action that is ultimately fatal to the child so it's not really the same.

2) I'm a little unclear as to the purpose of this straw-man. Pregnant women shouldn't abuse drugs. Should we legalise drugs for pregnant women? No. Of course not.

If you dont want to discuss it, dont discuss it. But it is not a 'straw man'. We are involved in a debate, in the context of abortion, on the conflicts of rights between mother & foetus. You have expressed a view as to a potential resolution of this conflict to your satisfaction. I am simply pointing to other consequences of your position, and asking if you have considered them. If you haven't that's fine, but it is not a straw-man.

on 1) The mother, by not undergoing a C-Section IS putting the foetus at risk, that is the point (there are a number of conditions which make this a medical reality; foetal distress in labour, liquor leakage pre-term, numerous others). IF her right to bodily integrity ranks, as you have said, below the foetal right to life, does it not follow that her right to bodily integrity can be breached to save the foetus? If not, why not?

on 2) My contention on this pint is that, if the maternal right to privacy ranks below the foetal right to life, does it not follow that her right to privacy can be breached (by detention) to stop her from abusing drugs and to save the foetus? If not, why not?

As an aside, on 1, this is the great elephant in the room in Irish obstetrics, from a medico-legal perspective. This issue has never been tested in court but based on Irish law, it is likely that a mother would be forced to undergo a caesarean section against her will in these circumstances to save the life of the foetus. It has come before the courts in the UK and will here at some point; it will be very interesting to see the reaction.

Zulu · 12-05-2010 2:47pm

Your examples may be somewhat relevant but they are straw-men.

In the case of:
1) you're discussing forcing someone to undergo a medical procedure in order to save another. This isn't the same as abortion. The outcome of no medical operation is a certainty. It's probably more similar to forcing some one to donate an organ to save another.

2) one thing that is clearly evident across the globe is that detention doesn't prevent the consumption of illicit narcotics.

...but I stress that neither point is abortion. Why not tackle the real problem (as I've stating time and again in this thread)? The real reason people wish to avail of abortion is because they do not want to have a child - not because of some bizarre medical issue thet might kill them.

StealthRolex · 12-05-2010 2:59pm

Zulu wrote: »

...but I stress that neither point is abortion. Why not tackle the real problem (as I've stating time and again in this thread)? The real reason people wish to avail of abortion is because they do not want to have a child - not because of some bizarre medical issue thet might kill them.

It would be interesting to see the demographic of who supports abortion given that:

a) it gets men off the hook

b) it allows men to pressurize women into having an abortion for the purposes of a)

c) it still leaves women with having to deal with the consequences

d) it leaves the woman open to accusations of murder later in the relationship.

e) in medical cases it gets doctors off the hook and makes their life easier.

f) it increases female infertility risks

g) it increases maternal mortality risks

Do turkeys, Christmas and ballot boxes come to mind?

drkpower · 12-05-2010 3:42pm

Zulu wrote: »

...but I stress that neither point is abortion. Why not tackle the real problem (as I've stating time and again in this thread)? The real reason people wish to avail of abortion is because they do not want to have a child - not because of some bizarre medical issue thet might kill them.

Of course they are not the same as abortion. Nor have I said they are. A child could see that.

But if one comes to a determination on the issue of abortion on the basis of an assessment of the conflict of rights between mother and foetus, you need to be able to consider the consequences of that position. That is why I am exploring this. And it seems clear from your answers that you havent properly considered the real and practical consequences of your own view that the maternal right to privacy/bodily integrity rank below the foetal right to life. Indeed the fact you refer to this consideration as a 'no-brainer' suggests you have given the matter little thought.

Further, our constitutional prohibition of 'abortion' does not once mention abortion. It mentions rights. So the abortion issue cannot be considered seperate to a wider discussion on rights. One informs the other and any attempt to deal with one, without a proper consideration of the other, is doomed to failure. Bear in mind that this same constitutional provision (which 'prohibits abortion') also, in all likelihood, permits the forcible detention/restraint of a woman in order to force her to submit to a C-section (as in my point 1.).

