Should we legalise abortion?

MrPudding

Originally posted by bananayoghurt
yes, there is currently an absolute point, there will be a time in the future when this point no longer exists with advancements in medical technology, yes i agree there is a point now where a child is totally reliant on the bodily care of it's mother for life, but to take this as a reason for validifying extermination is to place lifes worth at the current level of medical technology

Well then this is fine. Once medical science reached a point when a foetus can survive outside the womb without it’s biological mother there will be no problem. There will be no need for abortion. Simply remove the foetus, allow it to continue to develop independently of the biological mother and then put it up for adoption. Great. Until that time, however, women should have the right to choose whether or not they continue with the pregnancy.

MrP

The Corinthian

Originally posted by MrPudding
Well then this is fine. Once medical science reached a point when a foetus can survive outside the womb without it’s biological mother there will be no problem. There will be no need for abortion. Simply remove the foetus, allow it to continue to develop independently of the biological mother and then put it up for adoption. Great. Until that time, however, women should have the right to choose whether or not they continue with the pregnancy.

Then the status of the foetus as a human (or not) is not really an issue for you? Your emphasis appears to be it’s ability to exist without having to rely upon the biological mother, rather than any higher ideals of humanity - i.e. if we can pop it into a surrogate incubator, all well and good; otherwise it’s squatting and the biological mother takes precedence? Please confirm or otherwise restate.

Zulu

Originally posted by isolde
We don't have to be so PC. I'm sorry but this is a very emotive and personal issue for me and you have no idea... you really have no idea how hard an abortion can be. And you've no idea what it feels like to be pregnant with a baby you don't want, a baby of a man you don't love, a baby of a man who hurt or abused you. You really have no clue. And what saddens me the most is that you don't seem to even want to try to understand.
~ isolde.

So if you feel you won't love your baby - it's ok to kill it?
Thats a great basis for a law.
And as for me having no idea about what it's like to be raped, or to be pregnant...
:rolleyes:
I might have no idea about what it's like to be a imagrant, but I can still make a choice and have an opinion about laws passed on the situation. I really don't think that point is relavent.

MrPudding

Originally posted by The Corinthian
Then the status of the foetus as a human (or not) is not really an issue for you? Your emphasis appears to be it’s ability to exist without having to rely upon the biological mother, rather than any higher ideals of humanity - i.e. if we can pop it into a surrogate incubator, all well and good; otherwise it’s squatting and the biological mother takes precedence? Please confirm or otherwise restate.

Well then this is fine. Once medical science reached a point when a foetus can survive outside the womb without it’s biological mother there will be no problem. There will be no need for abortion. Simply remove the foetus, allow it to continue to develop independently of the biological mother and then put it up for adoption. Great. Until that time, however, women should have the right to choose whether or not they continue with the pregnancy.

I never made any comments as to its ability to survive outside of the biological mother. I think that was Bonkey, I’m sure if you read through the posts you will find out. I simply said that should medical science advance to such a point there would be no need for abortion. This would be, I think, a great step.

As I have said before I personally think the woman rights supersede those of the foetus. Also, as I previously said, I think that there comes a time in a pregnancy when I don’t feel an abortion is appropriate. When asked when this time was I replied that I did not know. This is still the case. I simply do not have the necessary expertise to make that decision. As a result I leave these decisions up to the medical community. After all they are the people who should know the answers.

I know you think this is me simply shirking my moral responsibilities but I disagree. If my GF got pregnant again and it was decided that she would have an abortion I would not lay the blame for that on the medical community because they said it was OK to do it. But I will look to them for guidance. I fact, as far as I would be concerned there would be no blame to lay.

As to the status of the foetus as human or not. No, it makes no difference to me. It may or may not be a human being (I understand that it is human tissue) but I know for a fact that the mother is. This is good enough for me.

MrP

The Corinthian

Originally posted by MrPudding
As to the status of the foetus as human or not. No, it makes no difference to me. It may or may not be a human being (I understand that it is human tissue) but I know for a fact that the mother is. This is good enough for me.

Well, if you are saying that regardless of the status of the foetus as a human being, you consider its rights to be subservient to those of the biological mother - i.e. even if it is human, the mother’s rights supersede any rights the unborn child (seeing as we’ve allowed it to be human in this case) may have, then you are taking a clear moral position. That would not be shirking your moral responsibilities.

If you are simply using the ambiguity of the status of the foetus as a human or not to assume the more expedient scenario (that it is not human), then yes; that would be shirking your moral responsibilities.

MrPudding

Originally posted by The Corinthian
Well, if you are saying that regardless of the status of the foetus as a human being, you consider its rights to be subservient to those of the biological mother - i.e. even if it is human, the mother’s rights supersede any rights the unborn child (seeing as we’ve allowed it to be human in this case) may have, then you are taking a clear moral position. That would not be shirking your moral responsibilities.

