an abortion referendum

Sparks

Depends Paddy - how serious a birth defect do you need to not be considered human? Mind you, this is rather like asking whether or not two cattle can mate to produce a horse, isn't it?

TC,
We don't know if a foetus is human.
Therefore, if the mother kills it via an abortion, why doesn't she get the benefit of the doubt and get pronounced innocent until proven guilty?

Paddy20

Sparks,

Birth defects or not. You are referring to a human being.

Oh, and by the way, I seem to recall one of your earlier posts stating that you had seen close up the devastating effect not being able to have an abortion had on women. Correct me if I am wrong.

However, let me state that I personally witnessed the horrific mental torture, and feelings of guilt including the suicidal tenencies in women who went through with having an abortion in the UK. They described to me in detail what they had endured both physically and mentally.

Believe me, I am referring to a period when the pill had not been invented i.e. London in the sixties. It turned my stomach and converted me from being very neutral in relation to abortion in to someone who believes that any other option is preferable, especially for the unborn.

Paddy20.

seamus

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.

That's a paradox, and you know it. How can it be accused of a crime if we haven't established that it can be accused of a crime?
The way I see it, the standard is to prove something, not to disprove it (innocent until proven guilty), so it needs to be proven that the foetus is human, not to disprove it. BUt swings and roundabouts again. Which is why, IMO, this argument must be removed completely from the equation.

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.

The State deals with offences against other people, or against the state. The way I see it, without the firm establishment that the foetus is human, then anything carried out by the mother is totally of her own will, and not in offence of any person or of the State. By the same token, illegalising suicide is wrong, IMO.

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?

Purely theoretical, seeing as I'm vegetarian , I would eat it. By the same token, if there's something on a plate that I think is something that I don't like, but I'm not sure, I'll eat it to find out, ie to prove that it is. That's not exactly the same, but after death a human is no longer human, IMO.

Originally posted by 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?..

Depends on the viewpoint.

In theory, it could produce something with a mutation in evolutionary favour, which, in theory, could eventually lead to a new species of human, genetically incompatible with our own. Is this new species human? Certain genetic safeguards in some species cause genetically inferior offspring (usually offspring of offspring of offspring, etc, of close relations) to become sterile, thus preventing them from contaminating the race as a whole, essentially separating and removing them from the rest of the species. Are they still part of that species?

I think what you're asking is a philosophical question rather than a scientific one tbh.

Typedef

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.

I can prove that a foetus is genetically human.

What other criteria do you define a person by?

The colour of their skin perhaps? Or their religion?

Perhaps one is not to be considered human, until one can be proven to be self concious.

Certainly, even neonates, aren't self concious, for anytime up to being 9-12 months old, post birth.

So I'd be very careful, in the instances, I would 'allow' human rights to be denied, on the basis of not really being a human.

Remember sliding scales of 'humanity' have been used to justify the slave trades in bygone years. Sliding scales of humanity have been used to justify any number of atrocities in human history.
I happen the think that in the case of abortion, that yet another sliding scale of what is human, is being used to perpitrate an atrocity, by way of abortion.

So, using the unborn for their stem cells, or simply wiping them out when they are inconvienent, is (a) a diminution of their humanity and (b) creates an instance where one's placing of another as a 'lesser' entity, allows that person to exploit, the other.

In this regard I see no difference between the so called "harvesting" of stem cells and slavery.
For me one is a modern day equivalent of the other, only, that society, through it's snobbish self righteous indignancy, considers itself, beyond such arbitrary elitist applications of equality.

Sparks

Originally posted by Paddy20
Sparks,
Birth defects or not. You are referring to a human being.

And if the birth defect is the lack of a neocortex? Or any significant brainstem? Or just the lack of a head alltogether? Or a mutation that puts the offspring outside the species?

Oh, and by the way, I seem to recall one of your earlier posts stating that you had seen close up the devastating effect not being able to have an abortion had on women. Correct me if I am wrong.

You are. I personally got a close-up view of one of the clinics that TC mentioned that say they're nondirective, but in fact are very directive and have no compunction about stooping to any level to prevent the mother from even considering an abortion.

The actual abortions themselves are in fact, not traumatic at all. The '60s may have been - the '90s aren't. That's 30 years of progress in the medical world for you...

Typedef,

I can prove that a foetus is genetically human.

Indeed, but it doesn't mean that foetus is a person, is self-aware, or should have rights. In fact, I'm not even sure it should be legally considered a seperate entity until it's capable of existing as such.

What other criteria do you define a person by?