Zulu · 12-05-2010 4:18pm

drkpower wrote: »

And it seems clear from your answers that you havent properly considered the real and practical consequences of your own view that the maternal right to privacy/bodily integrity rank below the fetal right to life. Indeed the fact you refer to this consideration as a 'no-brainer' suggests you have given the matter little thought.

First off, be respectful if you wish me to engage; declaring defacto that I haven't considered this is both wrong, and belittling of your salient point.
Secondly, second guessing what consideration I've given to the topic is aggravating and hardly conducive of a civil & rational discussion. If you wish to presuppose my position - fine, but keep it to yourself & out of this discussion.

Further, our constitutional prohibition of 'abortion' does not once mention abortion. It mentions rights.

There is an underling reality to this issue. It's clear as a bell, but people tend to dance around it pandering to sensitivities. I think doing so is counter-productive, and prevents the topic being tackled.

Sure we can discuss various rights and the semantics of a "person" or "life", but in reality, whatever the outcome of any such discussion isn't going to change the crux of the problem - some people are for "terminating" a human in order to protect their current lifestyle, others don't believe that's a good enough reason to "terminate" another human.

StealthRolex · 12-05-2010 4:56pm

drkpower wrote: »

Bear in mind that this same constitutional provision (which 'prohibits abortion') also, in all likelihood, permits the forcible detention/restraint of a woman in order to force her to submit to a C-section (as in my point 1.).

Scaremongering. It can not and does not. Are you constructing another straw man?

drkpower · 12-05-2010 5:52pm

StealthRolex wrote: »

Scaremongering. It can not and does not. Are you constructing another straw man?

Not scaremongering at all. This issue has never been considered before by the Irish courts, so I wouldnt say that the Supreme Court will definitely rule this way, but the likelihood is that they will, or at least it is the logical way they woul rule given the protection of the unborn under A.40.3.3. If you can construct a legal argument as to why the SC would not act in this way, given the terms of A. 40.3.3, I look forward to hearing from you.

Or you could read the odd legal medicine textbook, if you are interested. Or you could look at recent topics and questions in medical law curriculae in the LawSociety, where this very issue has been a topic for questions. Are the LawSociety scare-mongering?

There are a number of cases in the UK of 'forced ceasarean sections' but the latest ruling there has essentially ruled against it in the long term. Our constitutional protection of the unborn changes the balance in Ireland however, and the considered legal view (including my own) is that the SC would vindicate the life of the unborn by breaching the maternal right to bodily integrity and forcing her to undergo a C-S.

drkpower · 12-05-2010 6:39pm

Zulu wrote: »

Sure we can discuss various rights and the semantics of a "person" or "life", but in reality, whatever the outcome of any such discussion isn't going to change the crux of the problem - some people are for "terminating" a human in order to protect their current lifestyle, others don't believe that's a good enough reason to "terminate" another human.

The discussion of rights is the only way you can actually come to a determination on all of the issues in this debate, the legality/permisaability of 'abortion on demand' included. That is the necessary first step. If you come to a view on where the balance of rights lies, you must challenge yourself by honestly exploring what the practical consequences of that position is. If you dont do that, or havent done that, I dont think your view is of any real value.

The problem with your second sentence is that you charachterise the reason for termination as 'to protect their current lifestyle'. A woman who wants a termination is likely to frame her view that she is so entitled as 'protecting her right to bodily integrity', which is a resonable contention. If you feel that the foetal right to life trumps her 'right to bodily integrity', you need to consider the other areas that view leads you, or you need to distinguish them.

Permabear · 16-05-2010 11:25am

This post has been deleted.

common sense brigade · 26-11-2010 9:58am

some of you people on this thread would not be sat here today if abortion was legal. Just my view. I could never abort a baby. the unborn child has a soul and rights like anybody else. It is not natural to have an abortion. and i am glad I live in a country were it is illegal. i know people will go mental at me and say what about young people getting pregnant. what about rape. My answer to that would be adoption.I have a little girl. Her heart started beating at 6-7 weeks. Who am I to decide to stop her little heart from beating. And convince myself she didnt feel the pain of dying. Say what yous all like. Abortion is i understand what some people feel is right for them. Its just not for me and not a society I would want to live in.