If you are simply using the ambiguity of the status of the foetus as a human or not to assume the more expedient scenario (that it is not human), then yes; that would be shirking your moral responsibilities.

My position is the former.

MrP

Zulu

Originally posted by MrPudding
Well then this is fine. Once medical science reached a point when a foetus can survive outside the womb without it’s biological mother there will be no problem. There will be no need for abortion. Simply remove the foetus, allow it to continue to develop independently of the biological mother and then put it up for adoption. Great. Until that time, however, women should have the right to choose whether or not they continue with the pregnancy.
MrP

So what then of poor people? This surly would be an option available for people with a means to expensive health care.
And who looks afer this abandoned child?
Do the state provide the money for everyone to have this proceedure, and look after the children.

When talking about passing laws on peoples life we need to be very careful, and not so flippant. Please explain how this solution of yours could possiably be viable.

Battlesnake

Hello everyone.
Am having hectic day and don't have time to read 13 pages of posts. Still felt that I wanted to express an opinion on this topic. My opologies if I am simply repeating what has been said by others.
First off this is a very tricky topic with a huge spectrum of opinions demonstrated by the amount of posts seen on this thread.

My opinion -

Abortion should be legalised

It is always a traumatic experience and it is better for the woman to be allowed to have it at home where she has support from councelling, friends and family.
Striking fear into these women that they will be considered 'bad' or 'evil' is unfair when the majority of the time they have made the best decision for them.
I believe there should be strict controls to prevent irresponsible women from using it as a belated contraceptive.

Abortion should only happen when either

A women has been abused/raped.
A womans mental/physical health will be affected by carrying on with the pregnancy.
A woman is doing something that will harm the baby (drugs etc)

If a woman can go through with the pregnancy but is thereafter unable to care for the child, adoption is a good option, It provides people who are unable to have kids, with the joy of raising one. Also the adoptive parents usually have a stable environment in which to nourish the child.

For me personally having children, eventually, is the most important thing in the world to me. I believe in having children when you are both emotionally and financially capable so that you can give them the best.
If I got pregnant now, I would keep the baby as I am in a 3 year relationship and my bf has a really good job.
On the other hand if I was single I would probably choose abortion. I could never give up my baby once it was born. I'm extremely emotional and also suffer from depression. I'd prob end up dead.
A child goes through a great deal of developmental changes within the first three years of life. If their environment is unstable, they 9 times out of 10 grow up to be dysfunctional.
I am a perfect example. As I said I suffer from depression, my whole life I've had probs with this. More recently I've been catagorised as having 'attachment disorder'
My mum worked long hours, my dad worked normal. I went through 7 different child minders/nurseries with a two year period. Then I was passed between two grannys and my two great aunts after school until I was about 10.
As a result I never really made any attachment to my parents.

My point is this, bringing a child into the world is a major responsibility. You are ultimately going to be the one who shapes someone elses life. If you can't give a child all that it needs, then don't have one!

I feel that the real problem, especially with younger womens pregnancies, is little knowledge. There is a real lack of education from parents to their children about sex. Parents should maintain authority whilst encouraging their children to be responsible and mature, guiding them to make their own decisions. Thay should explain their opinions rather than just saying 'do this' and 'don't do that'.
Promoting more confidence with teens/young people so that they can stand up for their own beliefs whatever they may be. Also if there were more sexual health clinics and less embarrassment about buying/getting a pack of condoms there would be fewer problems.

AngelofFire

Catholic fundamentalism should not be allowed to interfere with the running of the country.The R.C church intervened to prevent noel browne from giving free healthcare to mothers and children during the 1950s, did that do the country any favour?.Contrary to many claims that catholicism is an integral part of irishness, Anglicans, Presbyterians Jews, Muslims etc make up 11% of the population. why should those groups be subject to laws based on R.C fundamentalism. The state must respect the wishes of all religions whilst at the same time seperate them from the running of the country.

Battlesnake

Angel of fire - Agree completely

Zulu

Originally posted by AngelofFire
Catholic fundamentalism should not be allowed to interfere with the running of the country.The R.C church intervened to prevent noel browne from giving free healthcare to mothers and children during the 1950s, did that do the country any favour?.Contrary to many claims that catholicism is an integral part of irishness, Anglicans, Presbyterians Jews, Muslims etc make up 11% of the population. why should those groups be subject to laws based on R.C fundamentalism. The state must respect the wishes of all religions whilst at the same time seperate them from the running of the country.