By psychological criteria - self-awareness to be specific.

Certainly, even neonates, aren't self concious, for anytime up to being 9-12 months old, post birth.

Indeed. However, you don't abort neonates :rolleyes:
And there's no reason a neonate can't have seperate protection under the law. Once it's able to exist on it's own, I'm quite happy to see it granted the legal right to life. Not a bother on me (with the obvious exception of cases where complications in the pregnancy result in a Mother-or-child-but-not-both situation).

Remember sliding scales of 'humanity'

Who's sliding? This is binary - does the foetus have legal rights or not?

So, using the unborn for their stem cells, or simply wiping them out when they are inconvienent, is (a) a diminution of their humanity and (b) creates an instance where one's placing of another as a 'lesser' entity, allows that person to exploit, the other.

Firstly, stem cells are not harvested from foetuses that are either alive as a whole (cells die at different rates in multicellular organisms, hence the hair and toenail growth seen after death in humans).
Secondly:
a) you haven't shown a foetus is a person, and
b) you haven't shown a foetus is a person, or even that it should be considered a seperate entity.

In this regard I see no difference between the so called "harvesting" of stem cells and slavery.

Which ought to tell you that there's something wrong in your fundamental axioms.

Paddy20

Sparks,

Yes, since the sixties, the medical/scientific world has made the possibility of becoming pregnant involuntarily less ofa problem.

For instance, even here in Ireland. The [Morning after] pill is readily available, particularly inappropriate case of rape victims etc,etc,.

Women, and men now have many choices whereby unwanted pregnancies are avoidable.

Husbands for instance now can have - the snip - in circumstances where a large family is not affordable. The number of different precautions that both sexes have available is mind boggling.

Therefore, I personally believe if people would only make use of the contraception etc,that is available. Then the number of pro - abortion decisions should be reducing drastically. Perhaps plain old ignorance and the lack of proper birth control education, via Government initiatives, of the population has some significant bearing on this emotive subject.

Paddy20

Typedef

Indeed, but it doesn't mean that foetus is a person, is self-aware, or should have rights.

I see, and who exactly decides, what is a person?

For your information, even if someone is born without a for example a frontal lobe, that is still a human and is still afforded all the protection the law may extend, it is still illegal to end that person's life.

Still, by the criteria you are attempting to exponentiate, it's ok to kill a foetus, which has a significantly more developed frontal lobe (and thus is more human (by your criteria), since conciousness is ostensibly frontal lobe based). This is a inconsistent proposition, in my view.

In fact, I'm not even sure it should be legally considered a seperate entity until it's capable of existing as such.

Then it is fair to say, that until one can exist as a seperate entity ie, provide food and shelter for oneself, one is somehow, afforded less human rights?

quote:What other criteria do you define a person by?


By psychological criteria - self-awareness to be specific.

So then, children, who can't talk, or relate to reality in any meaningful sense, aren't people and by extenstion aren't human, so it's ok to kill them?

Oh wait, that's not what your saying right?
Somehow, when the baby, exists in the real world, despite what you just said about self-sustainability, it's suddenly wrong to end that child's life.

What an utterly inconsistent proposition.
And you speak of binary application of moral fortitude on this topic. Either an unborn child, is human or it is not. Either it is ethical to harvest stem cells or it is not. Either it is ethical to get pregnant for the purposes of harvesting the zygote's stem cells or it is not.

quote:Certainly, even neonates, aren't self concious, for anytime up to being 9-12 months old, post birth.


Indeed. However, you don't abort neonates
And there's no reason a neonate can't have seperate protection under the law.

Oh, and what in your eyes makes week-X in the homo sapien gestational process, the magic week that a zygote becomes afforded the same rights as a neonate to life?
The ability to be put in an incubator and fed and perhaps survive?

So why is ending such a radically prematue baby's life not ethical, whilst ending the life of a child which is merely weeks younger and potentially utilising parts of that child in medical researches and therapies is ethical, moral, whatever you want to call the confines that keep society from all out total anarchic self destruction?

Once it's able to exist on it's own, I'm quite happy to see it granted the legal right to life.

Define exist please. A baby in an incubator, is a pretty damn long way away from 'existing' on it's own, wouldn't you say.
So, is such an entity afforded the right to be protected from me coming along and ending it's life?

quote:Remember sliding scales of 'humanity'


Who's sliding? This is binary - does the foetus have legal rights or not?

