Should we legalise abortion?

Zulu

Originally posted by Lemming
Terrible, terrible analogy Zulu. You get a 0 for effort. I wont even bother pointing out the one single over-riding flaw in your argument. Yes, it's THAT obvious.

The day that we start stuffing babies into women's bodies for a two week holiday than you can use that analogy.

ok, fair cop it is a poor analogy - but it serves it's purpose - it highlights the point I was trying to make.

Lemming

Originally posted by Zulu
ok, fair cop it is a poor analogy - but it serves it's purpose - it highlights the point I was trying to make.

No it doesn't Zulu. All it just shows that you typed it up in 2 seconds whilst scratching your nether regions and whistling to yourself (ie. put bog all thought into it).

Have you been watching Monty Python lately by any chance? That anlogy is just absurd and for some reason I can picture John Cleese in a sketch on it with perfect clarity


eh... I don't like this sketch any more. I want it out of my mind. It's disturbing me ......

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Lemming
I actually hadn't intented to imply that at all. I was just wondering why the vast majority of those campaigning against would appear to be men. Not the vast majority of the male sex. Just the majority of those speaking out against it.

Whatever about even saying that the vast majority of men appear to oppose abortion, which is a bit of an assumption already, saying that the vast majority of those campaigning against it appear to be men is an immense and pretty dubious arrived at assumption, TBH.

I'm interested to hear the (rational, thought-out - that means no "because its my body and not yours" arguments) female perspective on this given that most of the noise would appear to be made by the opposite sex.

There’s twenty pages in this thread, hit the back button. You’ll find a few both pro and against.

Heh. That reminds me of the Monty Python sketch & song "Every sperm is sacred"

How so?

Beruthiel

Originally posted by Lemming
OT, but ....

my g/f made an interesting comment at the weekend on this thread and the abortion debate in general.

Why are the majority of the anti-abortion brigade all male? Why aren't we hearing more from women, since it is they who would have to "walk the walk" so to speak?

Honestly, I feel the subject has been done to death on boards – if I recall, I believe my first post on boards 2.5 years ago was on this very topic, I have very strong views on it and have given them already. I don’t feel the need to go over it all again I suppose.
It is a subject very close to every woman’s heart, and perhaps a lot of them just prefer to keep their opinions to themselves for fear of being shot down big time, which does tend to happen in here. I know it happened to me at the time of my first posting
my opinions would be very much along the same lines as yourself lemming

Lemming

Originally posted by The Corinthian

How so?

I take it you've never seen "The Meaning of Life" then?

Scene: Yorkshire Mining Town
A stork drops a baby down a chimney to the kitchen where the mother goes "Bloody hell not another one!"

fast-forward. A house positively overflowing with kids.

Father: "And so ye see me children, we have no choice but to sell you all to science for medical experiements. And this wouldn't 'ave 'appened had my religion allowed me wear one o' 'em rubber things on t'end o' me cock"

Break into song: "Every sperm is sacred"

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Lemming
I take it you've never seen "The Meaning of Life" then?

I have - I even have a copy - I just don't see where you got that from "After all, a parent or couple does not have the right to infanticide, even if they themselves do not believe it to be immoral."

Lemming

Originally posted by The Corinthian
I have - I even have a copy - I just don't see where you got that from "After all, a parent or couple does not have the right to infanticide, even if they themselves do not believe it to be immoral."

Inspired by the picture you linked, not the quote before it.

thejollyrodger

I voted yes if the mother is in danger. I dont think abortion is right (not that im a holy joe chrstian). What is needed is better sex education for minors and a better repect for human life.

isolde

Originally posted by Zulu
Your opinion is hardly a level, educated one though. ...
That is hardly the criteria for an educated, unbiased opinion. ...
How can you so easily negate the life/feelings/opinions of the child based on intellect/convenience and claim to have a level informed tolerant opinion?