I highly doubt most people posting here are practicing catholics.
I am assuming that you are concluding that pro-life means catholic. While I agree that our society as a whole is mostly catholic, I think most people under the age of 50 (just making a random cut off) are rational; do not wish to pass laws on religious values; have free will.
While I also acknowledge that the catholic lobby are very strongly pro-life, you shouldn't confuse the two.
I for one wouldn't consider myself catholic. But I can't condone the destruction of human life.

(edit: I don't think any religion condone abortion, can you let me know if one does? I know some don't condem it as strongly as the RC church, but none condone it either.
Also it's worth know that abortions are legal if the mothers life is under treat and the RC church dosne't have a problem with that either)

The Corinthian

Originally posted by AngelofFire
Catholic fundamentalism should not be allowed to interfere with the running of the country.

To begin with there are two fundamental flaws with what you’re saying.

To equate a pro-Life position with Roman Catholicism would be ignoring that it does not hold true that if you are not Roman Catholic does means that you must be pro-Life. Indeed you will find that Anglicanism, Presbyterianism, Judaism and Islam are all opposed to abortion. Hardly due to Roman Catholicism, is it?

Secondly you seem to conclude that because the Roman Catholic Church opposes something then it must be bad. Does this mean that we should also assume that you believe that the invasion of Iraq was a good thing on the same basis?

You’re kind of light on reasoning beyond that.

I can understand that you have probably had unpleasant experiences in your childhood that you would associate with the Roman Catholic Church, but I don’t think you should use that as the basis of a moral philosophy.

bonkey

Originally posted by Zulu
(edit: I don't think any religion condone abortion, can you let me know if one does? )

I may be wrong, but I believe that some Eastern religions (Buddhism perhaps) take the stance that the soul (or appropriate other term) does not enter the body until the first breath has been born.

This - if my memory isn't just making this all up as I go along - isn't quite the same as condoning abortion, but its the closest I can think of.

jc

Zulu

Originally posted by bonkey
I may be wrong, but I believe that some Eastern religions (Buddhism perhaps) take the stance that the soul (or appropriate other term) does not enter the body until the first breath has been born.

This - if my memory isn't just making this all up as I go along - isn't quite the same as condoning abortion, but its the closest I can think of.

jc

In all fairness, (without dragging this into a religious debate)
Buddhism ABHORES the killing of ANY form of life.
This includes insects - which don't have lungs to breath.
(That being said - I understand you are just providing an explination - my tone here is of anger )

isolde

Originally posted by Zulu
So if you feel you won't love your baby - it's ok to kill it?
Thats a great basis for a law

Zulu - I think we've been through this before; I don't see it as killing.. yea I know for sure I've said that before.

I might have no idea about what it's like to be a imagrant, but I can still make a choice and have an opinion about laws passed on the situation. I really don't think that point is relavent.

Yes, as previously stated, you are perfectly entitled to an opinion on the issue, absolutely. I just feel that when someone is really seriously considering a subject, then they should try and look at the issue from every angle and every point of view. Saying that someone who was raped and became pregnant as a result should not be allowed to have an abortion is, to me, cold-hearted and cruel. I honestly genuinely can't comprehend how anyone can say that.

So my point was, that if you were raped, or your girlfriend was raped or your 14-year-old daughter was raped.. then you might very well see things differently. But for now it's a case of "it's killing, it's wrong" and there's no leeway and there's not an ounce of compassion because it's murder at the end of the day, isn't it??

I've said it before and I'll say it again. The rights of the woman to make her own choices and her own decisions, and above all the rights of someone who was a victim of such a horrific and hateful crime.. they come first for me. Regardless of the status of the foetus. I've said I don't know the status of the foetus and I still don't know.. nothing's changed over the last few days. But, whatever the case, my stance on the issue remains the same. Abortion should be a personal choice.

AngelofFire

Im not saying that Catholicism is the only religion that condemns abortion. what i meant was that the illegality of abortion in ireland stems from the catholic church`s control over the irish state which is unfair. I am a church of ireland member i respect the views of the R.C. church but the government should never have been able to pass laws based on their fundamentalist beliefs No divorce, cancelling the mother and child scheme etc.For example when was the last time the government made policies to suit the church of ireland.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by AngelofFire
Im not saying that Catholicism is the only religion that condemns abortion.

Well actually you did. You argued that undue influence held by the Roman Catholic Church and their the anti-abortion / pro-life stance was riding rough-shot over the positions of the other faiths in the State.

what i meant was that the illegality of abortion in ireland stems from the catholic church`s control over the irish state which is unfair.

Historically, I would agree that this was certainly the case, however you tend to forget that many other faiths are far more militantly against abortion or even that some atheists can be equally so. So to say that this is still the case would be a little simplistic.

