an abortion referendum

MDR

Very articulate argument, however, I must ask, although I do acknowledge that you weren't spinning around the subject, however do you have any firm beliefs (I do not admittedly) of your own.

Using the terms which you have defined for us, is it human or not ?

I personally have no idea, but would probably err on the side of caution, admittedly I haven't been in the position where I have had to make that choice, I hope that I never will be (touch wood), and amn't entirely sure whether I am comfortable having the state make the choice for me.

It is a very divisive issue after all.

Kev

Whether it is human or not doesn't really matter, the only human right we have are those that society allows us.

Sparks

Paddy20,

You appear to believe in "good"?, as in good rather than "evil".

It might appear like that to you - in fact I don't, not in the sense you mean. I'm not amoral, but my sense of morality and ethics is not one any christian church would agree with, and it was formed independent of the church my parents tried raising me in.

Therefore, imho that alone confirms you have a soul or if you wish a spirit.

No, it does not. Ethics have been argued over by humans for thousands of years, and while the word "soul" has been bandied about for an equal length of time (or an analogue of that word, given that the earliest reference to a soul that I know of is in Aristotle), it has never been identified in the human body and has never been shown to exist through indirect means either.
A good analogue to the concept of the soul, IMO, would be the concept of the aether. That was discussed for a hundred years or so by physicists before being dismissed by the mainstream because noone could prove it existed, but people could prove that it couldn't be detected directly or indirectly.

The ability too differentiate between what you perceive to be good or evil

That "ability" either exists in all humans or it is a learned behaviour. And sociopathy proves that it doesn't exist in all humans, and the ethical differences between our way of life and that of other cultures proves it's a learned behaviour. Not an intrinsic part of a human.

in order to care about the never ending earthly battle between good and evil. You must have a soul or a spirit.

Actually, I merely require a television and an interest in retro TV shows.

I am a believer

Than believe - but come near anyone I care about with your beliefs and condemn them because their actions do not cooincide with your beliefs, and you can expect a hostile reception.

TC,

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

An inherited illness (by which I mean a geneticly passed-on disease, not one passed on through infection from the mother) is a condition. For example, the congenital heart defect commonly referred to as a "hole in the heart". That's a genetic defect, it is a condition but (and this is the important bit), it does not affect your legal right to life by my definition, because if it's serious enough to prevent you from being able to live outside the womb, odds are that you're not going to be curable, and if it's not serious enough, then by my definition, you do have a right to life.
So I don't see what a half-baked attempt to refer to pseudo-scientificly based bigotry has to do with the arguement.

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.

Actually, my quote was from the first page of the argument, and yours came from much later on, ignoring the arguments that came before it (which was rather disingenous to my eyes). And "rebutted"? Where?

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

Not quite, and it's not funny.

And you’re accusing them of being inhuman monsters.

No, I'm accusing people who are pro-life of inflicting psychological harm on the women they condemn. Which is an accusation based in recorded fact and personal experience. So you might say I'm accusing them of being very human monsters.

Hardly the stuff of rational debate is it?

Nope. As I explained to you (or tried to) in the other thread, I have no problem with discussing the matter rationally - but the moment someone comes in and says "abortion is murder" without proof, we've abandoned any pretence at rationality and at that point, my impulse is to shut them up because I've seen what those accusations can do to the women involved.

TomF,
And what would have happened if Eli Lilly & Company had not obtained that foetal material? Wouldn't it have gone into the medical waste incinerator?

Man,

so you would deny me the right to vote on a topic, based on my beliefs Sparks?

Nope, I'd deny you the right on the basis that you don't have a right to force someone to undergo something related to their bodies without a reason that's not religiously motivated. Especially not given the assumed gender your handle implies.
Unfortunatly, I'm not world dictator just yet, so I'll argue with you first.

Or require me to confirm my beliefs when compared to anybody elses set of beliefs?

Damn straight, if your beliefs are going to result in a serious change in someone else's health, and life.

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.

See, that's different. That I can understand and live with and respect. And by the way TC, the difference between what Man just said and what Paddy keeps saying is why I find this a difficult subject to discuss rationally. One will come after other people based on their beliefs, the other won't.