How so, Zulu? What's ignorant about it? Maybe I've been abroad for too long, but to me ignorance means being uninformed or uneducated about something. And I never once claimed that my opinions or points are unbiased. Not once. Because that would be a lie, they obviously are biased.. they're biased towards the woman, they're biased towards my rights, not the rights of the foetus. I've made that crystal clear by now. As for my points being uneducated, well I'm afraid I'll have to disagree again.
How can you so easily claim that I am uninformed when you genuinely have no idea? Do you genuinely think that I would state my opinions on such a sensitive subject without any sort of basis? I am informed because I had to inform myself due to personal experience of the situation. I feel that is clear enough by now without me having to spell it out in plain English. I don't think I'm disregarding "half the story", as I have considered the whole situation and I then formed my stance on it.

If you like I can substitute the word ignorant for intolerant. So therefore I am intolerant towards the rights of the foetus. As you are intolerant when it comes to the rights of the mother. Correct?

Yes, I am intolerant. Just as you are. And yes, I am biased. Just as you are. The thing is, Zulu, I know what I am and what I'm not.. and I'm not claiming to be some sort of saint and I'm not standing on my pedestal and preaching on something I have no experience of.
I know what I'm condoning and supporting, and I'm not ashamed of that.. I think that I've made my views on the situation very, very clear and I'm prepared to defend them. I realise that they're not shared by everyone and I respect that. Some people may view them as wrong, but they're still absolutely valid and completely honest.

Why are the majority of the anti-abortion brigade all male? Why aren't we hearing more from women, since it is they who would have to "walk the walk" so to speak?

Lemming: Maybe because not everyone is as stupid as me . Other people obviously know by now that they'll be accused of being intolerant, ignorant, uninformed, god knows what else.. oh my favourite one, "If you don't already have the vote, you probably will soon (god help us)". However, I feel strongly about the issue and unfortunately won't sit back and let someone tell me I'm uninformed about an issue which is extremely close to my heart. And while I appreciate the rights of the men in this situation and would also have huge respect for the rights of my boyfriend should we be in a similar situation, he equally has enough respect for me to support my decisions.. something I feel many men genuinely would have, regardless of their views on whether or not the foetus is human from day1.

I don't think that men should be treated as such, but nor do I think that we should be tryign to curtail choices that, quite simply, aren't ours to make (in the context of it being another couple's decision that they alone have to make)

Precisely. I agree. But I'd add women in there too. No man or woman should be trying to curtail choices that aren't theirs to make. No-one should tell someone else what to do with their body. Quite frankly, most of the time it's falling on deaf ears anyway. No-one, man or woman, appreciates a comment like this from a third party: "Well, you see, it [the choice] is ours to make" - no, no it's not.
The decision to terminate a pregnancy is the decision of the girl and her partner. The state may try to curtail our right to choose but we'll choose anyway. Abortion may be illegal in Ireland but that doesn't stop over 100 Irish women terminating their pregnancies every week, does it? The only way a person who is anti-abortion can have any say in the matter is by voting no in a referendum on legalising abortion in Ireland. That's all you can do. People will still get the ferry or hop on a plane every morning of the week to terminate their pregnancies in Britain. Abortion is not going to go away just because pro-lifers consider it murder. Refusing to allow rape victims or suicidal teenagers the right to choose is hardly tolerant, is it?

So. for example, if I owned a hotel, should I have the right to kill whoever resides inside my hotel? Should you have a say over my actions? - I mean, why should you, a non-hotel owning person, curtail my choices?

And neither is that.

~isolde.

Edit: For the record, I'm female.

Zulu

Originally posted by isolde
How so, Zulu? What's ignorant about it? Maybe I've been abroad for too long, but to me ignorance means being uninformed or uneducated about something. And I never once claimed that my opinions or points are unbiased. Not once. Because that would be a lie, they obviously are biased.. they're biased towards the woman, they're biased towards my rights, not the rights of the foetus. I've made that crystal clear by now. As for my points being uneducated, well I'm afraid I'll have to disagree again.

Would you consider a racist ignorant? - I would. They may be educated, but they are still ignorant towards the people they are biased towards. ...just as you are ignorant to the rights of the child.

Originally posted by isolde
How can you so easily claim that I am uninformed when you genuinely have no idea?