The same argument was used for slavery.
Are black people human or not?
Binary. Some said no, and used black people as slaves.
Many violations of human rights are carried out, because the perpitrators of such violations, cast aspersions on the rights of the victims.
In this case it just happens to be the right of the unborn to life, it could easily be a Palestinian's right, to self-determinate democracy, or an Israeli's right not to be blown to bits, whilst eating pizza. It could be a Catholic's right to work in Northern Ireland in the 1960s.
Again, once there is a diminution or a demonisation of a person ( a form of discimination), it becomes easy, to treat that person without the same rights and entitlements as everybody else, again, in this case it simply happens to be the non-born state of the person in question that you seek to deny that person the right to life.

Let me ask you, who you are to dictate who may and may not grow into a person?

On slavery, for me there was no moral ethic, in such a porposition, it wasn't a case of, is a black man a man? It was a case of 'can the white man do it to the black man'?
Well yes he could, so he did.
Same thing with abortion here if you notice? You're proposing it's ethical to end the life of a child, so long as it's still possible to do so, and the criteria you base that on is, so long as no child has survived outside the womb below that age, it's ok to terminate that child.

Only that doesn't jibe with your application of conciousness-based humanity. If you and I can be proven to be more intelligent then another person, does that not give us more right of life then that person?
Who decides who is worthy of such exaltation and if a child can be proven to never be able to attain your arbitrarily imposed criteria for human rights, doesn't that mean that, that person can be exterminated, due to it's inability to fend for itself as a concious human ?

quote:So, using the unborn for their stem cells, or simply wiping them out when they are inconvienent, is (a) a diminution of their humanity and (b) creates an instance where one's placing of another as a 'lesser' entity, allows that person to exploit, the other.


Firstly, stem cells are not harvested from foetuses that are either alive as a whole

Quite true, there is now a burgeoning market in stem cell research. George Bush, the so-called pro-Life President of the United States, decreed it would be 'ok' to use the stem cells of aborted foetuses for stem cell research. Already the debate rages as to just how 'ethical' it is to use stem cells from aborted foetuses for resarch and theraputic purposes.
Christoper Reeve, is an exponent of such a use of stem cell technology, as is Michael J Fox, because stem cells offer the potential to cure the afflications both men live with.

a) you haven't shown a foetus is a person,

I've shown a foetus is human.
You've offered some hand wavy self-sustainabilty argument for what a person is, and seemed to backtrack from saying that one had to be concious to be human.
I'm saying, once the spem enters the egg, the resulting chain of cells is for want of a better word sacrosanct. Since I don't regard myself as one who may deny life to another, I'm not prepaired to say that termination of such an entity (which is genetically as human as I) is right, and more over, I won't support it.
Bottom line, I'm glad the law protected me from termination when I was in that state, and I'm thankful.

you haven't shown a foetus is a person, or even that it should be considered a seperate entity.

Who said anyting about 'seperate entity'?
You did, and you're not even sure what, or when a sperate entity is?

I don't subscribe to the seperate entity notion, so I feel no cause to validate your proposed position on that point.

quote:In this regard I see no difference between the so called "harvesting" of stem cells and slavery.

Which ought to tell you that there's something wrong in your fundamental axioms.

Now, now.
No fighting like a girl.

Elmo

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.

Animals are not the same as an unborn child.

If a horse or a dog is put down its put down because it will die anyway or it won't have much of a life if it is not put down, perhaps its not even up to us to decide this. (an after thought:-Fox hunting should stay legalised as should corse racing?)

An unborn Child will in most cases in the developed world go on to have a happy life and will get all of the choices we get as human beings. And if when born is murdered someone will have to rationalise that to a jury.

There is no scientific evidence that a child should not be brought into the world just because their mammy and daddy don't want it.

There are too many other social and moral questions that this subject brings up not just in relation to the unborn child.

Nevyn

Crinnie,

Again with the comparison of cannibalism and abortion,
Yes they are both usually considered abhorrent but can be deemed necessary,
given extreme circumstances.


Sparks

Cura are as far from nondirective as you can get but then again they are party funded by the Catholic Church so what do you expect. It is easy to know what the politics of the different clinics and what services they offer, and most women do know.


Paddy20

Have you any idea the length you have to go to get a vasectomy or tubal ligation?
It is far from easy, and you wont get one in this country unless you are over 35 or have at least 4 kids.

Just because contraception is apparently readily available does not mean people will think that far ahead. It is still the ago old attitude that being drunk and ending up having sex is less of a sin then planning for it and taking precautions.