Nevyn · 26-11-2010 10:03am

It is legal under certain very narrow and stricted circumstance but it hasn't be legistlated for so the health services and private practices can not preforum them and women are sent to the UK rather then having what is a legal abortion here.

wolfpawnat · 26-11-2010 10:11am

I do not think for one second it would decrease crime. Based on a generalization here, we all know what background the majority of those who turn out to be petty criminals and the like tend to be and they are not the people whom would avail of said services.

Though I myself cannot see myself ever getting one, I do believe it should be a service offered to those who wish to have it. It is safer than the vodka, coat hanger and a bath tub method which some feel they have to resort to!

Plus it would do the HSE no harm to have the money going to private clinics in Britain to go here instead!

Zulu · 26-11-2010 10:20am

wolfpawnat wrote: »

Though I myself cannot see myself ever getting one

Why? Why can you not imagine yourself opting for one?

I do believe it should be a service offered to those who wish to have it. It is safer than the vodka, coat hanger and a bath tub method which some feel they have to resort to!

I don't buy this. We don't legalise just because someone might resort to something drastic. If that was the case, we'd legalise drugs, to ensure no one snorts rat poison; we'd legalise sex with minors to prevent children getting raped.

Plus it would do the HSE no harm to have the money going to private clinics in Britain to go here instead!

I think when some people are talking about human life - adding the potential monetary gain is particularly crass.

wolfpawnat · 26-11-2010 10:31am

Zulu wrote: »

Why? Why can you not imagine yourself opting for one?

Short of a rape or a terrible medical problem I cannot see myself having one. That is my choice. I thought through having one in England when I was pregnant before but opted not to!

Zulu wrote: »

I don't buy this. We don't legalise just because someone might resort to something drastic. If that was the case, we'd legalise drugs, to ensure no one snorts rat poison; we'd legalise sex with minors to prevent children getting raped.
I think when some people are talking about human life - adding the potential monetary gain is particularly crass.

If a girl decides she is destroying the baby you and I cannot stop her. We can only try and insure the best medical care possible for her rather than her getting infections.

Unplanned pregnancies are not like drugs. A young girl may feel trapped. She may still be in school. Her parents may act as though this is the middle ages! We cannot force her to have a baby either!

Though I myself would suggest adoption so to ensure the child a secure and loving home. Many women may not want to carry the child to term!

nozzferrahhtoo · 26-11-2010 10:42am

common sense brigade wrote: »

some of you people on this thread would not be sat here today if abortion was legal.

It would be worth looking up the phrase “appeal to emotion” because that is what this is. If I was aborted then I would not really care would I? You are trying to use retrospective emotion to cloud a moral judgement to which it is not connected.

There are many people not alive today, for example, because of the legality of condoms. Where is your concern for them?

In fact even conception itself should be bad in your eyes because for every person on the planet, there are several billion other people contained in the same Ejaculation that are not sitting here today because that person got there first.

common sense brigade wrote: »

the unborn child has a soul

I have yet to be shown any evidence as to the existence of "soul". However maybe you can define what it is you are talking about and establish it's existence as what people mean by the word seems to vary by as many instances of the use of the word.

It would be a massively important piece of data to have in any moral argument about rights if, for example, you could find something called "soul" was inserted into the child on day 1 of conception. It would be a piece of evidence that I am hard pushed to imagine would not leave our discourse on this subject unchanged if not unrecognisable to that which we currently have.

common sense brigade wrote: »

It is not natural to have an abortion.

There are two problems with this sentence.

The first is that it is wrong. Abortion is in fact very natural as nature itself engages in a massive amount of it and you would be surprised to here the % of pregnancies that self abort in the first 12 weeks of development.