I never claimed you were uninformed - I stated your comment (to the tone of) "all are equal, some are more equal than others" was uninformed. I stand by that and I would go as far as to say it's also very arrogant.
...But you claim I am uninfomed - how so? Or did you just want to make a personal dig?

Originally posted by isolde
I am informed because I had to inform myself due to personal experience of the situation. I feel that is clear enough by now without me having to spell it out in plain English.

What you did is what you did. Thats between you and your conscience.

Originally posted by isolde
I don't think I'm disregarding "half the story", as I have considered the whole situation and I then formed my stance on it.

...and your stance disregards "half the story", or the childs life. Because you taught about it first, dosen't excuse the action.

Originally posted by isolde
If you like I can substitute the word ignorant for intolerant. So therefore I am intolerant towards the rights of the foetus. As you are intolerant when it comes to the rights of the mother. Correct?

Incorrect - you are making the assumption that it's the mothers right to kill the child.
I don't believe it's her right to do that. As far as I'm concerned I am very tolerant towards the "rights" of the mother, I just rate them equally to the rights of the child.

Originally posted by isolde
Yes, I am intolerant. Just as you are. And yes, I am biased. Just as you are. The thing is, Zulu, I know what I am and what I'm not.. and I'm not claiming to be some sort of saint and I'm not standing on my pedestal and preaching on something I have no experience of.

Isolde - I know what I am. Sorry - I am not intolerant, and I am not biased. If you wish to make such claims - back them up.
I couldn't care less what experience you claim to have, and by-the-by, your assumption that no-one else here has any experience puts you high up on your little pedestal .

Originally posted by isolde
I know what I'm condoning and supporting, and I'm not ashamed of that..

isolde

My stance does disregard the rights of the foetus in that, as I said before, the rights of the mother supercede those of the foetus, in my eyes. As I've said before, I can see why people might think abortion is wrong. But it's not quite as simple as saying "I'll keep the baby". I'm sorry but it's just not that simple.

My comment "How can you so easily claim that I am uninformed when you genuinely have no idea?" was not meant to imply that you are uninformed, but rather was meant in the sense ".. when you genuinely have no idea whether I am informed or not". So no, it wasn't a personal dig, but the meaning was unclear, for that I apologise.

You have condemned abortion outright from the start. You haven't tried to appreciate that sometimes people feel they have no other choice. You haven't tried to see that there are all too often circumstances which lead to the pregnancy, and also to a subsequent abortion. You said that rape victims should have to go through with an unwanted pregnancy as a result of the horrible, horrible crime which was committed against them. I'm sorry but I don't see tolerance there. So, no, Zulu, I don't see how you are being tolerant towards the mother, I'm sorry. Particularly with silly examples such as the hotel one.

I have not assumed that everyone here is uninformed or has no idea about abortion. I have just reacted to the comments you have made which suggested I have no idea what I'm talking about. And, for the record, my conscience is clear.
Like I've said before, no-one wants to have an abortion. It is not something every girl plans to do. Far from it. It is not a pleasant experience and unfortunately we live in a society where it is a huge taboo and most probably will be for many many years to come, so it's not as if it's something you can forget about. I guess all someone can do is ignore people who treat them like they're some sort of stupid, ill-informed fool. Heh, not to mention murderer.

So I think it's probably time we left this topic alone, Zulu, because, frankly, I don't feel the need to discuss this with you any longer. It's too personal. If I need any more abuse from a pro-lifer I'll go to the GPO. Have a good evening.

Zulu

Originally posted by isolde
My stance does disregard the rights of the foetus in that, as I said before, the rights of the mother supercede those of the foetus, in my eyes. As I've said before, I can see why people might think abortion is wrong. But it's not quite as simple as saying "I'll keep the baby". I'm sorry but it's just not that simple.

How can your stance NOT disregard the foetus if it ends up dead? And I never once said choising to keep a baby is a simple choice, I just feel "I'll get rid of the baby" isn't a viable solution.

Originally posted by isolde
My comment "How can you so easily claim that I am uninformed when you genuinely have no idea?" was not meant to imply that you are uninformed, but rather was meant in the sense ".. when you genuinely have no idea whether I am informed or not". So no, it wasn't a personal dig, but the meaning was unclear, for that I apologise.