TC,

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.

Not quite, it doesn't come down to one thing, but to two. There is the issue you point out : there is also the issue of concern for the mother and her life.

On one side, humanity seems liberally given to anything that is fertilized

On what basis do you make that assertion?

On the other side, numerous arbitrary metre sticks have been applied so as to define an expedient cut-off point to facilitate the process.

Indeed. But what makes you think that the intial fertilisation itself is not an arbitary cut-off point?

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.

On that, we are in full agreement.

But since you can't define the point at which the foetus becomes human, you have one of two options - either you put emphasis on defending the alleged rights of the unborn foetus, or you put emphasis on defending the established rights of the mother.
Ideally, this wouldn't even be a choice, but until we find the "right metrestick" to use your analogy, we have to make one. Me, I've seen first-hand how damaging the attitudes of pro-lifers can be, and I've got neither time nor patience for them when they forget that the mother is not an abstract concept or an "evildoer", but a human being, often in an emotionally fraught state. So I choose the mother.

Originally posted by Sparks

Man,

Nope, I'd deny you the right on the basis that you don't have a right to force someone to undergo something related to their bodies without a reason that's not religiously motivated. Especially not given the assumed gender your handle implies.
Unfortunatly, I'm not world dictator just yet, so I'll argue with you first.

Well, as , you have noticed, and accepted further down your post my views on the subject are based on my beliefs and not on any Religous perogative.
If anyone who has had an abortion, does so, with a clear conscience, that is a matter for them and good luck to them.
It is not for me to judge them, it is for their God, if there is one, when they leave this life themselves.
No amount of argument could change my mind as regards, the potential of an unborn child and that it should not be terminated except in extreme circumstances( the usual medical ones ).
That view is engrained within me, given that I was once such an entity myself.
mm

Nevyn

For as long as there have been men and women there have be unwanted pregnancies and ways to stop them granted 90% of them left the woman dead if is only of late that is no longer the case.

It is all fine and well saying that every child is wanted that some will fall over them to adopt a child that is not wanted by the mother. But in fact society of late condemns those who carry the child to term and gives it way (in most cases to a loving home and better conditions then she could provide) even more so then those who choose to have a termination.

How many teen mothers who have kept the child they are not able to rear or control and as a result of lack of knowledge, support and parenting skills are rearing what will be a bane on them, their families and the community at large?

Until sex education is taught properly and contraception is widely available and people take responsibility for their action and their body’s abortion will be
An option. In an ideal world no child would be conceived with out the planning and
Preparations needed to nurture it for the rest of it life. But we don’t live in one do we?

No we don’t, and the sooner this is accepted and people in this country stop being so damned hypocritical about the whole thing the better, for seeking a termination is a hard choice and upsetting enough for those involved (couples do seek it not just women) with out having to travel to another country. And there is no proper aftercare and counselling here as a result.


And before people start jumping to all sorts of conclusions I was a womans right officer in college , and no one is ever Pro abortion but life and people are not perfect.

BKtje

For the record i'd be Pro Choice.

I would have to say that i dont consider a foetus to be Human till it can exist without the mother (wether in an incubator or without). I also believe that parent(s) should have the choice till the stage above is reached. On the whole i agree with Sparks.

I don't totally believe in this 'Good' and 'Evil' business either.
What we may believe to be evil may not be evil from his/her perspective (or is that what makes him/her evil?). Guilt is the main issue here and wether someone feels guilty about something. If you feel guilty about doing something than usually you realise that it is wrong. However this too is not clear cut.
ie a Bankrobber may not feel guilty about taking other peoples money but it *is* wrong.

If a parent feels guilty about having an abortion then they believe it to be wrong and personally i dont believe they should be allowed to have it done in this case as it would go against their 'belief system'. However prooving that someone feels guilty is not possible so i guess that this argument is kinda pointless.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Sparks
So I don't see what a half-baked attempt to refer to pseudo-scientificly based bigotry has to do with the arguement.