For example when was the last time the government made policies to suit the church of ireland.

To be brutally honest, probably when the Church of Ireland was still in a position to influence large numbers of voters from the pulpit.

LegacyUser

Originally posted by isolde
Zulu - I think we've been through this before; I don't see it as killing.. yea I know for sure I've said that before.

if its not killing, and ending the life of a born child is killing whereas abortion isn't then there must be a finite moment when something that is not a life becomes a life, if you cannnot identify that finite moment then you are at best condoning the possible killing of a child

isolde

I'm beginning to wonder if some people are deliberately ignoring half of what I'm saying.

I have said on numerous occasions that I don't know when life begins, that I've no proof that it doesn't begin from conception, just as you have no proof that it does. So no-one knows for sure. Can we agree on that?

So (god I feel like such a broken record), what it boils down to is whether you feel the rights of the woman supercede those of the foetus or vice versa.

SO... since you're saying abortion is murder and since you say that a week old embryo is a human being as such (I'd be grateful if no-one made comments such as "what is it? an alien? a dog?" etc. at this stage because it's perfectly clear what I mean and I realise it is human tissue and made up of a man's sperm and a woman's egg etc etc) and you put it before the right of the woman to choose.. so therefore in your eyes abortion is the murder of a human being, right?

So then, yes. I am condoning abortion and since you equate abortion with the possible murder of a child, then technically, if I go by your definition of things, than that's what I'm condoning. Naturally I define things differently. I'm not trying to hide the fact that I support the woman's choice to have an abortion. The fact that I don't see abortion as murder is obviously irrelevant to this whole discussion I guess...

On that note I should probably go to bed. Repeating myself has tired me out.

~ isolde.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by isolde
I have said on numerous occasions that I don't know when life begins, that I've no proof that it doesn't begin from conception, just as you have no proof that it does. So no-one knows for sure. Can we agree on that?

A demolition expert is about to demolish a block of flats. She is pretty sure that there are no squatters remaining in the flats, but cannot be certain. Does she detonate the demolition charges or takes the more cautious route and holds off?

If a man probably has committed a crime, but neither his innocence nor guilt has been proven, should he be convicted?

If no one has proof that life does or doesn't begin from conception then, which is the more prudent course of action? Reasonable doubt does not come into it, because it is self evident that no one has proven anything beyond reasonable doubt on this very point.

Thus, unless we ascribe a higher level of rights to the mother regardless of the status of the foetus as human, we cannot terminate unless either we can prove that the foetus is not human or at least not human beyond reasonable doubt.

Zulu

Originally posted by isolde
Yes, as previously stated, you are perfectly entitled to an opinion on the issue, absolutely. I just feel that when someone is really seriously considering a subject, then they should try and look at the issue from every angle and every point of view. Saying that someone who was raped and became pregnant as a result should not be allowed to have an abortion is, to me, cold-hearted and cruel. I honestly genuinely can't comprehend how anyone can say that.

I am looking at it from every angle, just because I don't come to the same conclusions as you dosen't mean I'm not cosidering the options.

Originally posted by isolde
So my point was, that if you were raped, or your girlfriend was raped or your 14-year-old daughter was raped.. then you might very well see things differently. But for now it's a case of "it's killing, it's wrong" and there's no leeway and there's not an ounce of compassion because it's murder at the end of the day, isn't it??

Making laws, and passing decision on others lives CAN'T be done on an emotional argument. Your whole "if your sister was raped" argument isn't going to cut it.
If my sister/mother/daughter was raped, I, naturally would be angrey. I might even kill the rapist, or more to the point, the person I taught did the rape. Is that acceptable? After all my sister/mother/daughter was raped.
While I might carry out the crime - that is NOT the right thing to do, and I couldn't possiably condone a law that stated otherwise!
And yes killing is wrong. I don't condone the death penality - in ANY circumstance, that goes for rapists/mass murders/unborn children. Everybody has the right to life.

Originally posted by isolde
I've said it before and I'll say it again. The rights of the woman to make her own choices and her own decisions, and above all the rights of someone who was a victim of such a horrific and hateful crime.. they come first for me. Regardless of the status of the foetus. I've said I don't know the status of the foetus and I still don't know.. nothing's changed over the last few days. But, whatever the case, my stance on the issue remains the same. Abortion should be a personal choice.

Well if it helps you sleep easy to kill somthing that mightn't be a life - thats you own conscience. I for one can stomach that.