Apology accepted - no harm done.

Originally posted by isolde
You have condemned abortion outright from the start. You haven't tried to appreciate that sometimes people feel they have no other choice. You haven't tried to see that there are all too often circumstances which lead to the pregnancy, and also to a subsequent abortion. You said that rape victims should have to go through with an unwanted pregnancy as a result of the horrible, horrible crime which was committed against them. I'm sorry but I don't see tolerance there. So, no, Zulu, I don't see how you are being tolerant towards the mother, I'm sorry. Particularly with silly examples such as the hotel one.

Believe it or not - I actually taught about abortion before I saw the topic here. I used to be pro-choice. I've taught about it alot, and I've made a decision. My decision is based on the principle that no-one should die through the choice of another; that everyone has the right to life, and until I here a more convincing argument that a feotus isn't in fact alive, my stance will remain unchanged.
So for all you "you haven't this... you haven't that..." please - save it. I have no intention of changing my beliefs to "display" to you that I've considered another argument.

Originally posted by isolde
Like I've said before, no-one wants to have an abortion. It is not something every girl plans to do. Far from it. It is not a pleasant experience.

Why not? I mean, the arguments put forward here have been that a foetus is a "bunch of cells" or "a cancerous growth", surly it's like getting your tonsils out? ...and if it's not - please explain why???

Originally posted by isolde
I guess all someone can do is ignore people who treat them like they're some sort of stupid, ill-informed fool. Heh, not to mention murderer.
So I think it's probably time we left this topic alone, Zulu, because, frankly, I don't feel the need to discuss this with you any longer. It's too personal. If I need any more abuse from a pro-lifer I'll go to the GPO. Have a good evening.

Isolde, please, I haven't once "abused" you, I have mearly argued against you. If you can't handle someone having a different opinion to you perhaps boards.ie isn't the best place for you.

bonkey

Originally posted by Zulu
How can your stance NOT disregard the foetus if it ends up dead?

If one of a pair of conjoined twins dies as a result of an operation to seperate them, was it disregarded?

If a woman is brought into a hospital with a medical emergency where either the unborn child or the mother will die....is the one who dies also disregarded?

Dieing as a result of something doesn't automatically mean you or your rights were disregarded. I means that they were not treated as absolute rights.

Isolde, please, I haven't once "abused" you, I have mearly argued against you.

Saying to someone that their point of view or opinion isn't an educated one simply because you happen to disagree with it and the logic which formed it is hardly "merely arguing".

When that person then comes back and tried to explain that it is far from uneducated, only to get a response that "I couldn't care less what experience you claim to have", I would have to say that you are moving further and further away from "merely arguing", considering that by claiming their point of view was uneducated you were the one who made their experience relevant in the first place.

jc

Zulu

Originally posted by bonkey
If one of a pair of conjoined twins dies as a result of an operation to seperate them, was it disregarded?

If a woman is brought into a hospital with a medical emergency where either the unborn child or the mother will die....is the one who dies also disregarded?

In both of your examples, the choice wasn't made to kill with the intention of killing. In your conjoined twins example - the purpose of the supposed operation was to separate not to kill. In your pregnant woman example, as we've already discussed, it is currently legal to carry out an abortion is such circumstances, which I have no problem with. The intention of the operation is to SAVE a life.
In abortion, the purpose is to kill - that's what I have a problem with.

Originally posted by bonkey
Saying to someone that their point of view or opinion isn't an educated one simply because you happen to disagree with it and the logic which formed it is hardly "merely arguing".

I never said her point of view wasn't an educated one.

Originally posted by bonkey
When that person then comes back and tried to explain that it is far from uneducated, only to get a response that "I couldn't care less what experience you claim to have", I would have to say that you are moving further and further away from "merely arguing", considering that by claiming their point of view was uneducated you were the one who made their experience relevant in the first place.
jc

I did say, I couldn't care less about her experience - because it didn't have any relevance to this argument. It was intended to add weight to her argument, but she gave no details. It was a flippant comment, which I shot down.