The second is that it is irrelevant. “Natural” does not equate to morally “right” or “wrong”. Do you think spending money, typing posts on an internet forum, cooking food, turning on electric lights, or driving to work in a car are all “natural” things?

common sense brigade wrote: »

and i am glad I live in a country were it is illegal.

Oh, silly me, I was assuming you lived in Ireland.

common sense brigade wrote: »

i know people will go mental at me and say what about young people getting pregnant. what about rape.

Actually you do not know this because I for one think rape is irrelevant. The committing of one crime for me is not reason to commit another. IF we were to consider abortion a crime therefore, I would not see Rape as a valid reason to commit it. The issue is that I do not see abortion as being something we should consider a crime, so the reasons for engaging in it whether it be rape, financial, or just because the person plain feels like it, are just irrelevant.

common sense brigade wrote: »

My answer to that would be adoption.

That is great for you and is your choice. No one here is arguing that you should have an abortion. We are arguing that people should have that choice. If your choice is to use adoption then great! Not a single person here has issue with that. If you choose not to have an abortion then that is great too... all we are arguing for here is that you HAVE that choice. How you use it is not our concern.

Zulu · 26-11-2010 10:48am

wolfpawnat wrote: »

If a girl decides she is destroying the baby you and I cannot stop her.

Perhaps - but that doesn't equate to enabling her. If I decide to speed on the way home - you can't stop me, but that doesn't equate to abolising speed limits.

We can only try and insure the best medical care possible for her rather than her getting infections.

That, or not alegally allow her to do it.

Unplanned pregnancies are not like drugs.

I was giving an example of other places where people take drastic measures & we don't enable it.

A young girl may feel trapped.

This isn't a good enough reason. I could feel "trapped" by poverty, should I be allowed to embessel money?

She may still be in school.

So?

Her parents may act as though this is the middle ages!

So?

We cannot force her to have a baby either!

Doesn't mean we should allow her to kill her child.

TBH, you'll be hard pushed to find a reason that will make me think is a good enough reason to kill a child. (And I see the unborn child as a child)

Though I myself would suggest adoption so to ensure the child a secure and loving home.

I'd be the same.

Many women may not want to carry the child to term!

That's unfortunate, but I don't think the child should suffer - terminally.

wolfpawnat · 26-11-2010 11:11am

Zulu wrote: »

So?
So? Doesn't mean we should allow her to kill her child.

TBH, you'll be hard pushed to find a reason that will make me think is a good enough reason to kill a child. (And I see the unborn child as a child)

I'd be the same.
That's unfortunate, but I don't think the child should suffer - terminally.

Zulu I do not believe in abortion as a solution to the problem myself. But as I would not want others to push their beliefs on me, I cannot push mine on them!

I think people are having sex and are not thinking through the true consequences of their actions these days! I see too many 14-17 year olds pregnant and truth be told 95% of them are not mature enough to look after themselves, let alone another human being!

I was crying when I found out I was pregnant. I saw everything I ever wanted explode in front of my eyes. Working in Africa, going trekking in Egypt etc. Now I probably would not have got to do them anyway but they were options before a baby. I can see why girls would take the selfish road out.

Do I regret having my son, never in a million years. But many people are not programmed to want to have kids young. Many girls want to party and have the craic and do what they want.

I think girls should be introduced to young tantrumming children while in secondary school. Ones that are screeching and crying their eyes out. It may open their eyes! I would say a good proportion of the girls getting theses in England surely would be the 26-24 years age group!

common sense brigade · 26-11-2010 11:13am

Abortion is in fact very natural as nature itself engages in a massive amount of it and you would be surprised to here the % of pregnancies that self abort in the first 12 weeks of development.

- what you are talking about here is miscarriage correct me if i am wrong which i am sure you will. miscarriage is natural. To go in and have an abortion procedure is not natural.
regardless I was just posting my point of view. i believe the unborn baby does have a soul. that is my belief.
If anyone chooses to have an abortion their choice. Its just not something I agree with.

It would be worth looking up the phrase “appeal to emotion” because that is what this is

Whats wrong with appealing to peoples emotions?