Wasn’t a lot of pseudo-scientificly based bigotry considered scientific fact once?

Maybe we’ve got it right this time...

Actually, my quote was from the first page of the argument, and yours came from much later on, ignoring the arguments that came before it (which was rather disingenous to my eyes). And "rebutted"? Where?

I didn’t ignore your points. Read the thread.

Not quite, and it's not funny.

Awe diddums. Stop taking yourself so seriously.

So you might say I'm accusing them of being very human monsters.

You’re kind of missing my point...

As I explained to you (or tried to) in the other thread, I have no problem with discussing the matter rationally - but the moment someone comes in and says "abortion is murder" without proof, we've abandoned any pretence at rationality and at that point, my impulse is to shut them up because I've seen what those accusations can do to the women involved.

I’m not certain I’ve ever stated that “abortion is murder” at any point, and even if I did, I certainly would not do so without a painfully long and logical argument, yet you’ve abandoned any pretence at rationality, protesting indignation towards me on more than one occasion.

Not quite, it doesn't come down to one thing, but to two. There is the issue you point out : there is also the issue of concern for the mother and her life.

No, really it comes down to just the foetus being human. No one, including pro-life proponents (excluding mad people, and you get them everywhere) would deny that abortion is inevitable in certain medical cases, so as to save a mother’s life (I pointed that out already). However, whether the foetus is human or not, completely changes how abortion is viewed or how we would consider it acceptable to practice in any other scenario.

I’ve found in the past that to contend that abortion is simply a woman’s issue is already an admission of partisanship; for if the foetus is human then it adopts the wider significance of a human issue.

On what basis do you make that assertion?

I wasn’t, I was just postulating one of the two extremes of the debate.

Indeed. But what makes you think that the intial fertilisation itself is not an arbitary cut-off point?

I’d imagine that to those who would argue that the potentiality of sperm/egg, pre-fertilization, to become human makes it human it probably would be seen as that.

Otherwise, fertilisation and birth would appear to be the logical points in-between which this debate resides.

On that, we are in full agreement.

We’re not, I was just postulating the other of the two extremes of the debate.

But since you can't define the point at which the foetus becomes human, you have one of two options - either you put emphasis on defending the alleged rights of the unborn foetus, or you put emphasis on defending the established rights of the mother.

Which is a perfectly reasonable utilitarian argument (to favour the known utility of a resource over the potential utility of another), however it is not a humanist one. A humanist approach would probably seek to understand whether the foetus is human or not and failing that give it the benefit of the doubt - given the consequences to it, the principle of innocent until proven guilty, would seem to apply.

Ideally, this wouldn't even be a choice, but until we find the "right metrestick" to use your analogy, we have to make one. Me, I've seen first-hand how damaging the attitudes of pro-lifers can be, and I've got neither time nor patience for them when they forget that the mother is not an abstract concept or an "evildoer", but a human being, often in an emotionally fraught state. So I choose the mother.

An emotional position taken from bad experiences, fuelled by an already existing, and well documented, ideological preference. I’m sure many pro-lifers would say the same thing about you.

With respects, from such a basis, I doubt either of you have come to a rational conclusion.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by MDR
Very articulate argument, however, I must ask, although I do acknowledge that you weren't spinning around the subject, however do you have any firm beliefs (I do not admittedly) of your own.

I would say there are a number of schools of thought that would (in my mind) include:

A moral or more humanist approach would that, as I stated in my previous post, probably seek to understand whether the foetus is human or not and failing that give it the benefit of the doubt - given the consequences to it, the principle of innocent until proven guilty, would seem to apply.

On the other hand, there is the more amoral (please note - this should not be equated with evil) or utilitarian approach, which would, again; as I stated in my previous post, favour a known utility of a resource (the mother) over the potential utility of another (the foetus). Any other choice would be irrational given this approach.

Either is perfectly valid to me, TBH.

What I do not believe in is in holding a position simply based upon faith or political ideology. Too many are pro-Life or Pro-Choice as it conveniently fit’s in with set of beliefs they have adopted (or been indoctrinated with). Neither do I take seriously those arguments that propose to call a moral standpoint practical or a utilitarian one moral - they’re just fooling themselves.