I'll state my position again, just to ensure we don't get bogged down in the "you said..", "he said...", "she said..."
Murder is wrong.
Taking someone else's life (intentionally) is wrong.
A foetus is a human.
Life starts in the womb.
Mothers have a responsibility to the child they carry to protect it.
...

bonkey

Originally posted by Zulu
The intention of the operation is to SAVE a life.
In abortion, the purpose is to kill - that's what I have a problem with.

And when you get to the fringe-case when a pregnant woman is threatening suicide, doesn't the same logic start to apply - that the purpose of allowing abortion would be to SAVE one of the two lives, rather than allowing BOTH to die?

I never said her point of view wasn't an educated one.

Yes, you did.

It would appear you don't fully recall your own posts. Admittedly its a long thread, bus Isolde quoted the same comment only a few posts ago.

Here it is again :

Originally posted by you, in response to Isolde, earlier in this thread
Your opinion is hardly a level, educated one though

Now, if its not educated, it can only be uneducated.

I did say, I couldn't care less about her experience - because it didn't have any relevance to this argument.

When you tell someone their opinion is uneducated, then their experience automatically becomes relevant if they choose to disagree with you....because you made it so.

I'll state my position again, just to ensure we don't get bogged down in the "you said..", "he said...", "she said..."

If you don't want to get bogged down in it, then stop denigrating those who disagree with you in a manner that is irrelevant to the debate, and then ignoring/denying that you've done it when its pointed out to you.

You disagree with Isolde's point of view...thats clear. Exactly what was the purpose of declaring that it was hardly an educated point of view if not to score cheap points?

...but she gave no details. It was a flippant comment, which I shot down

By saying you couldn't care less about it....not that you were disregarding it because the lack of detail meant you had no way of quantifying its worth.

just to ensure we don't get bogged down in the "you said..", "he said...", "she said..."

Taking someone else's life (intentionally) is wrong.

Except in the cases where it isn't wrong (as you've already agreed at the top of the post, the intention which leads to the taking of life is relevant).

Oh, and maybe in some of the grey-areas where it mightn't be wrong, or at least may be the lesser of two evils (as per the "suicidal mother" scenario)

Life starts in the womb.

At what point? Conception?
What about when conception occurs outside the womb?

I'm not just being deliberately picky...I'm suggesting that your "stance" is slightly unclear on this point which is central to the issue.

I could say that I support abortion up to the point when brain-waves are traceable, which would mean that I too believe that life (in the sense we mean it here) starts in the womb, but that I also support abortion!

Similarly, if life only begins in the womb, then conception outside the womb would mean that you can have two identically-aged "things", both formed by the egg/sperm combination process where one is treated as a human and one not, based purely on where this combination took place....which seems somewhat of an artificial distinction to me in deciding what constitutes life.

jc

Zulu

Originally posted by bonkey
And when you get to the fringe-case when a pregnant woman is threatening suicide, doesn't the same logic start to apply - that the purpose of allowing abortion would be to SAVE one of the two lives, rather than allowing BOTH to die?

The solution to your above "fringe-case" is to take the mother into care. If she is suicidal she evidently needs care. The purpose of the abortion would still be to kill the unborn child. That would be the intention/purpose of the operation, no matter what way you dress it up.
It would still be wrong. By-the-by, you seem to be advocating abortions to mentally unstable people (re your above example).

Originally posted by bonkey
It would appear you don't fully recall your own posts. Admittedly its a long thread, bus Isolde quoted the same comment only a few posts ago.

The comment was on the opinion expressed - "all are equal, some are more equal than others". I'm sorry if it caused you distress.

Originally posted by bonkey
If you don't want to get bogged down in it, then stop denigrating those who disagree with you in a manner that is irrelevant to the debate, and then ignoring/denying that you've done it when its pointed out to you.

Should we legalise abortion? - lets move back ot.

Originally posted by bonkey
By saying you couldn't care less about it....not that you were disregarding it because the lack of detail meant you had no way of quantifying its worth.