There are many people not alive today, for example, because of the legality of condoms. Where is your concern for them?

Conception does not take place if you use a condom therefore a person was never created and killed by abortion

We are arguing that people should have that choice.

I believe the unborn child has a right to life.

nozzferrahhtoo · 26-11-2010 11:25am

common sense brigade wrote: »

what you are talking about here is miscarriage correct me if i am wrong which i am sure you will. miscarriage is natural.

You keep saying on this thread how "sure" you are something will happen and then it does not happen. You are very correct that the term is "miscarriage" and I am not about to correct you on that. What you are doing is equivocating over terms however. Just because there is two words for the one thing does not mean we are talking about 2 entirely different things that in no way relate. English is funny that way and often people simply make a new word for something in order to compatmentalise things easier in their minds.

Miscarriages are natures abortions. The reasons that such abortions occur are not always clear to us, though some of them are. Either way nature has "decided" (if such a word can be used about a mindless process) to abort the child.

The only real different between abortion and miscarriage is that there has been a recognisable choice on the part of a human mind to engage in one of them but not the other. Either way the ending of the development process of a new child for a "reason" is what we are talking about and it happens all the time.

However as I said the point is irrelevant. Something being "natural" is wholly independent to whether it is morally right or wrong. A great many things are natural yet we consider them bad/wrong and a great many things are unnatural and we consider them good/right. For example when you say....

common sense brigade wrote: »

To go in and have an abortion procedure is not natural.

... I simply have to point out that to go in and have a heart bypass procedure is not natural either. Or were you under the impression it was?

common sense brigade wrote: »

i believe the unborn baby does have a soul. that is my believe.

Yes but this thread is about something in the real world. You are welcome to your beliefs, but in the context of real world changes to society, law and morality simply saying "I believe it" does not make it either true, or relevant. Maybe I believe you are a mass murderer and you kill at least one person a day. I am welcome to that idea and there is nothing you can do about it. The moment I espouse it however, the onus is on me to back it up and as far as I am aware there is literally zero back out for the concept of "soul" in so far as I understand the way that word is generally used.

common sense brigade wrote: »

Its just not something I agree with.

No one is asking you to. If you do not want to have abortions then do not have abortions. The main topic of this thread however is whether other people who are not you should be allowed that choice or not.

The fear I have is, from your words so far, that you are one of those people who appear to think that "I do not like X, I do not want to have X, therefore no one else should have X either".

Maybe this is not how you think, but it is certainly what is coming across in what you write and it is worth engaging in the lone exercise of exploring with yourself if that is in fact how you are engaged with the topic.

nozzferrahhtoo · 26-11-2010 11:29am

You edited your post while I was replying to it so I will reply to the new material here:

common sense brigade wrote: »

Whats wrong with appealing to peoples emotions?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion

It is recognized as a common potential fallacy and it has it's problems. Most often the issue is that it clouds facts/arguments by appealing to peoples emotions in an attempt to distract them from the facts/arguments.

common sense brigade wrote: »

Conception does not take place if you use a condom therefore a person was never created and killed by abortion

That is not what you said originally. I was replying to your original point that there are many people who would not be sitting here if abortion were legal. The fact is there are currently many people not sitting here because condoms are legal who otherwise would be. Back when condoms were not legal I am sure people back then also said "Many of you would not be here if condoms were legal" and thought they had made a good argument. However you and I both see why the argument is silly in relation to the legalization of condoms. I am merely pointing out why it is still silly when applied here.

common sense brigade wrote: »

I believe the unborn child has a right to life.

I am well aware now of what you believe. It is worth recognizing the difference between knowing what someone believes and knowing whether they have any valid and defensible reasons for believing it. You for example talk about a "person" yet where is there a "person" in a 1 week old undifferentiated clump of cells? You might get around this by appealing to the existence of a "soul" which some people claim is there from the moment of conception. However given there has been no evidence offered as to the existence of such an attribute it would appear the speakers are merely making stuff up in order to create arguments for a position that otherwise does not have any.

common sense brigade · 26-11-2010 11:32am

If I am coming across that way to you I apologise. It is a sensitive issue. To clarify. I do not belive in legalising abortion. My reasons are I do genuinely believe in the right of the unborn child. However I would not like to insult or hurt anybodies feelings on here, i.e people who may have had an abortion. As it cannot be a decision that is easily made.However i had an early scan on my daughter at 6 weeks and her heart was beating. Its as simple as that for me. I do not believe she was a clump of cells.