<edit : The Corinthian - another point well made>

LegacyUser

I don't think u can really argue an ethical pro abortion stance, you can use faux arguments like a womans right to choose, but she already has the choice not to become pregnant in the first place, yea you can bring up the old rape argument but thats not what its really about, it's about living a carefree existence and not accepting reponsibility for your actions, even if not wanting to accept them results in the death of another

Abortion is wrong but inevitably it will be legal here because of what we are, and the only thing that matters to us is ourselves, we wanna have it all and if there are any consequences sure we can terminate them later if at all possible and unfortunately in this case it is,

Having heard nothing about a species except it terminates its unborn you could surmise all the other ills, the violence, murder, wars, hatred, holocausts, it's a given

sceptre

Originally posted by bananayoghurt
Having heard nothing about a species except it terminates its unborn you could surmise all the other ills, the violence, murder, wars, hatred, holocausts, it's a given

If we terminated all the unborn we could do away with all of those things within about 75 years.

I'm not getting involved in this discussion on the substantive issue but I fail to see any reason beyond supposition how one could surmise anything of the sort. We don't imagine this to be so among species that eat their young because it isn't so.

LegacyUser

Originally posted by sceptre
If we terminated all the unborn we could do away with all of those things within about 75 years.

I'm not getting involved in this discussion on the substantive issue but I fail to see any reason beyond supposition how one could surmise anything of the sort. We don't imagine this to be so among species that eat their young because it isn't so.

in fairness, species that eat their young do not do so out of self consideration, maybe i should have said self aware species, on a very simplistic note species that do eat there young dont buy mercedes benz from the profits of doing so

40crush41

i never understood this:

if a pregnant woman is hit by a car and the unborn child dies- the person driving the car is charged with murder of the unborn child.

but i thought it wasn't a person. so if a woman wants to kill the child its okay then its not a person anymore? this does not make sense.

bonkey

Originally posted by bananayoghurt
Having heard nothing about a species except it terminates its unborn you could surmise all the other ills, the violence, murder, wars, hatred, holocausts, it's a given

Really?

Well, if you could point to a species other than your own which backs up this assertion, then you'd have a point.

Otherwise its just absolute fiction. You can not accurately build a model on which to surmise anything based on a single case.

jc

LegacyUser

Originally posted by bonkey
Really?

Well, if you could point to a species other than your own which backs up this assertion, then you'd have a point.

Otherwise its just absolute fiction. You can not accurately build a model on which to surmise anything based on a single case.

jc

ok it may well be just conjecture but its very safe to assume a species which kills its unborn does the same to its born with equal vigour

Zulu

For all of you still klinging onto the whole "...well it's ok if it's rape - imagine if you were raped - you'd hate the child etc..."

This is an interview with a rape victim, taken from the BBC website.

---

BBC News

Ethnic choice

"It is very difficult for me as I am a Fur women and these are Arab men", says Khadija, covering herself with an orange scarf.

"These are my only clothes. My sister gave them to me, because the Janjaweed abandoned me naked."


"Now I am three-months pregnant. It will be a child from the Janjaweed. But I won't reject this baby. He will be my baby."

"When he grows up, he will decide whether he wants to be a Fur or an Arab. If he chooses to be an Arab, he could go with them. If he decides to be a Fur, he will be welcome to stay with us."

---

She seems to be able live with her child.

bonkey

Originally posted by bananayoghurt
ok it may well be just conjecture but its very safe to assume a species which kills its unborn does the same to its born with equal vigour

No, its not very safe. Its not safe at all. Its entirely unfounded, in fact, and thus quite dangerous.

Its just convenient for you to assume it.

jc

MrPudding

Originally posted by Zulu


She seems to be able live with her child.

Oh. Thats OK then. How stupid have we been. If one single raped woman can live with it when surely they all can?

As I have said, it is unlikely there is going to be agreement here. I think the best idea is that if you are against abortion then don't have one. If you are pro-choice and you need one, then have one if you think it is right for you.

MrP

bonkey

Originally posted by Zulu
She seems to be able live with her child.

Well that completely knocks that argument then. Every raped woman is able to live with her child, because this one is.

jc

bonkey

Originally posted by MrPudding
I think the best idea is that if you are against abortion then don't have one.

Convenient argument for a pro-choice stance.

If I were to say "if you are against murder, just don't kill anyone, but leave the decision of others to themselves", would you agree with me?

If not, then consider that this is the direct implication of your statement when applied to people who are "against abortion" because they feel it is murder.

jc

Zulu

Originally posted by bonkey
Well that completely knocks that argument then. Every raped woman is able to live with her child, because this one is.

jc

Well we're all very smart this morning aren't we.
I'm simply pointing out that there rape and loving your child aren't mutally exclusive; that while rape is a henious crime, mothers, tend to love their children; that it's not a case of I was raped, the best thing to do now is abort that child. Simple fix, I think not.

MrPudding

Originally posted by bonkey
Convenient argument for a pro-choice stance.

