an abortion referendum

invincibleirish

(i know this might be suitable in other forums but seeing as the electorate will ultimately decide this issue i put it in the politics forum.)


would you vote for abortion to be legalised or keep the laws as they are.

i personally am pro-choice and would support a womans right to choose.

Sparks

Yes, legalise it.

Moriarty

Legalise it.

Paddy20

As a humanatarian. I could not possibly condone the murder by abortion of the innocent unborn.

Life is sacrosanct, and a foetus is a living human with a soul.

As far as I recall. The people of Ireland have already made their feelings on this issue very clear when they rejected abortion. In a real life Referendum?..

Paddy20

invincibleirish

indeed,but what of the argument that 1000s of women have to flee their country every year to have an abortion in the uk?surely they should have the right to have it here seeing as they are going to get it done anyway.

Paddy20

It is extremely sad that many women choose that route of going to England to participate in the killing of innocent human life.

When, countless married couples in this Country are waiting to abopt, the newly born - because they have not been blessed with a child of their own, for many reasons.

At present, abortion is still illegal here, and no one forces these women to go abroad for an abortion. If they were stopped in law from being allowed to choose that route, it could then be argued that the law here is unfair, but the people have spoken.

PeterODonnell

I recall that in the last referendum in 2001 or 2002, I voted "Yes". I am very liberal on most social issues. However, I had personal issues, i.e. I am adopted and I was conscious that had abortion been allowed in this state, then I might not be here today. However, I sympathise greatly with women who are the victims of sexual violence and in hindsight, I recognise that there is not always a "black and white" to every situation. I feel that obviously, as is allowed at present, it should be possible to terminate the pregnancy where that pregnancy is ectopic, i.e. where the embryo forms in the fallopian tubes instead of the womb, thus putting the mother's life at risk. If the pregnant woman is a rape victim, then abortion should also be allowed. But I am against abortion on demand. I think adoption is a preferable option, such as what happened to me.

Boston

Originally posted by PeterODonnell
I recall that in the last referendum in 2001 or 2002, I voted "Yes". I am very liberal on most social issues. However, I had personal issues, i.e. I am adopted and I was conscious that had abortion been allowed in this state, then I might not be here today. However, I sympathise greatly with women who are the victims of sexual violence and in hindsight, I recognise that there is not always a "black and white" to every situation. I feel that obviously, as is allowed at present, it should be possible to terminate the pregnancy where that pregnancy is ectopic, i.e. where the embryo forms in the fallopian tubes instead of the womb, thus putting the mother's life at risk. If the pregnant woman is a rape victim, then abortion should also be allowed. But I am against abortion on demand. I think adoption is a preferable option, such as what happened to me.

afaik, If the child is believed to be still born, or have sever deformities or the like, or that the mother may be in any way in danger, abortion will be provided.

Anyway i'd vote to keep it as the status quo. Abortion shouldn't ever be convinent, and a trip to england to have it done is no harm. Surely nobody would support this "have an abortion in yours lunch hour" approach in england (btw i'm well aware its not a cut and dry as all that)

Sparks

Originally posted by Paddy20
a foetus is a living human with a soul.

Since (as I've said on the Humanities thread) this is a difficult subject for me to approach rationally, I'll just keep this short and sweet :

Prove it.

Boston

Originally posted by Sparks
Prove it.

Prove it doesn't. Anywho rather then challenging otehrs view points, as this is a very emotive, personal and pointless topic, why don't you just state your own

Abortion, now this is an issue that has no question in my mind at all.
I totally oppose the distruction of unborn human life.
I know it's legal, in a lot of countries, and people here are free to travel to have the deed done there.
I would not try to stop them or curtail information on how to procure an abortion.
As it's everybodies personal right to choose.
But if I am asked in a referendum to allow abortion here, I will always vote no.
It is a conscience thing with me.
If a world wide referendum were held I would also vote no.
To me, I was once a fist in my mothers womb and see what I've become today.
The whole subject saddens me to be honest.
And before anyone brings up the subject of Rape, I'll be forthright and honest in my views there too.Going to have an abortion after six weeks,is denying a potential human being the right to choose to live or die.
It's not their fault how they came into existance.
But it is a failing in humanity that the pressure and mental torture can be too much to bear for the Victim of such a crime resulting in a decision to Abort.
This thread belongs next door methinks.
mm

Paddy20

Sparks,

I will keep it short and sweet. You are only a foetus that was allowed to live and be born!. Proof enough for me.