The Corinthian · 26-11-2010 11:36am

common sense brigade wrote: »

- what you are talking about here is miscarriage correct me if i am wrong which i am sure you will. miscarriage is natural. To go in and have an abortion procedure is not natural.

All medical procedures are 'unnatural' though.

Whats wrong with appealing to peoples emotions?

It's irrational.

nozzferrahhtoo · 26-11-2010 11:36am

common sense brigade wrote: »

If I am coming across that way to you I apologise. It is a sensitive issue. To clarify. I do not belive in legalising abortion. My reasons are I do genuinely believe in the right of the unborn child. However I would not like to insult or hurt anybodies feelings on here, i.e people who may have had an abortion.

Again I understand where you are coming from and I am not upset by it in any way. In fact I have never once in my life been “upset” by a single thing someone has said on an internet forum. Disappointed maybe, but upset not even close.

The point I am trying to make to you is that there is a world of difference between being engaged in something yourself, and saying it should not be allowed for everyone else to be engaged in it.

For example I am all for the legalisation of porn even though I find it boring, useless and time wasting in my own life. I simply do not want to engage in buying it, seeing it, or engaging in it’s use. Nothing about my position on it wishes me to see it illegal for anyone else however.

You are not into abortion. Great. It is not the choice for you. Great too. This is all your personal opinion and I am fine with it and have no argument with it and you are welcome to it. I am even happy for you.

You want it to remain illegal so other people can not engage in it. That is a different kettle of fish and is no longer just you, your beliefs and your own personal choices.

common sense brigade · 26-11-2010 11:41am

All medical procedures are 'unnatural' though.

well then we are agreed abortion is unnatural! joke. look I cant help how I feel about this I do not believe in Abortion. But I do agree that having a medical procedure is 'natural' so will concede you can clasify abortion as natural. It just wouldnt be natural for me I guess.
As for being Irrational. I dont see anything wrong with a bit of emotion behind a point of view. Again maybe thats just me.

common sense brigade · 26-11-2010 11:47am

You want it to remain illegal so other people can not engage in it. That is a different kettle of fish and is no longer just you, your beliefs and your own personal choices

. For this I guess to expalin myself I would prefer to live in a society that did not leagalise Abortion I would use my democratic vote for No. Just as you would use it prob as a Yes. I agree with your point of view to vote Yes totally. I would just see the unborn child as a person and I would believe in their right to life. Sorry again dont want to offend anyone. I agree with most of your last post tho.

Zulu · 26-11-2010 11:47am

wolfpawnat wrote: »

Zulu I do not believe in abortion as a solution to the problem myself. But as I would not want others to push their beliefs on me, I cannot push mine on them!

While what you are doing is somewhat commendable, it not how society works, and if we were to adopt that attitude society would quickly break down.

I understand why you wouldn't want to push your beliefs on to others, but we have to & we do it each & every time we vote. If you believe something is wrong, then you should prevent that happening in your society. To stand by an let something bad happen because you don't want to "push your beliefs" is cowardice, is it not?

The Corinthian · 26-11-2010 11:50am

common sense brigade wrote: »

I do not belive in legalising abortion. My reasons are I do genuinely believe in the right of the unborn child. However I would not like to insult or hurt anybodies feelings on here, i.e people who may have had an abortion. As it cannot be a decision that is easily made.

This doesn't make sense to me. You believe that an abortion is the killing of an unborn child, yet respect those who do it or at least do not wish to offend them. It's a bit like opposing pedophilia, yet not wanting to offend child molesters.

common sense brigade wrote: »

well then we are agreed abortion is unnatural! joke. look I cant help how I feel about this I do not believe in Abortion. But I do agree that having a medical procedure is 'natural' so will concede you can clasify abortion as natural. It just wouldnt be natural for me I guess.