“The Irish Family Planning Association said that the 10th anniversary since the passing of legislation to allow for the liberal sale of condoms should be marked by a campaign to promote their use.” http://www.ifpa.ie/news/index.php?mr=59





Lets face facts as things stands everyone know some woman that as
had an abortion, sister, cousin, co worker, the woman on the bus,
or who you pass in the street or in fact their own mother.


“Between January 1980 and December 2001, at least 98,565 Irish women had abortions in Britain. “http://www.ifpa.ie/abortion/iabst.html

And at the average yearly rate of 6, 000 a year that means currently there are at least
100,000 women living here that have travelled to the UK for an abortion.
Most of them never tell anyone, never talk about it, never fully deal with
And are at times considered the most vilified people in this country.

Until we have the staggering changes in attitude, education and personal
Responsibility needed unfortunately this will remain so. There should be more
Support for those who if not for the stigma would carry a child to term
To have it adopted.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Sparks
We don't know if a foetus is human.
Therefore, if the mother kills it via an abortion, why doesn't she get the benefit of the doubt and get pronounced innocent until proven guilty?

I assume you’re attempting to use the often-contemptible treatment of many women who’ve had abortions as a justification for your position. Please stop trying to throw hysterical sound bites into a rational debate.

And while we’re at it feel free to address those points of mine that you failed to answer back when you refused to debate this issue any further with me

Originally posted by seamus
That's a paradox, and you know it. How can it be accused of a crime if we haven't established that it can be accused of a crime?
The way I see it, the standard is to prove something, not to disprove it (innocent until proven guilty), so it needs to be proven that the foetus is human, not to disprove it. BUt swings and roundabouts again. Which is why, IMO, this argument must be removed completely from the equation.

Not at all, it’s quite commonplace to try a defendant on whether they are fit to be tried in the first place.

Purely theoretical, seeing as I'm vegetarian , I would eat it. By the same token, if there's something on a plate that I think is something that I don't like, but I'm not sure, I'll eat it to find out, ie to prove that it is. That's not exactly the same, but after death a human is no longer human, IMO.

A poor example given you seem happy to practice cannibalism knowingly

Here’s another try at an example: A boat is lost at sea, that the sailors have drowned is a distinct possibility, should this mean that we should not search for survivors because it is not proven that they exist?

The point I was trying to make was that even if unproven, the distinct possibility that a foetus is human would give it the benefit of the doubt from a humanist approach.

Criminal law works on this principle as while trying people on the basis that they are guilty until proven innocent would be far more effective in lowering crime, it is generally considered inhumane to do so - and so it is considered preferable to allow some guilty to walk free than to convict an innocent man.

What you suggest is perfectly valid and reasonable, but based upon utilitarianism, that is to say it dehumanises the equation and looks to solve it using cold amoral logic.

Still, if you accept that, I’m fine with it

Originally posted by Thaed
Again with the comparison of cannibalism and abortion,
Yes they are both usually considered abhorrent but can be deemed necessary,
given extreme circumstances.

The cannibalism example seemed to fail to get my point across completely

Nonetheless, I would agree that practically anything can be deemed necessary, given extreme circumstances, but we’re not really debating that are we?

sceptre

Originally posted by The Corinthian
Here’s another try at an example: A boat is lost at sea, that the sailors have drowned is a distinct possibility, should this mean that we should not search for survivors because it is not proven that they exist?

They search for bodies too. I liked your other example better.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by sceptre
They search for bodies too. I liked your other example better.

Bugger.

Nevyn

Originally posted by The Corinthian
The cannibalism example seemed to fail to get my point across completely

I noticed and in different forua.
ah well

Originally posted by The Corinthian

Nonetheless, I would agree that practically anything can be deemed necessary, given extreme circumstances, but we’re not really debating that are we?

No but it would be intresting....

Sparks

Paddy20,

Yes, since the sixties, the medical/scientific world has made the possibility of becoming pregnant involuntarily less ofa problem.

Indeed, but as Thaed pointed out, it's still a problem. Hell, even with tubal ligations or vascetomies, pregnancy is still a possibility.

Therefore, I personally believe if people would only make use of the contraception etc,that is available. Then the number of pro - abortion decisions should be reducing drastically. Perhaps plain old ignorance and the lack of proper birth control education, via Government initiatives, of the population has some significant bearing on this emotive subject.

Quite true, and you'll probably find that the availability of condoms and the pill and other contraceptives has deceased the rate of unwanted pregnancy dramatically since the 1960s. Of course, the RC church, one of the biggest pro-life groups on the planet, and in Ireland, is not only against abortion, but also against contraception (with the exception of abstention). And given the influence they have wielded in tha past over the state, it's a small wonder indeed that our sexual education process is a shambles.