Paddy20;)

Sparks

Prove it doesn't? Sure.
In the entire history of medicine, noone has ever been able to identify a physical part of the body that they could call a soul. Not in a foetus, not in a fully-grown adult.

They have however, been able to show that the neocortex is where we do the bulk of our higher level thinking - the stuff that seperates us from what we consider lower forms of life. And that the electrical activity in the neocortex that is associated with that thinking does not arise until some time after birth.

As to my views on this, try reading the thread on this subject here
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=103433

Originally posted by Sparks
Prove it doesn't? Sure.
In the entire history of medicine, noone has ever been able to identify a physical part of the body that they could call a soul. Not in a foetus, not in a fully-grown adult.

They have however, been able to show that the neocortex is where we do the bulk of our higher level thinking - the stuff that seperates us from what we consider lower forms of life. And that the electrical activity in the neocortex that is associated with that thinking does not arise until some time after birth.

Thats all well and good for you sparks, when you are not ( as you have stated elsewhere on this board ) a Christian.
A Debate with you regarding the existance of a soul would be pointless, as you would be asking the opposite side to deny their faith, and clearly if they did that, they would also be denying the existance of a "spititual" or "Christian" soul.
There can be no debate on Faith, it's something you either have or you haven't, end of story.

Back on the central point of Abortion, I'd obviously largely agree with Paddy20 here in that, what he said is exactly true, we were all once but a fist in our mothers womb's with the potential to become what we are today.
As a matter of conscience, and essentially thats what this debate usually boils down to, I could never support abortion, for that reason.
mm

sci0x

I would not vote for abortion to be legalized. However I think there should be the choice of adoption in certain cases such as where the pregnancy endangers a woman's life or if the woman is suicidal over their pregnancy maybe if she was raped.

Dun

I would vote no, as I too believe that everyone has the right to life. Just because you're on the inside rather than the outside what makes you less human?

Abortion is just selfishness in most cases. You're killing off 'the problem'. What if you're mother had had a problem.

And sorry for carrying this on off-topic, but..

Originally posted by Sparks
Prove it doesn't? Sure.
In the entire history of medicine, noone has ever been able to identify a physical part of the body that they could call a soul.

DNA wasn't discovered until 50 years ago. It existed before that, we're quite sure of that, just as America was there before . Just because you can't find something doesn't mean it's not there.

Sparks

Originally posted by Man
Thats all well and good for you sparks, when you are not ( as you have stated elsewhere on this board ) a Christian.
A Debate with you regarding the existance of a soul would be pointless, as you would be asking the opposite side to deny their faith, and clearly if they did that, they would also be denying the existance of a "spititual" or "Christian" soul.
There can be no debate on Faith, it's something you either have or you haven't, end of story.

And that is precisely why you cannot decide on this issue on religious grounds.
To decide that abortion is wrong because of a tenet of catholocism or christianity requires that you first establish that Bhuddism, Hinduism, Secular Humanism, and every other religion the world over is wrong and that christianity is right when it comes to religious matters.

Back on the central point of Abortion, I'd obviously largely agree with Paddy20 here in that, what he said is exactly true, we were all once but a fist in our mothers womb's with the potential to become what we are today.

I am what I am, not because of my origins as a cluster of cells in my mothers womb, but because of the upbringing that my parents gave me.
In other words, taking every foetus to term is not going to ensure that every foetus becomes a "good" person.
It will however, ensure that a large portion of the next generation will not have had the upbringing that they might have had, had the condom not broken and their parents had had a few more years to get established themselves.

As a matter of conscience, and essentially thats what this debate usually boils down to, I could never support abortion, for that reason.

I do have to wonder Man, would you have the same opinion if you had either gone through the process with the pro-life crowd making judgements like I've seen on this thread already against you; or if you'd seen someone you love forced to go through it?

dun_do_bheal,

Just because you're on the inside rather than the outside what makes you less human?

Because you can't exist outside the womb?
Once the foetus is capable of survival on it's own, then yes, it has a right to life.
Not before - before that, the only rights are those of the mother.

Abortion is just selfishness in most cases. You're killing off 'the problem'. What if you're mother had had a problem.

