Should we legalise abortion?

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Rev Hellfire
As far am I am aware in a medical situation the life of the mother came first, I don’t believe there was ever a case of a child been saved at the cost of the mothers life.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3718475.stm

Rev Hellfire

Nice link but doesnt prove anything, she choose that option. I'm talking of a situation were consent is not available or given.

The Corinthian

Fair 'nuf.

AngelofFire

Devout anglican here, this may seem a bit hypocritcal but i think the fate of the unborn child should be decided by the mother not the state. im not saying we should encourage abortion but there should be no ban on mothers travelling abroad.

arcadegame2004

Rev. Hellfire, what anout ectopic pregnancies? This is where the embryo begins to form in the Fallopian-tubes rather than in the womb. This can be fatal. Are you saying that even then abortion should not be allowed? I don't agree with that.

Rev Hellfire

I suggest you re-read my post, some how I said white and you're saying I said black.

The whole idea that in a medical emergency the mother’s life will be considered secondary to the baby is inaccurate and purely serves as an emotional red herring.
People can keep saying it, but it wasn’t the case before the referendum and it isn’t the case after.

Xterminator

Originally posted by Rev Hellfire
The whole idea that in a medical emergency the mother’s life will be considered secondary to the baby is inaccurate and purely serves as an emotional red herring.
People can keep saying it, but it wasn’t the case before the referendum and it isn’t the case after.

Untrue

First of all arcade game has specifically quoted a type of preganancy which can and does occur. It places the life of the mother and baby in critical danger.

You dismiss this off hand without even adressing the question!

Other rare situations also occur, like very young women being pregnant because of underage rape etc, where bring the baby to term places risks on the mother life.

I am aware medical opinion is divided on wherether abortion is ever 'nessacary' . I

Here in Ireland, there were cases of women dying with cancer, who were denied chimo in this country because they were pregnant, because of the pro life stance of the main hospitals and doctors.

I remember one specific tale was told in a documentary on RTE, to highlight it.

The cancer in this woman was found be caue she went for a checkup, as she was pregant. The cancerous growth was allow to grow unchecked, and although the woman lived to deliver the baby the cancer was by then untreatble.

The doctors rationale was chimo will kill the baby .. thus it is abortion. At the time the woman had a very treatable cancer, which stood a very good chance of recovery (and possibly several more babies).

We dont live in a simple world where you can safely say abortion will never be nessacary in any case.

X

Gurgle

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
what anout ectopic pregnancies?

AFAIK an ectopic pregnancy never comes to term. It is also a threat to the mother's life and must be removed.
This is not 'abortion' in the social convenience sense.

Just because something is legal in most of the western world doesn't mean its OK. Every girl or woman who is sexually active and doesn't want to become pregnant should be on the pill.

Any silly slapper who gets knocked up through stupidity should be made to carry the baby to term, might teach her a lesson. (cue the 'heartless MCP' flames)

Its only 9 months out of your life and there are literally thousands of childless couples in the country who would give anything for a baby. I'm not saying a pregnancy isn't difficult and uncomfortable but surely a couple of years down the line a girl would find it much easier to cope with having given a child up for adoption rather than having had it killed.

IMHO, abortion for social convenience is wrong. However, it is available in many other countries and modern society in those countries has developed to see it as a quick & easy answer to the problem.

The most difficult question is the rape pregnancy.
I have no answer.

In any unwanted pregnancy, councilling and support are going to have a much better long term result than a quick & easy abortion.

seamus

Originally posted by Gurgle
Just because something is legal in most of the western world doesn't mean its OK.

Just because something is illegal, doesn't mean it's not OK.

In any unwanted pregnancy, councilling and support are going to have a much better long term result than a quick & easy abortion.

Absolutely agreed, but who are we to force that opinion on women?

MrPudding

Originally posted by Gurgle



Any silly slapper who gets knocked up through stupidity should be made to carry the baby to term, might teach her a lesson. (cue the 'heartless MCP' flames)

I don’t think you are heartless but I do think this idea is really stupid. It is not going to teach anyone a lesson. What if the “silly slapper” is someone who likes a drink and a smoke, maybe even some drugs? (I am not making silly slapper generalisations here, nor am I suggesting that all silly slappers are smoking, drinking and drug taking persons.) Do you think that she is going to spend 9 months looking after the thing growing inside her that she has absolutely no interest in?

In my opinion using the gestation of a baby to teach some stupid slapper a lesson is deplorable. I really don’t think someone who suggests it is really in a moral position to suggest that someone having an abortion for social reasons is wrong.

