Legalise abortion

Jakkass wrote: »

As for women not making the decision lightly, I'd disagree. Many regard abortion as mere contraception. In Russia in 2006 there was more abortions than live births.

Not the first time I've seen this pathetic argument wheeled out for it's shock value, the notion of Russian women regarding abortion as contraception is grossly over simplified. In fact it shows a real ignorance of the details by those who use it.

Frankly, considering the state of Russian orphanages it's probably a good job there's not more children being put into them. It's reckoned 90% of children in them are abandoned or "given up" for adoption.

Of course the figure's pretty close since about 1957 more abortions then too. It's actually been falling since 1988. You can't really compare Russia with here, outside of the cities levels of education are quiet poor. There is no real sex education to speak of period...

Birth control is available in Russia, but it is expensive, abortions are free. They are in fact limited to a cutoff point of 12 weeks.

The overall health of Russia is poor. 20% of young women suffer from anemia, many choose abortion because they fear that they and/or their baby will not survive a full term pregnancy.

All this before you even consider the economic ramificatons. Of a single mom trying to bring up a child in Russia.

Joey the lips: The morning after pill is an abortive pill. I.E It will kill the unborn.

Jakkass wrote: »

Joey the lips: The morning after pill is an abortive pill. I.E It will kill the unborn.

Apologies Jackass. I'm not deliberately going out to contradict you.

But, a woman has only about a 24 hour window in which an egg can be fertilized, sperm can live for between 3 and 5 days inside her body. If she has sex say 3 days prior to ovulation, she still has a good chance to become pregnant.

The morning after pill may do two things.

• prevent the woman's ovaries from releasing an egg.
• alter the lining of the womb, so a fertilised egg can't embed itself there.

It is not an abortive pill, please don't start telling people this. This is kind of mis-information is exactly what leads to un-wanted pregnancies.

Jakkass wrote: »

studiorat: I'm willing to accept I am wrong if you can back up the claim that the morning after pill cannot kill an embryo.

This is discussing Pro-Life polemics at this stage. So I'll reply with a question.
Since you seem to think that preventing an "embryo" from attaching to the wall of the uterus is an abortion. I suppose you also consider IUD's to be abortive aswell.

So the if women who use a coil as a form of contraception are performing abortions on a regular basis. Maybe we should be considering criminal charges for them as well?

Do you think using a IUD is performing an abortion?

Do you consider an embryo to have a soul BTW?

no no no no oh and no there is no argument you can not go murdering inoccents full f***ing stop

roadrunner 1 wrote: »

no no no no oh and no there is no argument you can not go murdering inoccents full f***ing stop

And my argument is you can't go around calling people Murders who according to the law as it stands are not murders...

yes they are. we live in a supposedly equal world of womans rights and equality if i went and killed a child i would have the whole of ireland ready to kill me and quite rightfully these people can do this and get sympathy well im sorry anyone that conduct, encourages or requires one is no better than and no differrant to ian huntley

turgon wrote: »

A typical new-conservative statement in that it is telling the other what they are and what they feel, even if the person doesnt feel this. In the same way a lot of neo-cons will tell a fully consenting prostitute that she is being exploited.

I don't need to say this, all you need to do is a bit of research to see that a lot of women regret their abortions and that there are serious medical side effects to abortion. The existence of conditions such as post abortion syndrome are enough to suggest that many women are victims.

turgon wrote: »

If people are victims, let them say it. You can go up, point a finger and say "your a victim." Its not your position.

Many women already have made this claim for themselves if you research you will find this out.

turgon wrote: »

The "pro-life" side has enough material to work on without having to resort to this kind of "Im right, and I know better than you" kind of nonsense.

It's not nonsense. I don't know better than anyone else, these women speak for themselves.

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't need to say this, all you need to do is a bit of research to see that a lot of women regret their abortions and that there are serious medical side effects to abortion. The existence of conditions such as post abortion syndrome are enough to suggest that many women are victims.

People are aware of this, and if someone wants an abortion they should have the responsibility to deal with the consequences.

Or is this another situation where Jakkass must save people from themselves? There so many such situations it would seem easier for Jackass to just write us a guidebook. Because we all know Jackass is the one and only authority on how to live life properly.

turgon wrote: »

People are aware of this, and if someone wants an abortion they should have the responsibility to deal with the consequences.

Or is this another situation where Jakkass must save people from themselves? There so many such situations it would seem easier for Jackass to just write us a guidebook. Because we all know Jackass is the one and only authority on how to live life properly.

You seem to put down abortions to wants. However when it involves someone elses life that is simply quite unfair. At worst it is favouring one persons rights over another. I believe that unborn should have the liberty to life just like I or you had. I don't think that is an oppressive opinion to hold, rather it is an egalitarian notion.

I can't save anyone from anything. That isn't my intention in posting here. My intention in posting here is to discuss my opinion as you are entitled to. Not much that is discussed on boards.ie comes into fruition in real life.

As for a guidebook, I don't think people need me or anyone else to write a guidebook. I recognise full well that my opinion is one among many. However, I still have a right to that opinion in a marketplace of ideas. These ideas will continually battle eachother in the public arena. I find it quite hilarious that you seem to want to stifle my opinion continually. In every thread your result has been that conservatives shouldn't have an opinion. Only liberalism should be tolerated.