Sparks

TC, that's the second time in this thread alone that you've sat there, accused me of having an irrational belief based on a political ideology despite my attempts to explain my reasoning to you.

Meanwhile you sit there claiming that you have no viewpoint on matters yourself and refusing to say unequivocally what your position is. You abuse the term "humanitarian" by stating that it be applied to the foetus alone until the status of the foetus can be agreed upon.
In the meantime, we see pro-life protestors using highly graphic images on O'Connell St. in flagrant disregard for the mental health of women who have had (or will have in the future) abortions.

Frankly, I have a wall right here I can wallop my head off if I feel the urge to - so I see no further point in responding to you on this topic until you pick a position and state it clearly.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Sparks
TC, that's the second time in this thread alone that you've sat there, accused me of having an irrational belief based on a political ideology despite my attempts to explain my reasoning to you.

Not really, as when you dislike an argument you seem to either ignore it or get all upset that I would even countenance such a position. The moment you do that you abandon the pretence of objectivity and seem to retreat to sound bites.

Meanwhile you sit there claiming that you have no viewpoint on matters yourself and refusing to say unequivocally what your position is.

Of course I have. I’m ambivalent. [EDIT](Wasn't always, but would be now)[/EDIT]

You abuse the term "humanitarian" by stating that it be applied to the foetus alone until the status of the foetus can be agreed upon.

Not at all, both the mother and child have equal rights in scenario that a foetus is human (I know, it’s not a suspension of belief you can allow yourself with ease), however, that is not to say all rights are equal.

I’ve already said that few if any on either side of this debate would deny an abortion where the mother’s right to life was at stake, but is that the case with all abortions? And if the above were the case, does not does the right to life of one individual not supersede the right to, for example, economic expediency of another?

In the meantime, we see pro-life protestors using highly graphic images on O'Connell St. in flagrant disregard for the mental health of women who have had (or will have in the future) abortions.

And if you actually read my earlier post I criticised such a practice as propaganda, unworthy of rational debate. Apparently propaganda used by both sides of the argument.

Frankly, I have a wall right here I can wallop my head off if I feel the urge to - so I see no further point in responding to you on this topic until you pick a position and state it clearly.

I’m sorry if I fail to fall continently into one of the bipolar camps that make up your reality, but I do not. If that is something you are uncomfortable with, then so be it, but I prefer by logic to be deductive rather than inductive.

JustHalf

TC, that's the second time in this thread alone that you've sat there, accused me of having an irrational belief based on a political ideology despite my attempts to explain my reasoning to you.

I have to concur with TC I'm afraid. The reason (I hope) is below.

You abuse the term "humanitarian" by stating that it be applied to the foetus alone until the status of the foetus can be agreed upon.

I don't think that's the point. The point is, it's unknown at this time. If you make a claim, either way, then it is a pretty much arbitrary claim; and it's irresponsible to decide "abortion is A-OKAY!" based on the arbitrary decision that the foetus is not human.

It is reasonable only to say "I don't know"; and, because [1:] we don't know that the foetus is "human" (in the greater sense of the word), [2:] we can't say that abortion is okay or not.

Now, because we can't say that elective abortion is okay or not, just permitting it is irresponsible; because the answer to [1:] may make elective abortion literally murder.

In the meantime, we see pro-life protestors using highly graphic images on O'Connell St. in flagrant disregard for the mental health of women who have had (or will have in the future) abortions.

Completely irrelevant to any part of The Corintian's arguments.

The Republicans in the US seem to be making headway with this (attacking the argument by ignoring it) so maybe you should keep it up.

Boston

What does a soul have to do with bveing alive? I'm not a christian pal.

TomF

It has always interested me that abortion is considered justified in a mantra: "Life of the mother, rape or incest."

Suppose abortion, in an ideal world, were permitted only for these three cases. Naturally in the real world, the "Life of the mother" case would immediately be inflated by lawyers to include "risk of psychological damage" and "risk of suicide" to add to the actual threat that the development and birth of a baby might represent to a mother's life. But let's suspend belief for the sake of my argument and suppose that only the very rare threats to the mother's life are allowed as being valid reasons for abortion under the "Life of the mother" part of the mantra.