What it comes down to for me is the choice. If my girlfriend got pregnant (again) and decided to have an abortion I would not really be happy about it, but, I strongly believe she should have the choice.

MrP

Mighty_Mouse

How can a man have a true opinion on this issue? Personally I think it should be up to the mother. I'm definitely all for not ruining young girls lives over pregnancy. 15 yr olds pregnant, rape cases, incest cases, health risk cases etc etc etc

The Corinthian

Originally posted by seamus
Absolutely agreed, but who are we to force that opinion on women?

People. Or does each gender get to pick it’s own laws and morality now?

bonkey

Originally posted by Rev Hellfire
The whole idea that in a medical emergency the mother’s life will be considered secondary to the baby is inaccurate and purely serves as an emotional red herring.

Originally posted by Xterminator
You dismiss this off hand without even adressing the question!

I would have said that pointing out that there is no truth in the allegations that any medical emergency could put the mother's life in risk was answering the question.

Besides, the point being discussed was where Rev pointed out that he was aware of no case where consent was not given in advance where the doctors would chose the baby over the parent if it came to a "split decision".

So, it would be more correct to say that the whole extopic pregnancy question is what is irrelevant and missing the point, not the response which points out that it isn't even relevant in any other sense either.

jc

seamus

Originally posted by The Corinthian
People. Or does each gender get to pick it’s own laws and morality now?

My "we" meant "people". We can only force such things on women, seeing as they carry the child.

So to correct it, who are society to force that choice on women?

bonkey

Originally posted by Mighty_Mouse
How can a man have a true opinion on this issue?

Well, male rape (yes, yes, I know it doesn't legally exist in Ireland) aside, it is not unreasonable to say that the man was willingly involved in the process, and will legally be held accountable afterwards.

So, it seems that you're saying that while the man is an integral part of the "before" and "after", he should have no rights to speak of about the "during" ????

Personally I think it should be up to the mother.

Fair enough. I think it should be up to the identified consenting indivuduals involved. If the mother will not enter a plea of rape against the father, and the father is known, then he should have an equal say - or as close to equal as can be realistically obtained.

I'm definitely all for not ruining young girls lives over pregnancy. 15 yr olds pregnant, rape cases, incest cases, health risk cases etc etc etc

Criminal acts such as rape/incest aside....exactly who is ruining what here? You are not ruining anyone's life by saying they can't have an abortion unless you are absolving them of all responsibility for their actions.

A comparable logic (although I'm loathe to draw the parallel that some will doubtlessly misundersand) would be like saying we shouldn't punish people for serious crimes, because we would be ruining their lives.

Again - criminal cases aside - pregnancy does not occur by accident. It occurs because people choose to have sex. Whether or not you agree with pregnancy as a concept, I think that justifying it on the grounds that we shouldn't be holding people responsible for their actions is a terrible position to take.

jc

The Corinthian

Originally posted by seamus
So to correct it, who are society to force that choice on women?

An organised social grouping that sacrifices a portion of individual rights for the common good.

Society forces choices all the time. We do not have a choice as to which side of the road we drive, or the choice to use or sell drugs, or a choice to live our lives however we wish regardless of the consequences to Society as a whole.

That is who Society is to force that choice on women or frankly anyone else.

seamus

Originally posted by The Corinthian
An organised social grouping that sacrifices a portion of individual rights for the common good.

So it all boils down to whether denying a woman this right is in the interests of the common good. I personally don't believe so, or at least is not enough in its interests to override the individual's choice.

MrPudding

Originally posted by The Corinthian
An organised social grouping that sacrifices a portion of individual rights for the common good.

Society forces choices all the time. We do not have a choice as to which side of the road we drive, or the choice to use or sell drugs, or a choice to live our lives however we wish regardless of the consequences to Society as a whole.

That is who Society is to force that choice on women or frankly anyone else.

I can see the social benefit of making people all drive on the same side of the road. I can also see great social benefit for not allowing people to deal drugs. Both these points are great examples of how society restricts the rights of an individual for the greater good and safety of society as a whole. I fail to see how a girl having an abortion, for whatever reason is a threat to society.

I am all for restricting peoples actions for the greater good, like the examples TC gave and things like drink driving & smoking at work. But I don’t think it is a valid reason for stopping abortion.

Many other countries have abortion and society does not seem to have fallen apart.

Bonkey, I really like your idea that the father should have a say. I would prefer that too but I can’t think of a way it could work. I hate the fact that if my GF decided to have a abortion there isn’t really anything I could do.