Ok - I do care about it, I'm now just going to disregard it because of the lack of detail makes it hard for me to quantify it's worth. Happy? :rolleyes:

Originally posted by bonkey
Except in the cases where it isn't wrong (as you've already agreed at the top of the post, the intention which leads to the taking of life is relevant).

There is no case when it is right. There are unfortunate circumstances when doctors are unable to save both lives in complicated pregnancies. This isn't abortion. My position remains unchanged.

Originally posted by bonkey
Oh, and maybe in some of the grey-areas where it mightn't be wrong, or at least may be the lesser of two evils (as per the "suicidal mother" scenario)

Still not right.

Originally posted by bonkey
At what point? Conception?
What about when conception occurs outside the womb?

Yes at conception (for the time being - although in all honestly I don't consider a fertilised egg a human). Perhaps my comment referring to the womb was a bit restrictive, I apologise. ...But I would offer mercy before the death sentence unless I was 100% sure - and I'm not 100% sure when life begins, so the fertilised egg will be my benchmark for now. (I like the brain waves one - but I fear they may start later in the pregnancy to be acceptable for me.)

Originally posted by bonkey
I'm not just being deliberately picky...I'm suggesting that your "stance" is slightly unclear on this point which is central to the issue.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Until I'm sure, I'll give the benefit of doubt - especially when a life is on the line.

isolde

I thought I was finished with this thread but it seems it is necessary to comment further.

Originally posted by Zulu
And I never once said choising to keep a baby is a simple choice, I just feel "I'll get rid of the baby" isn't a viable solution.

An unplanned pregnancy is not a simple thing. It turns your world upside down, any woman who became pregnant accidentally, whether she had the baby or not, will tell you that. The decision to keep a baby is not a simple choice at all. And equally the decision to have an abortion is not just a case of "I'll get rid of the baby".

Believe it or not - I actually taught about abortion before I saw the topic here. I used to be pro-choice.

Actually I find it very difficult to believe that you used to be pro-choice, considering how blatantly anti-abortion you are now. I think that if you had been pro-choice, then you would at least have some ounce of understanding for the thought process which leads to the decision to have an abortion. But you don't. However, I will afford you the benefit of the doubt, something you seem to have problems affording to me.

My decision is based on the principle that no-one should die through the choice of another; that everyone has the right to life

That's nice, Zulu, and in an ideal world I'm sure almost everyone would agree with you. But the thing is, it's not realistic. Things just aren't that simple. It may be a harsh reality, but a reality it is. In an ideal world, no-one would be raped, no-one would be hurt, no-one would be impregnated by an abusive man, no-one would fall pregnant unless they wanted to. Zulu, one in every eight Irish men and women are raped in their lifetime. I will source this for you tomorrow if you like, let me know. Obviously not every one of these becomes pregnant as a result. But some do. Where is their right to bodily integrity? Sure, you can say that they're taking away the rights of another by having an abortion. I see your logic. I am trying to understand your position, despite your so blatant dismissal of mine. But there is one thing I just can't comprehend, and that is how you can say that they should have to go through with their pregnancy. That they should have to carry the child of a vicious, horrible man. I just can't comprehend that. In an ideal world, what you stated above would be fine, it would have some weight. But our world is far from ideal.

So for all you "you haven't this... you haven't that..." please - save it. I have no intention of changing my beliefs to "display" to you that I've considered another argument.

I'm not asking you to change your beliefs. I'm just asking for an ounce of understanding. I didn't realise that would be so much to ask. And, for the record, my "You haven't tried to appreciate that sometimes people feel they have no other choice. You haven't tried to see that there are all too often circumstances which lead to the pregnancy, and also to a subsequent abortion" is completely valid. Maybe it suits you better for me not to say it, but it stands. Now if you've accidentally completely given off wrong impression, maybe you could clarify it.

surly it's like getting your tonsils out? ...and if it's not - please explain why???

No, it's not like getting your tonsils out. In fact I've said that before, weeks ago. Check back to page 9.

Isolde, please, I haven't once "abused" you, I have mearly argued against you. If you can't handle someone having a different opinion to you perhaps boards.ie isn't the best place for you.