How many abortions would there be world-wide? Any reasonable person has to agree that it would be a very small number compared to the number of abortions now being done.

I am reasonably certain that a large percentage of abortions are done for the convenience of the father. I am convinced based on the experience of my niece, who became pregnant and who was told by the father (boyfriend, not husband) that he wanted nothing to do with the baby, and that she should get an abortion. She did not, and the father has fallen in love with the little boy who was born.

Being certain that so many abortions are for the convenience of the father, I think it is invalid in those cases to claim that abortion means that a woman has the right to choose, and has the right to control her own body. Her right has been pre-empted by a domineering, lazy or cowardly father who denies her instinctive wish to nuture, not destroy, the new life created within her.

gandalf

Originally posted by TomF
...Being certain that so many abortions are for the convenience of the father, I think it is invalid in those cases to claim that abortion means that a woman has the right to choose, and has the right to control her own body. Her right has been pre-empted by a domineering, lazy or cowardly father who denies her instinctive wish to nuture, not destroy, the new life created within her.

So what your saying is women are weak and easily led by men then.

Gandalf.

Ivan

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.

Thats the whole point isnt it?

We're challenging christians beliefs by wanting abortion, but we're not really are we? I mean its not like we're saying abortion must be mandatory, we just want a choice.

By not allowing us a choice your forcing your opinion on the rest of us, by allowing everybody a choice people are still allowed to decide if abortion is the way to go.

Its fine to say that the system is fine where people have to go to the uk in order to get an abortion, that Irish people should not grow accustomed to the "instantaneous abortion" but as it is, some families are being financially crippled just having the abortion let alone getting over to the U.K.

Its about the choice or not having a choice, its not about whether you agree with having an abortion. I'm not saying I'd ever like my girlfriend to have an abortion, but I'd like to think that if something unspeakably horrible happened to her, that she would not be forced to live with the reminder every day of her life.

Adoption is an option but for that you have to go through pregnancy & birth, and for some people that can be enough to push them over the edge of suicide.

Chaos-Engine

Originally posted by Sparks

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.

Who is to say that our soul resides within our physical bodies anyway. Our Bodies could simply be terminals or nodes similar to a surfer on the net. You are a part of it. But you can never remove your soul from the net...

Getting very influenced by the ghost in the shell which i had to watch again me thinks

TomF

"So what your saying is women are weak and easily led by men then."

There must be a reason why people, in general, are shocked when a man punches a woman in the face. Is it because people shouldn't be punching other people? Of course this is not the reason, it is that women, in general, are not as large or as strong as men.

I know that was an unsatisfactory answer because the original question implies not physical weakness, but moral weakness as in not having "moral courage" which is basically the courage to speak up against a person or persons who are pressing you to do something that you do not want to do. (Have a drink, smoke a cigarette, vandalize something, abort a life developing within you.)

A girl or woman who is pregnant is inherently vulnerable (weak in comparison to persons who are not pregnant or who cannot become pregnant). This is so blindingly obvious to anyone that I hesitate to include it in this note. If a pregnant girl or woman is being pressed to abort by family or by the father of the life in her, she has to be exceedingly strong to resist that pressure. The pressure on her can take the form of saying that if the baby is allowed to live, she will be on her own, and the family or the father of the baby want nothing to do with caring for the baby and will not support the mother through her carrying the baby to birth, and will not support the baby and the mother after birth.

In summary, yes, it is easy for a pregnant mother in her delicate condition to be led (pushed) by a cowardly or brutal or lazy or shiftless man. Her moral courage is easily overcome by her fear of consequences.

gandalf

But Tom by your logic it would also be possible to have pressure inversely applied to force a mother to have a child that they do not want because they are in a "weakened state" now couldn't it.

Not a very convincing arguement.

Gandalf.