If I were to say "if you are against murder, just don't kill anyone, but leave the decision of others to themselves", would you agree with me?

If not, then consider that this is the direct implication of your statement when applied to people who are "against abortion" because they feel it is murder.

jc

I know. What are we to do? It will be impossible to get consensus on this issue. Pro-life think it is murder and pro-choice think it isn't. I doubt very much that this will change. What I said in my last post may seem flippant but I think that is what it comes down to.

Put simply, I appreciate that pro-lifers feel it is murder, I happen not to agree with them, and as such they will not and should not have abortions. Pro-choice do not see it as murder and so can and do, if necessary, have abortions.

For me it’s that simple.

MrP

Zulu

Originally posted by MrPudding
I know. What are we to do? It will be impossible to get consensus on this issue. Pro-life think it is murder and pro-choice think it isn't. I doubt very much that this will change. What I said in my last post may seem flippant but I think that is what it comes down to.

Put simply, I appreciate that pro-lifers feel it is murder, I happen not to agree with them, and as such they will not and should not have abortions. Pro-choice do not see it as murder and so can and do, if necessary, have abortions.

For me it’s that simple.

MrP

To qoute Homer - "if I can't see it, it's not illegal".
Great solution MrP. <Now if I just close my eyes while I release this nerve toxin...>

bonkey

Originally posted by MrPudding
What I said in my last post may seem flippant but I think that is what it comes down to.

But I don't think that you'd agree thats what it should come down to in a other situation where you consider something murder, and others don't.

For example, I'm pretty sure that there are some cults out there who consider ritual sacrifice not to be murder. There are definitely religions who allow that killing people in the name of a holy war isn't murder.

So do you think that we should legalise what they believe in as well, and simply not do it when we disagree with it?

Put simply, I appreciate that pro-lifers feel it is murder, I happen not to agree with them,

I'm not sure you do fully appreciate that they feel it is murder. Maybe I'm wrong...we'll see.

Take something you consider to be murder, and ask yourself whether or not you're willing to legalise it because some other people disagree with you.

Pro-choice do not see it as murder and so can and do, if necessary, have abortions.

For me it’s that simple.

So, again, taking the logic outside just abortion, what you're saying is that people should - in general - be allowed kill anyone and anything they like as long as they - personally - do not consider their action to be wrong.

Its that simple?

Because if the logical extension is not that simple, then your solution isn't that simple either. As I said to someone else - its merely convenient. It most certainly is not appreciating where the "it is murder" people are coming from, becase most people who say "it is murder" start from a base assumption that murder is fundamentally wrong - not something that we leave to the individual to decide on a personal basis.

What you're saying is that the apparent "best solution" is for the pro-life "side" to accept that pro-choice is the right "compromise". Hardly a compromise, when you're asking them to basically give up their entire reasoning for objection.

jc

MrPudding

Originally posted by bonkey


Because if the logical extension is not that simple, then your solution isn't that simple either. As I said to someone else - its merely convenient. It most certainly is not appreciating where the "it is murder" people are coming from, becase most people who say "it is murder" start from a base assumption that murder is fundamentally wrong - not something that we leave to the individual to decide on a personal basis.

What you're saying is that the apparent "best solution" is for the pro-life "side" to accept that pro-choice is the right "compromise". Hardly a compromise, when you're asking them to basically give up their entire reasoning for objection.

jc

I do understand what you are saying. And believe me I do appreciate that pro-lifers see abortion as murder, I just happen not to agree with them.

You ritual sacrifice example is, like abortion, is covered by law. Law is what decides what murder is. Taking a persons life is an act, murder is a social construct. Society has decided that killing people is wrong, government legislated against this act and so we have murder. Whether the taking of a life is murder or not is down to law, not what some people think is murder.

Why do we have to take the logic outside abortion? I am only talking about abortion. Animal rights activists see the killing of animals for food as murder, I do not. Do we need to take that logic outside of the context of slaughtering animals?

In countries where abortion is legal is it considered to be murder? If you get an abortion in the UK are you immediately arrested for murder? It would seem that there is already a compromise in place in countries where abortion is allowed.

Even in countries where abortion is allowed some people disagree. They will consider it to be murder. Most people will probably accept their right to call it murder, but at the same time abortions still happen. Society as a whole does not see it as murder.

So again I say, if you are anti-abortion the best thing you can do is not have one, that way you can be sure that you are morally correct (well at least in relation to your particular views.) I know you think that it is murder but some people don’t. Do you eat meat? Some people think that is murder. Are you going to stop eating meat?

MrP

Zulu

Originally posted by MrPudding
You ritual sacrifice example is, like abortion, is covered by law. Law is what decides what murder is. Taking a persons life is an act, murder is a social construct. Society has decided that killing people is wrong, government legislated against this act and so we have murder. Whether the taking of a life is murder or not is down to law, not what some people think is murder.