That's got to be one of the most insulting statements on this that I've heard for a few years from someone who wasn't cheering the people that kill doctors for performing abortions in the States...

DNA wasn't discovered until 50 years ago. It existed before that, we're quite sure of that, just as America was there before . Just because you can't find something doesn't mean it's not there.

But we knew a mechanism like DNA existed and we could predict how it worked. It was like gravity is now - we may not have identified the specific particle involved, or whether it's even a particle, but we know it exists and how it's effects work.
The "soul" has no such status. There simply is no proof whatsoever that it exists.

invincibleirish

i can understand people who are coming from a christian moral perspective,but that only applies to you and to those that believe,surely every women deserves the right to make that choice for herself?

simu

In a perfect world it would never be necessary to get rid of foetuses because contraception would work 100% of the time, there would be no rapes, no incest, no silly teenagers getting in over their necks and having sex before they're able to take responsibility for their actions etc etc.

As for those who say that adoption is always an option:

Do you not realise that women are not always able or willing to give up the next 9 months of their lives to see an unwnted pregnancy through to its end? Pregnancy is extremely demanding both mentally and physically. What about women who have careers/are donig the leaving cert/college exams/are getting ready to climb Mount Everest/ whatever?

Is a woman's only choice to be celibate(given that no form of contraceptive is 100% sure) or be prepared to give up the next 9 months of her life every time she has sex?

And how would men feel if all the women in Ireland decided to become celibate to avoid unwanted pregnancies and eventual abortions?:D

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Sparks
And that is precisely why you cannot decide on this issue on religious grounds.

I would tend to agree, but would also point out that political ideology is often as potent and irrational a substitute for religion, Sparks...

Once the foetus is capable of survival on it's own, then yes, it has a right to life.
Not before - before that, the only rights are those of the mother.

Should a person who requires a medicine or a respirator to survive have a right to live? Perhaps an infant should be exposed to the elements, as the Spartans did, and if it survives the night be given the right of citizenship?

However, this is a point that I’ve challenged you on before and you went so far as to refine your argument to say that it was more to do with self awareness. Yet you never did get back to answer whether anyone in a coma or with brain damage should not be defined as a person? Or at what point in Parkinson’s disease should we revoke someone’s humanity then? Did you?

If you’ll allow me the observation Sparks, your definitions of humanity appear driven by ideology rather than reason.

That's got to be one of the most insulting statements on this that I've heard for a few years from someone who wasn't cheering the people that kill doctors for performing abortions in the States...

And that has to be as equally sweeping and inane a generalization as you’re accusing others of making.

Pot. Kettle. You can guess the rest...

Sparks

I would tend to agree, but would also point out that political ideology is often as potent and irrational a substitute for religion, Sparks...

Indeed, and that's why my ideology doesn't dictate my beliefs in this, but my experiences.

Should a person who requires a medicine or a respirator to survive have a right to live?

Yes, because they're suffering from an illness, not an inherent and intrinsic condition.

However, this is a point that I’ve challenged you on before and you went so far as to refine your argument to say that it was more to do with self awareness. Yet you never did get back to answer whether anyone in a coma or with brain damage should not be defined as a person? Or at what point in Parkinson’s disease should we revoke someone’s humanity then? Did you?

Actually, not only did I, I did so before you asked the question in an attempt to forestall what I saw as an obvious question, and we discussed it :

Originally posted by Sparks
If you're not self-aware and self-sufficent and have never been so then yes, you don't have the legal status of a person.

The “and have never been so” is a new addition to your list of conditions.

The “and have never been so” is a new addition to your list of conditions.

I wanted to forestall the "what about a person in a coma on life-support" argument. The point was that once legal standing as a person is granted, it can't be revoked under any legal system I've ever heard of.

So, people in comas should be terminated and recycled?

*sigh*
See what I meant?

If you’ll allow me the observation Sparks, your definitions of humanity appear driven by ideology rather than reason.

Not the first time you've accused me of that one TC, and it's still not true, and my answer is still the same. My views are based on my experience, not someone else's ideology.

And that has to be as equally sweeping and inane a generalization as you’re accusing others of making.

Except that it isn't, because I'm not accusing other people of murder when I say that.
They are.