As for me being an authority. I have no authority on anyone, nor do I wish any authority on anyone. I'm here merely to discuss ideas. I think that your liberalism is in it's end result anti-democratic however based on previous discussions. The only one who has had an interest in exerting authority over another is you suggesting that conservative views are not kosher and that our views should be silenced. Not only on this thread either.

If abortion has serious consequences one cannot just accept an each to their own view, for me and others it is a life and death question. Both views have every right to be vocalised.

nurse23 wrote: »

Its a choice every woman needs to make for herself. Its a decision that i made and have absolutely no regrets about and a decision i will not apologise for.

Nobody has managed to answer me this question. Why should anyone have the right to decide whether or not someone else should live or die?

turgon wrote: »

No I never said that. I said that conservatives should not be able to force their opinions on everyone, which is what they always want to do. Oh but I forgot, Im "forcing my indifference on others."

How has any conservative forced their opinion on anyone? If a majority of people support liberalisation on a certain topic due to them not seeing any harm in it, it will be legalised. If a majority of people support illegalisation on a certain topic due to the fact that it is likely to be harmful that is also fair. That's the way democracy works. Hence why I refer to your view of telling conservatives to keep quiet as anti-democratic to its very core.

I've explained to you what I perceive conservativism to be:

It is a rational critique or assessments of all the potential dangers and benefits in making a decision. After much discussion and brainstorming, if the idea holds up to scrutiny it should therefore be legalised. If it does not hold up to scrutiny nothing should be changed. That's the reasonable option.

I don't think that liberalism (or should I say liberalism further than the current liberties we have on certain issues that are very likely to be harmful) gives these things as much thought, as much skepticism and as much scrutiny than what it would have under a more conservative ideology.

I don't oppose change, I oppose senseless change without thought first.

turgon wrote: »

You then made up an excuse that you must save people from themselves, by referencing post-abortion depression. You ignored my claim that this is one of the responsibilities people take on in getting an abortion and its not your job to measure up the pros and cons for them.

I never said that I must save people from anything. What I said was many women are victims following abortions. I would have to agree given what I have come to know on the topic, many women have become victims by their own assessment not mine. Yet when I bring this truth into the discussion, I am seen as trying to save someone. Again, look to my previous posts. I'm only here to share my thought and go through pro-choice reasoning bit by bit. I think it falls down like a house of cards.

turgon wrote: »

I dont want to get in a discussion here, but I will start a thread about it sometime.

We've been through this a lot of times already

turgon wrote: »

+1. Which is why in my first post on this thread I stated that abortion did not fall into my "live and let live" philosophy in the way that things like gay marriage do.

Exactly, so why on earth are you criticising me as forcing anything on anyone for merely bringing up the risks involved in abortion?

turgon wrote: »

You see, pro-choicers do not define a foetus as a full human being. Thats where the core difference arises. So in our mind, were not advocating the murder in the usual sense of the term.

Some pro-choicers are more honest than others. I went away from a discussion in real life, not on boards which was just before a philosophy lecture I had. We got into the question of personhood (which was appropriate considering we had done this topic in philosophy in the first semester). Anyway, he said to me, he recognised that a foetus was indeed a biological human life form, but he recognised that there was a need to kill in certain scenarios. I prefer this kind of honesty compared to some of the word games that are often played on the pro-choice side of the argument. That guy had the honesty to tell me what he really believed instead of trying to sugarcoat it.

turgon wrote: »

Ill start a thread "conservatism vs liberalism" soon, where we can discuss how the two ideologies never see eye to eye, and why etc.

Brilliant. Although perhaps you should title it social conservatism vs social liberalism. Some people who are socially conservative or socially liberal may end up with fisically conservative or fisically liberal views on economics.

SLUSK wrote: »

A child is a child. A fetus is a fetus. A woman owns her own body and should therefore be allowed to do what she wishes with the fetus in her body. Basic property rights. If you believe in the concept of self ownership that is.

Well, the woman creates the foetus as a result of sexual congress with man. She had the choice to do it in an unprotected manner. She also had the choice to purchase a condom. I think abortion is a very difficult subject to place a definitive answer over, however, I know that there cannot be an analogy drawn between abortion, and thing like drug legalisation and euthanasia

As a libertarian who believe that life has an existence prior to birth, I believe that the "child" or "ball of cells" no longer belongs to the woman, and becomes property of the foetus itself. Extrinsic factors such as nourishment and warmth will always be sought, wheather the child is within or outside of the womb. Does that mean the person is beholden to the supermarket, or supplier who provides the food ? In reality it does not.

I can understand the arguments of the otherside, and I loath the "Irish Solution to an Irish problem" situation we have vis-a-vis abortion. Its totally unsatisfactory, and has become a class based issue. What kind of a country is willing to allow abortions, as long as they dont occur within the jurisdiction. They should have the balls to ask a straight yes, or no answer.

SLUSK wrote: »

Less scum would be born if abortions were legal. How can that not be good?

would this mean that you would not be around to answer this thread, if it were legal pre your birth?

these woman are murderers, worse, pre meditated. they plan the death to a fine detail. travelling, costs, who to confide in and who not. Bastards the lot of em.