I think you are confusing 'natural' with some form of gut feeling that it's 'wrong'.

As for being Irrational. I dont see anythinbg wrong with a bit of emotion behind a point of view. Again maybe thats just me.

There are good reasons for saying that acting upon emotion is not a good thing. Despite the risk of having Godwin's Law invoked, one good example of where being ruled by emotion rather than reason is a bad thing is this:

common sense brigade · 26-11-2010 11:56am

Hey Look, I think thats more than a bit harsh and insulting. I do not agree with abortion but we live in a democracy and i would respect the views of the society I live in. I would not want to go out and ram my beliefs down the throat of a girl that had decided abortion was her only way out. However if asked my opinion I would answer truthfully that I believe it is wrong. As for comparisions to Hitler and Paedaphiles that is more than a little immature and nasty.

nozzferrahhtoo · 26-11-2010 12:04pm

common sense brigade wrote: »

. For this I guess to expalin myself I would prefer to live in a society that did not leagalise Abortion I would use my democratic vote for No. Just as you would use it prob as a Yes. I agree with your point of view to vote Yes totally. I would just see the unborn child as a person and I would believe in their right to life. Sorry again dont want to offend anyone. I agree with most of your last post tho.

Yes, at the end of the day it really is a case of „see you down the voting booth“. You are right about that. I will have my vote and you will have yours.

However it is healthy to engage in discourse in the interim between votes on these issues regardless of whether you do so to test your own position against that of others, or because you wish to alter that of others. More often than not I do it because of the former and just enjoy the latter when it happens.

And it is helpful for “my side” of the debate to show that the arguments for “your side” simply do not hold up. In just a few posts it has become clear that your whole position on the issue is essentially “I believe it…. Because I believe it” and I find that demonstrating that fact wherever I see it is very useful.

In fact I often tell stories of how I like to walk up to the stalls that show in Dublin City all the pictures of what abortion looks like. I ask them what their arguments against abortion actually are. I am genuinely interested in what they have to said.

But they just say to me “look at the pictures”. One time I said something like “Yes, they are not pretty pictures, but neither are pictures of heart bypass surgery which trust me are also very hard to look at… so are you against that too?”. After looking at me blankly for about 5 seconds the guy just said “but….. but…. Look at the pictures!”

If emotional arguments and gory pictures really are all that the anti- side have to hold up their position I think it useful to highlight that fact whenever I am given the chance, which you just did, so ta for that.

common sense brigade · 26-11-2010 12:09pm

I remember years ago seeing the pictures of Abortions at the GPO in Dublin. You are right the demonstrators did say look at the pictures. That was their argument, mine is as I said before I felt a deeep emotional tie when I saw the scan of my daughters heart beating at 6 weeks. its irrational probably ! I can see that. But its just my view. My emotional irrational view.

nozzferrahhtoo · 26-11-2010 12:12pm

It is more than a little sad that a person can recognise their own view as emotional and irrational and yet still take that view down to the voting booth and impose it democratically on others.

Still democracy has never been perfect and it is prone to both emotion and irrationality. The Irish People would likely right now vote no to even the best ideas simply to spite the government. It might make me sad, but I do recognise it as something you take if you subscribe to a democratic voting process of any type.

Still, I can at least be proud of myself if not others in knowing when I use my vote I only use it to vote for what I think is the right thing to do, supported by the best arguments I have available to me at the time of voting, regardless of how I emotionally feel about the outcome either way and I have often voted against my hearts emotions and desires because of this.

common sense brigade · 26-11-2010 12:15pm

It is more than a little sad that a person can recognise their own view as emotional and irrational and yet still take that view down to the voting booth and impose it democratically on others.

Its more than a little sad you cant recognise sarcasm when you read it. To move this thread along a bit. Does anyone think there may be a referendum on abortion in the near future?

nozzferrahhtoo · 26-11-2010 12:19pm

If you want to make this about snide personal comments then I am afraid you are on your own in this conversation.