At the same time I would not use a legal instrument to prevent her from having one, if such an instrument existed. What would that do to our relationship? I would prefer to try to talk her out of it. At least that way there is a chance that whatever was decided in the end there might still be a relationship left.

MrP

bonkey

Originally posted by MrPudding
I fail to see how a girl having an abortion, for whatever reason is a threat to society.

I fail to see how killing scumbags is a threat to society either.

Sometimes its not the action per se which is the threat, but rather the implications of allowing it.

jc

Rev Hellfire

I'm curious, there’s a lot of talk here about the woman’s right to decide. It seems to me to be a somewhat one-sided arrangement, when there are two other people involved.

So the question I have; which might give me a better handle on where the various parties are coming from is at what point in carrying a pregnancy to term does the mothers right to choose reach parity and/or is secondary to the right of the child and/or the father.

Now I'm well aware people will come in with the usual rape, incest etc, and we all agree that in such non-consensual situations the perpetrator should not be involved in these decision, so we'll deal with consenting adults.

Rev Hellfire

Additionally do the panel feel that abortion in a case where the child will have a Disability is justified ?
And if so how severe would the disability have to be to warrant such a case ?

The Corinthian

Originally posted by seamus
So it all boils down to whether denying a woman this right is in the interests of the common good.

Correct. Even the argument of the rights of the fetus / unborn child / whatever are tied into this as the granting or denial of any such rights has further reaching implications to Society as a whole.

I personally don't believe so, or at least is not enough in its interests to override the individual's choice.

That’s debatable, but I was simply responding to your query as to who are we to force an opinion on women? As Society we have every right, whether there is sufficient merit for such an intervention is another matter.

Originally posted by MrPudding
I fail to see how a girl having an abortion, for whatever reason is a threat to society.

I’ve heard Spammers use the same argument. A few unsolicited emails are hardly going to hurt anyone after all, and it earns someone a living. Unless of course a lot of people begin to send a few unsolicited emails. Then it becomes a lot and we have to pay money to employ Spam filters just to get through all that crap.

It is easy to forget that while our individual actions may have little or no direct effect upon Society we are not alone. The actions of an individual may encourage a group, which may in turn become a trend which in turn may adversely affect Society in ways that we had not considered.

So simply saying that you don’t see a threat to Society from something does not mean that there isn’t. Hence the debate. It just means that you don’t see one.

BobsYourAuntie

"So simply saying that you don’t see a threat to Society from something does not mean that there isn’t. Hence the debate. It just means that you don’t see one."

If you think allowing abortion would create some kind of "threat to society" then perhaps you can put forward an argument that would support that position. In the absence of this argument it is perfectly logical to assume that no such threat exists.

I might say that since I cannot see a fluffy pink unicorn in the room beside me I am perfectly entitled to say that none exists. If you have evidence that said unicorn does in fact exist then you are free to present it. You cannot say that I am unreasonable to deny its existence just because I don't see it. That's basic logic.

Moriarty

Originally posted by BobsYourAuntie
"So simply saying that you don’t see a threat to Society from something does not mean that there isn’t. Hence the debate. It just means that you don’t see one."

If you think allowing abortion would create some kind of "threat to society" then perhaps you can put forward an argument that would support that position. In the absence of this argument it is perfectly logical to assume that no such threat exists.

I might say that since I cannot see a fluffy pink unicorn in the room beside me I am perfectly entitled to say that none exists. If you have evidence that said unicorn does in fact exist then you are free to present it. You cannot say that I am unreasonable to deny its existence just because I don't see it. That's basic logic.

The argument could be made that once you begin to remove the classification of 'human' or 'person' from somebody (in this case the foetus, which some people - rightly or wrongly - think is a distinct human being from conception) it makes it easier to remove the status from others (more often than not the most vulnerable) in society.

Take, for instance, the severely mentally handicaped. If foetuses don't qualify for being a distinct human being, there could be a case to be made that the profoundly mentally handicaped are also non-human or sub-human.

These are all questions that get to the very base of what our society is founded around.

David-[RLD]-

I agree with abortion ONLY in early pregnancy or if the mother's life is at risk.

Abortion just because you don't want the baby is ridiculous and sad.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by BobsYourAuntie
If you think allowing abortion would create some kind of "threat to society" then perhaps you can put forward an argument that would support that position. In the absence of this argument it is perfectly logical to assume that no such threat exists.

Actually Moriarty got to one possible and quite valid argument before I got to. My main interest here is not as much in the moral merits or demerits of the topic at hand, but in the prevalence of moral judgments that are based upon sweeping statements, backed at best by spurious logic.