Is that right? Well until I get some sort of official recommendation along those lines then I think I'll stay put. Thanks for your concern though.
I've read boards for a long while now, but only started posting when I felt strongly enough about something, as I don't generally have time to post everyday. So I have a fair idea what I'm up against. But I think I've managed fine so far, as generally people here don't treat other opinions in the disparaging manner in which you have treated mine. For instance, I debated to and fro some pages back with theCorinthian, but he didn't offend me or dismiss my opinions, although he may disagree with them. You might want to consider why it's only really you who has offended me, Zulu, so that it can be avoided in the future.

Your replies to me have not been "merely disagreeing". Merely disagreeing with someone does not constitute calling them ignorant or uneducated. Merely disagreeing with someone does also not involve comments like the one about me having the vote. You are perfectly entitled to disagree with me. But you are not entitled to dismiss my comments without any real basis for dismissal. If you can prove I am uneducated and uninformed, then fine. But you can't. And when I try to explain why I'm not uninformed, you dismiss this further by saying you can't care less. I mean, what am I to do, Zulu? What do I need, a certificate? I don't need to detail my experience here. But you are the one who made it relevant.

The comment was on the opinion expressed - "all are equal, some are more equal than others". I'm sorry if it caused you distress.

I see that this was addressed to bonkey, but could I just ask you to quote me correctly when you're quoting me, not make up a quote. The above "quote" suggests that I meant something like.. Irish people are superior to the Chinese. That is untrue and unclear. So, to clarify, what I said was "I don't consider the foetus, regardless of its status, equal to the mother". I have no problem with stating that, but I really would prefer to be quoted directly.

And finally..

although in all honestly I don't consider a fertilised egg a human

Either do I, Zulu. Strange that. For once we agree. Though I must say I'm pretty surprised. So if you don't consider a fertilised egg a human.. eh.. hmm. Maybe you should clarify? You don't consider a fertilised egg to be a human. And an embryo is a fertilised egg. So what would be the problem with aborting it?

~ isolde.

Zulu

Originally posted by isolde
An unplanned pregnancy is not a simple thing. It turns your world upside down, any woman who became pregnant accidentally, whether she had the baby or not, will tell you that. The decision to keep a baby is not a simple choice at all. And equally the decision to have an abortion is not just a case of "I'll get rid of the baby".

If it's not a case of "I'll get rid of the baby", what is it? - "I won't get rid of the baby???"

Originally posted by isolde
Actually I find it very difficult to believe that you used to be pro-choice, considering how blatantly anti-abortion you are now. I think that if you had been pro-choice, then you would at least have some ounce of understanding for the thought process which leads to the decision to have an abortion. But you don't. However, I will afford you the benefit of the doubt, something you seem to have problems affording to me.

Well thanks for giving me the benfit of the doubt, it's just a shame that you don't afford that position to a feotus. For the record, I was very much pro-choice, my conclusions were based on the fringe cases such as the x-case, but someone close to me had a child, and experiencing the pregnancy left me an understanding of another life. IMy position is the it is wrong to "legalise" the killing of another life in any circumstance. I feel adoption is a better solution. ...and in any case if you were to legalise abortion for rape cases, would you have the victum go to court to prove they were raped? How long would that court case take? No - I have considered your arguments, but I just can't agree with them.

Originally posted by isolde
That's nice, Zulu, and in an ideal world I'm sure almost everyone would agree with you. But the thing is, it's not realistic. Things just aren't that simple. It may be a harsh reality, but a reality it is. In an ideal world, no-one would be raped, no-one would be hurt, no-one would be impregnated by an abusive man, no-one would fall pregnant unless they wanted to.

We can make the world more ideal by not legalising certain acts. Rape should be illegal (and is), so should murder (and it is too, you see the point).

Originally posted by isolde
Zulu, one in every eight Irish men and women are raped in their lifetime. I will source this for you tomorrow if you like, let me know. Obviously not every one of these becomes pregnant as a result. But some do. Where is their right to bodily integrity? Sure, you can say that they're taking away the rights of another by having an abortion. I see your logic. I am trying to understand your position, despite your so blatant dismissal of mine. But there is one thing I just can't comprehend, and that is how you can say that they should have to go through with their pregnancy. That they should have to carry the child of a vicious, horrible man. I just can't comprehend that. In an ideal world, what you stated above would be fine, it would have some weight. But our world is far from ideal.