But the fact remains that you can use a condom, your partner can be on the pill, you can use spermicidal jelly and a diaphram all at once and still produce an unwanted pregnancy. And perhaps not discover it until it's too late for the morning after pill to be safely used.

So sometimes even education isn't the full answer (though that's a piss-poor argument against improving the level of education which I would personally strongly support).

Typedef,

I see, and who exactly decides, what is a person?

We do. People, I mean. We happen to be uniquely qualified in this regard, since we already are people and can best judge what being a person means.

For your information, even if someone is born without a for example a frontal lobe, that is still a human and is still afforded all the protection the law may extend, it is still illegal to end that person's life.

And if they are born without a head? Or any brain matter past the medulla oblongata?

Still, by the criteria you are attempting to exponentiate, it's ok to kill a foetus, which has a significantly more developed frontal lobe (and thus is more human (by your criteria), since conciousness is ostensibly frontal lobe based). This is a inconsistent proposition, in my view.

More because your view is flawed.
I never said it was "okay" to terminate based on the size of your frontal lobes. If you'd read the post properly, you'd have seen that that was an example given in response to a rather off-the-point question. And you're now chasing that tangent.

In fact, I'm not even sure it should be legally considered a seperate entity until it's capable of existing as such.

Then it is fair to say, that until one can exist as a seperate entity ie, provide food and shelter for oneself, one is somehow, afforded less human rights?

That's not only not fair to say, it's not what I said. Where exactly do you get the idea that "can exist on it's own" means "has a job, can pay the morgage and put food on the table"???
"Can exist on it's own" means "Can exist on it's own". Exist being the operative word. In other words, seperated from the environment of the womb, the foetus is sufficently developed that it will not die as a sole result of being seperated from the womb. In other words, it's lungs work, it's digestive system is formed, etc, etc.

So then, children, who can't talk, or relate to reality in any meaningful sense, aren't people and by extenstion aren't human, so it's ok to kill them?

We're not discussing homicide, we're discussing abortion. One is easily avoidable with no penalty whatsoever, the other isn't.

Somehow, when the baby, exists in the real world, despite what you just said about self-sustainability, it's suddenly wrong to end that child's life.

Actually, a child existing in the real world, is self-sustaining.
As I explained above.

What an utterly inconsistent proposition.

Really?

Oh, and what in your eyes makes week-X in the homo sapien gestational process, the magic week that a zygote becomes afforded the same rights as a neonate to life?
The ability to be put in an incubator and fed and perhaps survive?

Yes.
The ability to survive as a seperate entity from the mother. That's my personal metrestick, because at that point delivery and abortion are of equal cost to the mother. At that point, the zygote becomes a potential human (in my eyes at least). From that point on, I don't think that abortion ought to be considered unless medically necessary, since a delivery is an equally viable solution.

So why is ending such a radically prematue baby's life not ethical, whilst ending the life of a child which is merely weeks younger and potentially utilising parts of that child in medical researches and therapies is ethical, moral, whatever you want to call the confines that keep society from all out total anarchic self destruction?

Because one can survive as a seperate entity and the other can't.
Which is a bit raw and basic way of putting it, but that seems to be the core of it.

Define exist please. A baby in an incubator, is a pretty damn long way away from 'existing' on it's own, wouldn't you say.

No, I wouldn't say.
A radically premature baby in an incubator will survive if given basic care - environmental protection, food, water. A zygote cannot survive as a seperate entity, no matter what care it receives.

So, is such an entity afforded the right to be protected from me coming along and ending it's life?

Yes, because to avoid doing so carries no penalty at all, whatsoever to you.

Let me ask you, who you are to dictate who may and may not grow into a person?

I don't dictate anything Typedef. A zygote, removed from the mother, cannot, no matter how much care it receives, survive. I didn't make that up, it's a fact of nature. There's no debating here over whether or not the zygote might be the next hitler or the next Bach, it's just a fact of life.

Same thing with abortion here if you notice? You're proposing it's ethical to end the life of a child, so long as it's still possible to do so, and the criteria you base that on is, so long as no child has survived outside the womb below that age, it's ok to terminate that child.

Again with the inherent assumptions.
Typedef, until you prove otherwise, a zygote is not concious. Not self-aware. And not a person. Hell, it shouldn't even be a seperate legal entity. And it sure as hell shouldn't be a cause to torment the mother.

Only that doesn't jibe with your application of conciousness-based humanity. If you and I can be proven to be more intelligent then another person, does that not give us more right of life then that person?