Lemming

TomF, that really isn't a very good arguement at all and is only making you look like some sort of male-supremacist. You could argue that it is THE FATHER who lacks the moral courage to face his responsibilities, but instead you seem to be laying it all at the feet of the mother. It's all her fault.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by gandalf
But Tom by your logic it would also be possible to have pressure inversely applied to force a mother to have a child that they do not want because they are in a "weakened state" now couldn't it.

Actually, that does happen. Historically many of the private clinics that were originally set up were done so during a period when contraceptives, let alone anything else, was available in Ireland, and so ideologically motivated volunteers often staffed them at the start. As one can guess abortion was often pushed as the favourable or only realistic option to women who would use these clinics.

As a reaction to this pro-Life groups also began to set up similar centres. Here however, abortion was either not on the menu or it was even actively discouraged, using moral or medical arguments.

As a result, this tradition has continued and it is commonplace for a woman to be guided towards either having an abortion or not, depending upon the ethos of a clinic.

Nevyn

Originally posted by The Corinthian

As a result, this tradition has continued and it is commonplace for a woman to be guided towards either having an abortion or not, depending upon the ethos of a clinic.

Really, fact remains that if a woman had no intent what so ever having an abortion she would go to cura, if she had considered it and in fact may want a referral then she world go to the well woman’s centre to have that option available.

Options as in a choice is called NONDIRECTIVE counselling for a good reason, and any woman that had faced up to the hard fact that she may want to terminate a child is far from weak willed. It takes a lot more strength of personality to own up to what has happened and take steps then pretend it isn’t happening until lo and behold they are 6 mnts pregnant.

All Women seeking a termination have to see two different counsellors to ensure that they make their own choices as well as two doctors.

And yes women have been know to change their mind and at the last minute leave what ever clinic they are booked into.

The only type of female that could be pushed into an abortion would be one that was pushed into sex to being with.

Typedef

The right to life of the unborn supercedes the right of somebody else to decide wether or not to be pregnant in my view.

Yes I realise that as one of "those" right wing conservatives who supports legalisation of cannabis, prostitution and equal status gay/lesbian marriages and equal status gay/lesbian adoption, that my stance on abortion is predictable, but, sometimes, you just can't break free of your stereotypes.

I think a big part of the reason that lots of men support abortion, is that said males don't want to be labled as 'male oppressors' by women.

I similarly think that lots of women are just plain selfish when it comes to abortion.

Since I'm an athiest (an avid one), this isn't some sort of religous crusade for me.

It's just I don't think that the desire of a woman, not to be pregnant, is sufficient grounds to perform a murder, and yes, I do think that stem cell harvesting is wrong.

Typically this issue gets brought down to some sort of women's right issue.

Sorry, but, I don't think it's a women's rights issue, I think it's a people rights issue, in that every person has a right to be alive, despite the wishes of another person.
It's real simple like that for me.

Elmo

If someone gets AIDS there stuck with it. However someone who has a baby get rid of it just because their social life will be ruined.

I don't think we need abortion in this country we need education.

Also I just want to say that I would never blame a woman for having an abortion. I would Blame our Hypocritical society which say on one hand it is bad for a young woman to have a baby on there own if they are not married but on the other views the life of a baby as something special.

Everyones life is special.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Thaed
Really, fact remains that if a woman had no intent what so ever having an abortion she would go to cura, if she had considered it and in fact may want a referral then she world go to the well woman’s centre to have that option available.

You are assuming that all women have made that choice prior to going anywhere. Many of these clinics advertise counselling services to help women to decide the best option. You further assume that all women would also be aware of the politics of places such as the Well Woman Centre or Cura.

Options as in a choice is called NONDIRECTIVE counselling for a good reason, and any woman that had faced up to the hard fact that she may want to terminate a child is far from weak willed.

Problem is that many such clinics claim to be nondirective, even when they’re not.

Sparks

Problem is that many such clinics claim to be nondirective, even when they’re not.

Indeed. It escapes me as to why this isn't a prosecutable offence though - I mean, it goes against medical ethics for a start and advertising laws as well.

JustHalf

The craziest thing of all is that most unwanted pregnancies are preventable by proper use of contraceptives.* The problem is that people aren't using contraceptives.