Why do we have to take the logic outside abortion? I am only talking about abortion. Animal rights activists see the killing of animals for food as murder, I do not. Do we need to take that logic outside of the context of slaughtering animals?

In countries where abortion is legal is it considered to be murder? If you get an abortion in the UK are you immediately arrested for murder? It would seem that there is already a compromise in place in countries where abortion is allowed.

Even in countries where abortion is allowed some people disagree. They will consider it to be murder. Most people will probably accept their right to call it murder, but at the same time abortions still happen. Society as a whole does not see it as murder.

So again I say, if you are anti-abortion the best thing you can do is not have one, that way you can be sure that you are morally correct (well at least in relation to your particular views.) I know you think that it is murder but some people don’t. Do you eat meat? Some people think that is murder. Are you going to stop eating meat?

MrP

Your animal and meat arguments are very flimsy.
As for ritual sacrifice - that isn't covered by law here, neither is the death sentance. We masqurade as an "enlightened, educated, and civilised" society. Civilised being the big one here. Being civilised is to have respect to human life.

You speak of legalised ritual sacrifice. By this extention, you have little problem with honour killing? Fundmental relgious states excute raped women in order to protect the honour of the family - is this ok? Perhaps we should just legalise this instead of abortion for all the rape cases???

I mean if it's ok for them....
Human life in all forms is precious.

MrPudding

Originally posted by Zulu
Your animal and meat arguments are very flimsy.
As for ritual sacrifice - that isn't covered by law here, neither is the death sentance. We masqurade as an "enlightened, educated, and civilised" society. Civilised being the big one here. Being civilised is to have respect to human life.

You speak of legalised ritual sacrifice. By this extention, you have little problem with honour killing? Fundmental relgious states excute raped women in order to protect the honour of the family - is this ok? Perhaps we should just legalise this instead of abortion for all the rape cases???

I mean if it's ok for them....
Human life in all forms is precious.

Why is my animal and meat argument flimsy? Some people think killing animals for food is murder. The law does not support this view, neither does the majority of society. Therefore in the eyes of the law, which counts, it is not murder. In countries where abortion is allowed it is not considered murder in the eyes of the law. Again I make the point that it is up to the law to decide what is murder or not. Some people in these countries may feel that abortion is murder but that does not make it so in the eyes of the law.

I think you picked my comment on ritual sacrifice wrong. I said it was covered by the law. It is, the law has decided it is illegal. This is what I meant. I never mentioned legalised ritual sacrifice.

You say Human life in all for is precious, fine. That is your opinion and I may very well agree with you. The thing is, as has been mentioned before, some peoples ideas of what constitutes human life differs.

MrP

Zulu

Originally posted by MrPudding
Why is my animal and meat argument flimsy? Some people think killing animals for food is murder. The law does not support this view, neither does the majority of society. Therefore in the eyes of the law, which counts, it is not murder.

Yes and some people consider eating vegitable murder, and some people consider killing plankton murder....:rolleyes: We are talking about abortion, not food.

Originally posted by MrPudding
In countries where abortion is allowed it is not considered murder in the eyes of the law. Again I make the point that it is up to the law to decide what is murder or not. Some people in these countries may feel that abortion is murder but that does not make it so in the eyes of the law.

Ok - so if it's law, it's ok, that in essence is you point here? If so, again, what about honour killing? By certain law, that is fine. So it's fine with you? The law of the Teliban - was that fine with you?

Originally posted by MrPudding
I think you picked my comment on ritual sacrifice wrong. I said it was covered by the law. It is, the law has decided it is illegal. This is what I meant. I never mentioned legalised ritual sacrifice.

emm you did mention ritual sacrifice, I'll take it you mean you didn't mention honour killing. I don't think I did take you up wrong.

Originally posted by MrPudding
ILaw is what decides what murder is. Taking a persons life is an act, murder is a social construct. Society has decided that killing people is wrong, government legislated against this act and so we have murder. Whether the taking of a life is murder or not is down to law, not what some people think is murder.

isn't your point here that murder is defined by law? Isn't you point that abortion isn't legally murder, so it's ok by you if pro-choice have the choice legally? ...so by that logic, in some places honour killing are legal, and socially acceptiable, so thats fine with you??

Moriarty

Originally posted by 40crush41
i never understood this:

if a pregnant woman is hit by a car and the unborn child dies- the person driving the car is charged with murder of the unborn child.

but i thought it wasn't a person. so if a woman wants to kill the child its okay then its not a person anymore? this does not make sense.