Self-awareness and intelligence levels are very loosely linked at best.
How about arguing , instead of obfuscating?

Quite true, there is now a burgeoning market in stem cell research. George Bush, the so-called pro-Life President of the United States, decreed it would be 'ok' to use the stem cells of aborted foetuses for stem cell research.

Wow, you paid attention, didn't you?
He specifically did not.
The ruling was that existing cell lines could be kept. (A cell line is self-replicating).
Gathering new material was banned.
And every scientific opinion I've since seen on that ruling was that it was a great step backwards for humanity, because we were chosing to walk away from a line of research with enormous potential.

Already the debate rages as to just how 'ethical' it is to use stem cells from aborted foetuses for resarch and theraputic purposes.
Christoper Reeve, is an exponent of such a use of stem cell technology, as is Michael J Fox, because stem cells offer the potential to cure the afflications both men live with.

Actually, it's not just them. It's called quadraplegia, not "Reeve's injury", and it's called Parkinson's disease, not "Fox's disease". Why? Because those conditions affect millions of people.
You happy denying them their best shot at a recovery?

I've shown a foetus is human.

Genetically? Yes, you have.
Want to watch me prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that a cancer tumour is genetically human?
Or a toenail?
Or nasal mucus?

You've offered some hand wavy self-sustainabilty argument for what a person is

No, I didn't.

I'm saying, once the spem enters the egg, the resulting chain of cells is for want of a better word sacrosanct. Since I don't regard myself as one who may deny life to another, I'm not prepaired to say that termination of such an entity (which is genetically as human as I) is right, and more over, I won't support it.

Fine. Grand.
But until the day you can prove you are right, don't try to use that belief to judge other people.
I mean, I happen to think that putting kidney beans in lasagne is a wonderful and sacrosant thing, but I won't yell at someone that doesn't do it.
By the way, what do you eat?

Bottom line, I'm glad the law protected me from termination when I was in that state, and I'm thankful.

Indeed? So you're an adoptee then? Your father fecked off and left your mother, who then sat through the pregnancy, had you, and dumped you straight into a state orphanage, did she?

Sparks

TC,

I assume you’re attempting to use the often-contemptible treatment of many women who’ve had abortions as a justification for your position. Please stop trying to throw hysterical sound bites into a rational debate.

Actually TC, you're the one that brought up the principle of "innocent until proven guilty". I'm just applying it to the one entity in this discussion that has a clear and established legal status as a person - the mother.
It's not a sound bite, it's perfectly rational and logical.
BTW, you picked a side yet? Or are you still content to play Bertie?

Paddy20

Thaed,

Clearly, the figures you quote for the number of women going to the U.K. for abortions is shocking and a sad reflection on Irish society as a whole.

The Department of Health and our Government have inherent responsibilities to both educate the population in relation to all the contraception methods and choices available, and also to inform and protect the civil rights of a pregnant woman, so that she should not feel so stigmatised that she is forced in to the abortion route.

In my locality we have plenty of lone parents, mainly the mothers and the old stigma has practically vanished. Our Local Authority has provided a vastly improved number of new houses for lone parents.

Hopefully, this is an indicator of a more enlightened era, which appears to be happening by default. This should also reduce the numbers of women going abroad for abortions.

Perhaps, Now is the time for our elected representatives to ensure that proper funding is made available and used in a manner that will benefit the unborn.

Paddy20.

Sparks

Perhaps, Now is the time for our elected representatives to ensure that proper funding is made available and used in a manner that will benefit the unborn.

At the expense of the born? Perhaps not, more like.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Sparks
BTW, you picked a side yet? Or are you still content to play Bertie?

I already declared what side I was on - or not, as the case may be. We’re not all as orthodox as your good self.

You're still avoiding the questions I posed to you earlier btw - back when you said:

I see no further point in responding to you on this topic until you pick a position and state it clearly.

I’ll be happy to continue this debate with you when you do. Or are you still content to play Silvio? :rolleyes:

seamus

Originally posted by Elmo
Animals are not the same as an unborn child.

If a horse or a dog is put down its put down because it will die anyway or it won't have much of a life if it is not put down, perhaps its not even up to us to decide this. (an after thought:-Fox hunting should stay legalised as should corse racing?)

Fox-hunting is a different story, and has been debated here at length many times. I don't think we should go there
Personally, I would deem a lot of animals to be just as worthy of rights as humans, and as I've said before, there are many humans I'd happily put down before I put down an animal. But that's irrelevant. My personal feelings have nothing to do with the issue at hand. As Corinth said,

What you suggest is perfectly valid and reasonable, but based upon utilitarianism, that is to say it dehumanises the equation and looks to solve it using cold amoral logic.