The solution to a rape victim problem lies in counselling, not another stressful proceedure. While I agree, the pregnancy would be very hard in such a case, it dosen't warrent the legalisation of abortion to all.

Originally posted by isolde
I'm not asking you to change your beliefs. I'm just asking for an ounce of understanding. I didn't realise that would be so much to ask. And, for the record, my "You haven't tried to appreciate that sometimes people feel they have no other choice. You haven't tried to see that there are all too often circumstances which lead to the pregnancy, and also to a subsequent abortion" is completely valid. Maybe it suits you better for me not to say it, but it stands. Now if you've accidentally completely given off wrong impression, maybe you could clarify it.

You can only read my posts, if you happen to acknowledge an apprecation to your views, good for you, but I'm here to argue a point.

Originally posted by isolde
No, it's not like getting your tonsils out. In fact I've said that before, weeks ago. Check back to page 9. .

I know - the point was to illustrate the it's a very stressfull proceedure. The reason its stressfull?

Originally posted by isolde
I see that this was addressed to bonkey, but could I just ask you to quote me correctly when you're quoting me, ..."I don't consider the foetus, regardless of its status, equal to the mother". I have no problem with stating that, but I really would prefer to be quoted directly.

Oh, well, sorry. You never used them words at all - but it was in essance what you said, and When I put it to you, you agreed. BUT I won't do it again, my apologies.

Originally posted by isolde
Either do I, Zulu. Strange that. For once we agree. Though I must say I'm pretty surprised. So if you don't consider a fertilised egg a human.. eh.. hmm. Maybe you should clarify? You don't consider a fertilised egg to be a human. And an embryo is a fertilised egg. So what would be the problem with aborting it?

~ isolde.

I afford... oh just read my post again please.

Prof.Badass

wait, what??? this is from 2004? I thought it was july of this year! oh, ****. ah well! they really should have some sort of thing where they close/delete really old threads!

Zulu

vinylmesh wrote: »

wait, what??? this is from 2004? I thought it was july of this year! oh, ****. ah well! they really should have some sort of thing where they close/delete really old threads!

...of course if you read the thread from the start you'd have gotten a) the start date & b) other peoples views.

Prof.Badass

Zulu wrote: »

...of course if you read the thread from the start you'd have gotten a) the start date & b) other peoples views.

Other people's views? Why would i wanna do that? lol

actually, i read the first post and the last page (it's my general rule with threads over 2 pages), you hardly expect me to read the whole thing do you?

I thought it was one of those mega-threads. I knew it started in 2004,but when I saw "07" in the month slot i assumed that being the huge thread it is people kept posting in it up till now.

i'm quite new to boards so i'm not sure how fast threads get posted up, obviously a lot faster than i thought.

btw, i deleted most of my post to save myself the embarrassment.

nacho libre

vinylmesh wrote: »

The way i see it, if all factors remained unchanged, a baby in the womb would develop into a human being.Interefering with this is cutting someone's life short. (when a baby is born it has no memory and very little cognitive ability, is it self aware? (modern science would suggest not, so why not kill newborns aswell? it's a slipperly slope!)).

!

Good point.

Well, to many of those who are pro-abortion their argument is that the new born baby is a 'person'- philosophically speaking

whereas the unborn is not- so this is the argument they use to justify terminating the life of the unborn baby at any stage. Which quite frankly is bogus/flawed.

The fact is that if you advocate late term abortions but are against the killing of a newborn baby you are being intellectually inconsistent and a hypocrite because, for the reasons you outlined, neither the unborn or the newborn baby can be defined as a 'person' in the philosophical sense.

Zulu

vinylmesh wrote: »

actually, i read the first post and the last page (it's my general rule with threads over 2 pages), you hardly expect me to read the whole thing do you?

Actually, not being smart, but yes - people do expect you to read the thread in it entirety.
You do after all expect them to read your posts.

oscarBravo

Thread necromancy bad.