If you are going to have sex, and don't want to have a baby, use contraceptives. If you don't bother, that's your responsibility. Most people who are having sex know that you can also make a baby that way; "I didn't know it would happen" is a poor excuse.

And learn how to use them. I've heard stories of women using morning-after pills as their main form of contraception. Several times a month. This is crazy; regardless of your opinion on the pills themselves, women who do this are completely screwing up their bodies. There's far safer ways of preventing conception.

* This doesn't apply to cases of rape**, but this is hardly the reason for most elective abortions.

** I'm not going to suggest women should take the pill regardless, just in case they get raped. I've had this argument before, and if I recall correctly I was accused of this nonsense.

seamus

My views on it boil down to two things:

No-one has any proof, either way, as to when the foetus becomes human. Without any solid evidence or scientific fact, this must be taken out of the equation, IMO. After all, religion and belief have no place in law.

To me, this then implies that the decision defaults to the mother. After all, who am I, a lowly voter, to force someone to do something against their will by voting against abortion? The same goes for the State. They have no say here either.

After all, a farmer can go out and shoot a horse/dog/sheep he doesn't want anymore, or that's in pain, etc, without having to rationalise it to the state. Whatever people believe about animals and their feelings, there is no scientific basis that calls on us to give animals the same rights as humans. Such as it is with the unborn child, IMO.

I don't like it. In a perfect world, abortion would be free to anyone who wanted it, but no-one would use it. But it's not a perfect world. And I'm bound by what I believe is right.

Kev

Originally posted by seamus
My views on it boil down to two things:

No-one has any proof, either way, as to when the foetus becomes human. Without any solid evidence or scientific fact, this must be taken out of the equation, IMO. After all, religion and belief have no place in law.

To me, this then implies that the decision defaults to the mother.

so whats the proof that it becomes human after it is born, does this mean a mother can kill her bay after its born.

there is no scientific basis that calls on us to give animals the same rights as humans. Such as it is with the unborn child, IMO.

there is no scientific basis that calls on us to give humans the same rights as other humans.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by seamus
No-one has any proof, either way, as to when the foetus becomes human. Without any solid evidence or scientific fact, this must be taken out of the equation, IMO.

By the same logic one should consider a man guilty of a crime unless proven innocent. Of course one could argue that the same standards would not apply in the case of the foetus as it is not proven to be human, but that would be a rather circular argument as that is precisely the crime that it is being accused of.

After all, who am I, a lowly voter, to force someone to do something against their will by voting against abortion? The same goes for the State. They have no say here either.

The State, and those enfranchised by the State - in this case us - force people to do things against their will all the time - we pay taxes, we do not steal from our neighbours or commit murder. When we ignore these rules, the State will further force retribution upon us, most extremely in the form of incarceration. So what you say does not really hold.

After all, a farmer can go out and shoot a horse/dog/sheep he doesn't want anymore, or that's in pain, etc, without having to rationalise it to the state. Whatever people believe about animals and their feelings, there is no scientific basis that calls on us to give animals the same rights as humans. Such as it is with the unborn child, IMO.

However, either pre or post birth, it is a fact that a horse/dog/sheep will not develop into a human. Were there even a possibility that it might happen then moral and ethical questions would be asked, far more so if it may have already happened.

Actually, as a rather unlikely but apt illustration, it reminds me of the movie Dog Soldiers when someone finds a plate of ‘pork’ in the kitchen of a house. The ‘pork’ is cooked up and eaten; however while it is never actually said, the possibility that the ‘pork’ was actually human flesh does arise. Would you be so quick to fry up that meat if you knew that there was a possibility it was human? Or would you eat it because there’s no proof that it is human?

Buon appetit

Paddy20

I have not read this thread for a couple of days, and I am not going to read through what I imagine are very long winded posts.

All I want to ask*-is this:- Can a union between a man and a woman where the female egg is impregnated by the usually strongest swimming male spermatoza, produce anything other than another human?..

I am deliberately leaving out all referances to any religion.

Paddy20