Still, if you accept that, I’m fine with it

It's not good, but it's the way I look to solve such issues - remove the human equation. For pure theory, if a woman was giving birth to a dog, is it still ok to abort? Remove the human equation, the feelings, and the morals, and yes, the woman is perfectly within her rights to abort.

So in my opinion, a woman should be allowed the right to abort. But the establishment of law is never a case of cold hard logic. It's a measure of what's acceptable by the general populace. Hence why some countries allow abortion and others don't.

There is no scientific evidence that a child should not be brought into the world just because their mammy and daddy don't want it.

Now you're mixing scientific fact and personal wish. By the very same token, there's no scientific evidence that a woman is obliged to carry a child to full term. Swings and roundabouts......

Elmo

Now you're mixing scientific fact and personal wish. By the very same token, there's no scientific evidence that a woman is obliged to carry a child to full term. Swings and roundabouts......

I suppose you wouldn't mind if a woman was 8 months pregnant aborted her child, as she doesn't have to carry the child for 9 or 10 months as it is her choice?????

Personally, I would deem a lot of animals to be just as worthy of rights as humans, and as I've said before, there are many humans I'd happily put down before I put down an animal.

You don't know what the child is going to be like so maybe if you met them you would think differently or else you would be saying to yourself god what a ****ing bastard of a child "give us the gun".

I am sure their are a lot of people that many people would love to kill rather then shot a dog, but the morally speaking if you had the choice of killing a dog that was dieing or a bastard of a person, you would be wrong to pick up the gun and shoot the ****ing bastard because the dog is going to die anyway and it would be inhuman to not to put it down. Also I believe that if a human is dieing your supposed to help them in some way rather then shoot them. Farmers do have a reason (most of the time) if they are put down an animal usually that reason is because it is in pain and that animal will die if you don't kill it. If you kill an animal for no apparent reason as far as I know you will end up in Jail.

Nevyn

Originally posted by Paddy20 In my locality we have plenty of lone parents, mainly the mothers and the old stigma has practically vanished. Our Local Authority has provided a vastly improved number of new houses for lone parents.

Same here but I would rather see the ifpa get a lease in the nearby shopping centre,
They have on in northside, the square but not in blanch because certain interests have blocked them.

Good access to and low cost contraception would cost a hell of a lot less the all those house for single parents and to support them. Honestly I'd be all for putting something in the water but that’s a different topic.


Until the development of an artificial womb to grow an unwanted ball of cells or half formed child to term of a viable stage well then the end result of an abortion will never change.

It was infact questioned during the Special Olympics about the high member of
People with Down syndrome in Ireland, what is supposed to be a developed (well sort of J) Nation. But with the triple test http://www.paternityangel.com/Preg_info_zone/GenTests/GenTest1.htm
for genetic testing not being available here and the reluctance of hospitals to perform an Amniocentesis http://www.paternityangel.com/Preg_info_zone/GenTests/GenTest3.htm
There is not a lot of choice in the matter.

If a woman feels she is at risk and wants all the information on her pregnancy and
wants to have all possible options available to her she must yet again go to the UK.

But abortion as a last ditch effort of contraception is seen bad enough, let alone as
a tool of eugenics. Choices choices all that Pesky free will.

seamus

Originally posted by Elmo
I suppose you wouldn't mind if a woman was 8 months pregnant aborted her child, as she doesn't have to carry the child for 9 or 10 months as it is her choice?????

Nature aborts children at birth sometimes. I know women who say that if a child of theirs is ever stillborn, they'll instruct the team not to resuscitate, because it wasn't meant to be alive. That's a little OT, but bringing up an issue like that is just the whole 'is it human yet?' issue. I doubt there are many (if any) women who would consider termination after 6 months, and probably nowhere that would do it.
The issue of how late is too late to abort is only one to be decided upon should the issue arise. That's not the question here. Am I avoiding it? Yes.
Would you have a problem with someone fertilizing an egg in a testube and then terminating it immediately? Technically, it's abortion, but in reality, at that point it's just a cell, with 46 chromosomes. You shed millions of these a day.