Paddy20

Sparks,

You appear to believe in "good"?, as in good rather than "evil".
Therefore, imho that alone confirms you have a soul or if you wish a spirit. This is a gift which is bestowed upon you as a human being whether you recognise it or not. The ability too differentiate between what you perceive to be good or evil, indicates to me that you care!, and in order to care about the never ending earthly battle between good and evil. You must have a soul or a spirit.

However, all human beings are from the moment of inception when life itself is created, then that life force is given the right too choose whichever road to take. To believe or not to believe, and I am a believer. If you are not, it simply means that as yet in your life you have not needed or wanted Gods grace to believe in the almighty creator of mankind. This fact will not make you a bad or evil person, nor condemn you in any way.

You are unique, and human. Therefore, you are imperfect as I am.

In life you will have to forgive others, as your creator I believe will forgive you.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Sparks
Yes, because they're suffering from an illness, not an inherent and intrinsic condition.

Funny, they used to think many inherited illnesses were ‘conditions’ once...

Actually, not only did I, I did so before you asked the question in an attempt to forestall what I saw as an obvious question, and we discussed it

At least I had the decency to pick out a post at the end of the discussion rather than one in the middle of it that was later rebutted.

Not the first time you've accused me of that one TC, and it's still not true, and my answer is still the same. My views are based on my experience, not someone else's ideology.

The pro-Choice equivalent of a liberal who’s been mugged? LOL

Except that it isn't, because I'm not accusing other people of murder when I say that.
They are.

And you’re accusing them of being inhuman monsters. Hardly the stuff of rational debate is it? Use whatever semantics you wish to use, but you are still using emotion over reason and hence committing the same crime of fanaticism you accuse others of.

sceptre

Originally posted by invincibleirish
surely every women deserves the right to make that choice for herself?

I'll happily go along with that POV.

Oh, and I'd legalise it. And for a start at least pass the necessary legislation based on the current constitutional position.

TomF

I got passionately opposed to abortion about 20 years ago when I read in a chemical engineering magazine that Eli Lilly & Company, a large U.S. pharmaceutical corporation, had been doing research on finding a cure for the common cold and were using nasal tissue from "freshly-aborted human fetuses" as their medium for conducting tests.

Culturally speaking, where California is now, the U.S. will be in 20 years; where the U.S. is now, Ireland will be in 20 years.

My advice is to turn back before it's too late!

Beruthiel

legalise it
a woman has the right to do as she wishes with her own body

gandalf

I normally avoid making my own personal views on this issue public because as a mod it normally causes me more hassle than its worth.

But here goes. I am strongly pro-choice. I believe it should be the decision of the person(s) directly effected. I do not see the logic of bringing a child into the world that is basically not wanted. If abortion is against your beliefs well don't have one but do not shove your values down the rest of the countries throat. This country is still messed up from the undue influence the Catholic Church has exerted on its development in the early & mid 20th Century.

The situation where we are letting Irish women go abroad to have abortions is pathetic. Typical Irish "See no evil, Hear no evil, Speak no evil".

Gandalf.

(On saying this I believe all the political parties use this issue cynically as a deflection tactic when some other part of government policy has gone badly wrong.)

Originally posted by Sparks
And that is precisely why you cannot decide on this issue on religious grounds.
To decide that abortion is wrong because of a tenet of catholocism or christianity requires that you first establish that Bhuddism, Hinduism, Secular Humanism, and every other religion the world over is wrong and that christianity is right when it comes to religious matters.

so you would deny me the right to vote on a topic, based on my beliefs Sparks?
Or require me to confirm my beliefs when compared to anybody elses set of beliefs?
Interesting, but Wrong, very Wrong.
Please note, that my statement to you regarding the existance of a soul has nothing whatsoever to do with my views on abortion.
I believe it is murder pure and simple, I wouldn't stop or disagree with anyones right to choose that option as that is a matter for their conscience.
But when asked a question as part of my democratic right in a referendum I will always vote no based on my beliefs and conscience.
Thats nothing more or nothing less than I would ask anyone else to do.
And incidently I most certainly do not push that opinion on anyone ,everyone has a right to their beliefs.
And regarding:

Indeed, and that's why my ideology doesn't dictate my beliefs in this, but my experiences.

It might surprise you, that the Catholic church or any church does not dictate my views on this subject, they are my own.

Originally posted by Gandalf:
I do not see the logic of bringing a child into the world that is basically not wanted.