The Corinthian · 26-11-2010 12:21pm

common sense brigade wrote: »

Hey Look, I think thats more than a bit harsh and insulting. I do not agree with abortion but we live in a democracy and i would respect the views of the society I live in. I would not want to go out and ram my beliefs down the throat of a girl that had decided abortion was her only way out. However if asked my opinion I would answer truthfully that I believe it is wrong. As for comparisions to Hitler and Paedaphiles that is more than a little immature and nasty.

I was making two points; the first is that it makes no sense to consider something wrong, then 'respect' others who do it. It either betrays that you don't think it all that wrong after all or the old Irish solution to an Irish problem of "as long as it's not in my back yard".

The reference to the Nazis was simply an extreme example of when emotion does overrule reason, as happened in Germany. There are plenty of other examples one could use, closer to home, such as the present economic mess that Ireland is in, fulled by an irrational sense of greed and hubris. Emotional and irrational viewpoints have been at the core of pretty much every social ill in history.

Neither were intended to offend and neither were immature, they were intended to answer your points, nothing more.

Kevo · 26-11-2010 12:34pm

Greyfox wrote: »

Yes but theirs a point when the fetus can blink, burp and do most of the things babies can do..their heart beats, twins curl up to each other, they show signs of human feelings...their is a point when the fetus becomes a human being and that happens BEFOR birth!

This is absolutely true and for that reason I think abortions should only be legal in early pregnancy - the way it is in most countries though I feel it should be a little earlier.

Consciousness is the important factor.....not burping, heartbeats, etc. Unfortunately this cannot be measured so brain development is a suitable alternative - it is obviously correlated with consciousness. As in at a certain level of development a level of consciousness emerges. After this stage I believe it is criminal to have an abortion.

I think this argument also applies to euthanasia. If the person is permanently unconscious, there is no person, they are a shell.

drkpower · 26-11-2010 5:48pm

common sense brigade wrote: »

Does anyone think there may be a referendum on abortion in the near future?

Oh definitely. It is at the top of every party's agenda.

Yillan · 02-12-2010 8:35am

Any possibility of a boards.ie referendum by way of a poll?

drkpower · 02-12-2010 10:29am

Yillan wrote: »

Any possibility of a boards.ie referendum by way of a poll?

and what might the question be?

Yillan · 02-12-2010 11:52am

Would you vote to legalise abortion in Ireland (to the extent that it's legal in England) if there was a referendum?

Something like that

Festus · 02-12-2010 11:58am

Kevo wrote: »

This is absolutely true and for that reason I think abortions should only be legal in early pregnancy - the way it is in most countries though I feel it should be a little earlier.

Consciousness is the important factor.....not burping, heartbeats, etc. Unfortunately this cannot be measured so brain development is a suitable alternative - it is obviously correlated with consciousness. As in at a certain level of development a level of consciousness emerges. After this stage I believe it is criminal to have an abortion.

I think this argument also applies to euthanasia. If the person is permanently unconscious, there is no person, they are a shell.

Why do you want to get rid of people with no emergent conscience?
I know the politicians in this country are bad but that's a bit harsh

drkpower · 02-12-2010 12:09pm

Yillan wrote: »

Would you vote to legalise abortion in Ireland (to the extent that it's legal in England) if there was a referendum?

Something like that

And then the Q. is 'to what extent is it legal in the UK'........?

Might work for a boards poll (ie a non-important snapshot of a particular unrepresentative demographic for illustrative purposes only), but the problem with any question (incl. a referendum) on a topic like this is that there are so many diverse viewpoints even within groups who seemingly agree with each other.

For instance, there are many of a 'pro-life' view who would agree with abortion where the foetus has a condition incompatible with life. On the reverse, there are many of a pro-choice disposition who wouldnt countenance abortions beyond 16-20 weeks. I could list another 50 inconsistencies but i wont.

Legalise abortion

Comments