I am sure their are a lot of people that many people would love to kill rather then shot a dog, but the morally speaking if you had the choice of killing a dog that was dieing or a bastard of a person, you would be wrong to pick up the gun and shoot the ****ing bastard because the dog is going to die anyway and it would be inhuman to not to put it down. Also I believe that if a human is dieing your supposed to help them in some way rather then shoot them. Farmers do have a reason (most of the time) if they are put down an animal usually that reason is because it is in pain and that animal will die if you don't kill it. If you kill an animal for no apparent reason as far as I know you will end up in Jail.

Actually, in the case of horses, they're mostly put down because the cost to rehabilitate them is too great, and/or the recovery is long. They're not going to die though. I would be a fan of euthanasia. No problem killing someone if half of their brains are on the road, and they ask me to kill them. But if it's a matter of convenience, no way.
Yet animals can be put down for convenience. So why can't a mother terminate a child for her own convenience.

Morals aside, I'd never condone anyone who wanted an abortion, but I'd never stop them from doing it. My head tells me they have the right.

Elmo

So why can't a mother terminate a child for her own convenience.

Seamus never do anything for anyone else.
Do it for your own convenience.
If I see you lieing on the road dieing, I'll get my gun out. Better you die then me waste my time.

TomF

Maybe someone already noted this, but I think it is important that we all realize that posts claiming a basis in "atheistic" or "no religion" points-of-view are actually posts based on religious points-of-view. So if you are a Catholic or member of another Christian denomination or a Jew (etc, etc) arguing with an "athiest" about abortion, keep in mind that you are arguing with a person who is basing his arguments on faith in his religion, too. Don't let anyone bamboozle you by telling you that he is arguing strictly from a rationalist viewpoint.

Sparks

Gee thanks there tom, and while we're going down that road, do I have to remind all the atheist posters that the catholic posters support an organisation that protects child-molesters and therefore there's a conflict of interest on their part, as without fresh new kids, they can't continue their nefarious practises? So remember, don't let them swindle you into agreeing with their points, because they just want fresh new babies to molest.


ModNote: I'm trying to illustrate the ridiculous nature of TomF's assertion by making a ridiculous assertion myself, I'm not being serious...

ella minnow pea

woah v suprised by the out come of this poll!
would like to see one with just us wimen voting in it though.

seamus

Originally posted by TomF
Maybe someone already noted this, but I think it is important that we all realize that posts claiming a basis in "atheistic" or "no religion" points-of-view are actually posts based on religious points-of-view. So if you are a Catholic or member of another Christian denomination or a Jew (etc, etc) arguing with an "athiest" about abortion, keep in mind that you are arguing with a person who is basing his arguments on faith in his religion, too. Don't let anyone bamboozle you by telling you that he is arguing strictly from a rationalist viewpoint.

There's no such thing as a fully objective viewpoint, but to say that every viewpoint has a basis in some religion, is eh, crap.

Atheist means just that - A-theist, they don't beleive in any God.

Atheism isn't a religion, it's a belief, since there's no such thing as organised atheist rallies, or churches or seminars, or anything.

Everyone has a different POV, but not everyone bases that POV on religion.

Nevyn

do people beliefs really make that much differnce ? maybe maybe not for I am not an atheist nor yet a christain.

simu

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.

(Typedef)

Hmmm, IMO the only way you could avoid coming across as an opressor of women's rights here is if (a) you are celibate or (b)you can honestly say that, before every time you have sex with a woman, you are prepared to support that woman emotionally, financially if necessary etc, right through the next 9 months (at the very least) in the case that she became pregnant.

I know it probably dosen't always work out like this in real life - maybe the woman would not want any contact with you from then on, you'd probably be careful with contraception etc etc - but would you be prepared for such a comitment in principle?

I'm curious because some men always seem to place all the blame on the woman when an unwanted pregnancy occurs. (Not saying that you are one of these men, just curious what you think about it).

TomF

Well, at this point it looks like there are 12 posters on the pro-life side and 13 posters on the pro-abortion side. Of course a few of the pro-life side are "mantra" pro-lifers, that is, "I oppose abortion except in cases of the life of the mother, rape or incest."

Posting for the pro-life side:
Boston, dennis_o_leary, Dun_do_bheal, Elmo, JustHalf, Kev, Man, Paddy20, PeterODonnell, The Corinthian, TomF, and Typedef.

And posting for the pro-abortion side are:
B-K-DzR, Beruthiel, Invincible irish, gandalf, Ivan, Jimi-Spandex, Lemming (?), Moriarty, Sceptre, Seamus, Simm, Sparks, and Thaed.

This is very encouraging to me because there seem to be 13 pro-abortion posters, and as 13 is an unlucky number, it is of course intuitively obvious to the casual bystander that the pro-abortion side is going to lose, ultimately.