A child is always wanted by someone.
There will be an impasse here without a doubt , between those who believe that, a potential human being does not have the right to live, based on it's mother deciding it must die because it's not wanted by her, and between those that believe that is murder.
mm

Jimi-Spandex

This is a very complex issue and it certainly can't be dealt with in a yes/no, legal/illegal pole.

The position at the moment being that abortion is legal in a situation where there is a real and substantial risk to the life of the mother. Thanks to the X case, suicide can be considered a real and substantial risk. Constitutionally the life of mother and unborn child are equal (thanks to that bloody referendum in the 80s). In its present form, abortion is not allowed for foetuses which are guaranteed to die and they aren't allowed in situations where a woman has become pregnant due to rape either.

As for what I believe the law should be, its the womans body and thus the woman's choice. Abortions should be legal and available to any pregnant woman who chooses to avail of them.

Finally, Man, I agree entirely that you are entitled to make a choice based on your beliefs but that doesn't mean that your beliefs should dictate what the rest of us can and can't do. To put it childishly, no one is forcing you to have an abortion, if your wife is raped and becomes pregnant, you are perfectly entitled to raise the child as your own in spite of the severely detrimental effects on your wife's mental health. (I know this is a rather sensationalist approach to take to the subject)

Originally posted by Jimi-Spandex
Finally, Man, I agree entirely that you are entitled to make a choice based on your beliefs but that doesn't mean that your beliefs should dictate what the rest of us can and can't do.

I presume you mean of course in relation to abortion.
As I've said already,I would not even attempt to impose, my beliefs on anyone else in relation to this subject, it is a matter for ones individual conscience.
However that does not proclude me from voting against the availability here of something I fervently disbelieve in, when asked to do so in a democratic referendum.
mm

The Corinthian

From a humanist approach, abortion actually comes down to our definition or what we accept to be human and if that human has the same rights as the rest of us.

While most pro-Life proponents would accept that an hour pre-conception the egg and ovum are not human and pro-Choice that an hour pre-birth the foetus is human, agreement on when one should humanize the foetus, or zygote, as it were, is the hotly debated core of the problem.

On one side, humanity seems liberally given to anything that is fertilized, even though it may not be viable beyond a few hours for perfectly natural reasons. On the other side, numerous arbitrary metre sticks have been applied so as to define an expedient cut-off point to facilitate the process.

So not unlike Schroedinger's cat, we are faced with two possible realities of which only one may be true, but that we are unable to agree upon. However, if we consider both of them we begin to realize that it does ironically become a question of black and white, however unpopular boolean judgements are nowadays.

If the foetus is not human (at whatever stage of development) that the issue is clear-cut - the woman’s choice would appear to supersede all others; although one would also have to consider the father’s right to reproduction in the question as a secondary but mitigating right. Nonetheless, in such a scenario the debate is moot, as we cannot ascribe rights to an almost human, but only to a human.

On the other hand if the foetus is human (at whatever stage of development), then as such it has the fundamental right to life and should we give all humans the same rights and attribute to them the same value, a mother could not impose her morality on that other individual and thus the only scenario where abortion would be permissible would be where both mother and child would (most likely) die without the intervention due to medical reasons.

As an aside, one may pipe up now and argue that even so a woman’s rights supersede those of an unborn child or foetus, even if we accept its humanity - but if one does that, they must at least admit to proposing a utilitarian rather than humanist approach.

Unfortunately, this debate is one that has become a question of ideology rather than reason, where both sides seem intent to use emotive language and action born of their faith or politics and the inevitable pub conversation.

One side or the other tells us that abortion is the murder of the unborn or a fundamental woman’s right; and so we are either spiritually or socially damned either way. An image of a perfectly formed aborted foetus or the use of an exceptional scenario, such as the a pregnancy caused by rape, are common devices used as a matter of course, to sway us to fall into the camp of one side or the other. Even the language is designed to emote - no one is ever pro or anti abortion, everyone is pro life or choice - all very warm and fuzzy and frankly manipulative terms.

Personally, I would contend that morally abortion is that black and white scenario based upon whether the foetus is a human or not. Shades of grey would only come in when one accepts (the likelihood) of foetus being human but applies a utilitarian response. While if the foetus is not human then the only grey is a collection of expendable cells.

And so, if we stick to such fundamentals and ignore the propagandistic white noise of hysteria and ideology, we might actually come to our own conclusions.