Take this little gem for example:

I agree with abortion ONLY in early pregnancy or if the mother's life is at risk.

Abortion just because you don't want the baby is ridiculous and sad.

The poster may have a well thought out, logical rational for saying this, but, let’s face it - what are the chances of that?

I might say that since I cannot see a fluffy pink unicorn in the room beside me I am perfectly entitled to say that none exists. If you have evidence that said unicorn does in fact exist then you are free to present it. You cannot say that I am unreasonable to deny its existence just because I don't see it. That's basic logic.

You are perfectly entitled to say that probably none exists, but not that definitely none exists.

BobsYourAuntie

"You are perfectly entitled to say that probably none exists, but not that definitely none exists."

Yes but I have made no such claim. No proposition can be proven to a point of certainty outside of mathematics. In a debate utilising informal logic we can only adduce a proof to certain degrees. In the case of the unicorn the degree is 'beyond reasonable doubt' as our legal betters would attest.

If I say there is no fluffy pink unicorn in this room, and I offer the fact that I cannot see one as testimony, then I have proven that claim beyond reasonable doubt. To say that my position is not proven would be perverse. The evidence of my eyes is as good as it's going to get, so logically you must accept my position unless you have contradictory evidence to offer.

It is both logical and acceptible to hold the position that abortion will not result in some undefined "threat to society" until evidence to the contrary is posited. Of course when that evidence arrives you must either refute it or change your opinion.

In fact, Moriarty may have provided a solid argument to that very end. I don't think I could address it though since the area is so complex.

monument

Why aren’t we allowed to terminate development of a human after it is born? It could solve loads of social and economic problems for parent(s) and state.

Oh, sorry, I forgot, somehow at one part of a pregnancy it is not a human, and at another part, somehow – maybe magically – it is.

I’m liberal, I agree with giving people choices and freedoms, but I do not think that the state should allow a person to harm or terminate another life.

Moriarty

Originally posted by monument
I’m liberal, I agree with giving people choices and freedoms, but I do not think that the state should allow a person to harm or terminate another life.

Yeah, but what's your view on abortion?

40crush41

nothing bothers me more than when people say, "its the woman's body.. she should be allowed to choose." has anyone ever taken bio here? the dna is completely different from the moment of conception. No religion here, just science. that is a different and new human being, Nobody has the right to destroy that life. if someone is bothering u, are u allowed to kill them? no! laws have never allowed murder, why allow the death of the most innocent, and precious forms of life b/c they're a hassel?
u would think with the increase in technology, the amazing pictures the ultrasounds can produce now, that more people would see how sick it is to kill life.. but now the culture is just saying, "me me me" -so forget about compassion.. i want this, so there.

and i am a female, im from america, i am strongly pro-life against public opinion, and i will not sit around and watch children being murdered.. hear about how their brains are sucked out, how they are crushed to death, how they are poisined.. just so a 'mother' won't get fat.
neither will i sit around as women go through the horrible trauma of an abortion where there is noone to support and listen to them, the heavy feeling they will have to carry for life of killing their child, the chance of dying during the abortion, the chance of never being able to have a child if something goes wrong in the procedure. as a feminist for life poster said, "women deserve better than abortion"

additionally, case of rape and incest is around 2% so i can't understand why this argument comes up so often. so basically it comes down to the main set of cases of women who aren't ready for a child, please people, take responsiblity for ur actions. u get pregnant, face the consequences of getting into that bed, carry the child for 9 months.. yes, its asking a lot, u become attached to the child i understand that, but think of giving that child up after 9 months to life, or after say carrying the child for 3 months and sentencing the child to death. ur choice.

i volunteer at a place where women can go to receive help with a difficult pregnacy so that they will not have to get an abortion, once a girl said, "thank you for showing me what was inside my body, they (planned parenthood) didn't tell me what he looked like. my father gave me the $2000 to have the abortion, i couldn't do it thinking of what was growing inside if me, instead i went on a shopping spree and now i have my little love." yes, at the time what a choice is in front of u.. but how can this choice be made? life or death, it seems so simple, yet so many make it so hard.

allow me to also note i hold absolutly nothing against a woman who has received an abortion, she deserves all the love and support that she can be given.. i couldn't imagine the horrible pain that she would be going through, esp if it was to be a secrete. makes me sad that anyone could allow someone to go through this pain without all the facts, and surely enough it happens.

basically the point of all this is to say, think about ur position before u march around saying that ur pro-choice for the women. abortion is a horrible thing, nothing good can come from it.

~beth