I'm open to correction, but as far as I know that isn't the case over here. I don't think it's even the case in every american state if memory serves me right. Are there stipulations on how far the pregnancy has to have gone before these laws are applicable (4 weeks? 12? 20?)? In any case when you get down to it, the law is just a set of rules that has been made binding in society. Just because something is legal or illegal doesn't neccessarly mean it's 'right' or 'wrong'.

<edit: American law isn't always the best thing to base your arguments on anyway. It's open to corruption and distortion like anywhere else - in some states it's illegal to even teach evolutionary theory.>

bonkey

Originally posted by MrPudding
Why do we have to take the logic outside abortion?
I am only talking about abortion.

And this is why I still believe that despite what you may think, you still do not understand the perspective of the pro-lifer.

This comment is analagous to someone supporting euthenasia saying that wanting euthenasia made legal doesn't in any way impact on what does and does not constitute murder because they are only talking about euthenasia. The Jihad-bound Muslim sees nothing wrong in killing people in a Holy war, and equating that with any other form is killing is also incorrect, because they are only talking about killing people as part of Jihad.

The problem is not what you are talking about. The problem is that by "only" talking about abortion, you are completely ignoring the stance of the pro-lifer which is that there is no "only" abortion, no more than there is "only" Jihad-based murder, "only" euthenasia-driven murder, or "only" any other form of murder. Abortion, to a pro-lifer is murder, and as you claim to understand their point of view, I'm simply asking you to look at your solution from their point of view.

Animal rights activists see the killing of animals for food as murder, I do not. Do we need to take that logic outside of the context of slaughtering animals?

No, because we can clearly all agree that animals are not humans. If you can get agreement from all parties that the foetus is most definitely not the same as a post-natal human, then you can dissociate the killing of a foetus from the killing of such a post-natal human. However, the reason we're having this discussion is because you already agree that we cannot clearly make that distinction because it is the root of the disagreement.

But again, the fact that you are making this distinction shows that you are either not willing to or not capable of looking at the problem from the perspective of the other person's point of view.

In countries where abortion is legal is it considered to be murder?

By those who oppose abortion, yes, but not by the law.

The question we are debating is what should the law in Ireland be, so arguing that some countries laws don't see it as murder is no more or less relevant than arguing that some countries' laws do see it as murder.

I can point you at nations who's laws are based around Sharia Law. Does this mean that stoning your wife to death for adultery should also be acceptable in Ireland??? No? Then why is it relevant that other nations permit abortion, other than the fact that because they happen to agree with you, you see their implementation as the correct one.

So one could summarise this line of reasoning as "other nations agree with my stance, so I'm clearly right". Unfortunately, both sides in the abortion argument can say that, so it gets us nowhere.

If you get an abortion in the UK are you immediately arrested for murder? It would seem that there is already a compromise in place in countries where abortion is allowed.

I've never argued that point. That is - once again - what the majority in that country have decided, and that is their right. If the majority in Ireland decide that compromise is the way to go, then so be it - that will be law in Ireland, and that is what the public will have to live by until such times as it may be changed again.

That doesn't make compromise any more acceptable to anyone who believe's that it is still murder, however, and in Ireland, the compromise can't be reached without a referendum. So, come the next referendum, why should a pro-lifer vote to allow someone else to commit what they see as murder?

Again - would you accept that Fundamentalist Muslims in Ireland should be allowed stone their wives to death for adultery? No? Nor would the majority, I'd guess and so the law will happen to agree with you. But your argument that I took exception to wasn't about accepting the will of the majority. Your argument was that the "simple" solution is that if you believe its ok, you do it and If you don't believe its ok, don't do it but allow others to do it. In other words, those who believe that abortion is murder should support allowing others to commit murder come a referendum.

All I'm asking you to apply that line of thinking to any situation you disagree with, so you can see just how "simple" a solution it is. Will you accept that Sharia Law can be practiced in Ireland by those who believe in it, whilst those of you that don't believe in it won't practice it? Will you accept that those who believe in ritual killings can do so free of punishment from the law whilst those of us who are abhorred by tehy idea simply won't perform any ritual killings? Will you accept that the guy who kills someone through road-rage and feel justified should be allowed walk, and that those of us who disagree should simply not kill people through road-rage?

From the pro-lifer's perspective - which you keep saying you understand - these are all identical in form to your "don't do it if you object, but don't stop others" solution. Each one of them deals with a situation which - by their standard - entails murder.

You say that it is a simple solution, so explain to me why - for the person who believes that you are asking them to condone murder performed by others - this is simple. The only way you can do it is to explain it from tehir perspective. I've tried bringing you half-way there by supplying the things they will compare it to, and you say you don't understand the logic. The logic is that of the pro-lifer who you claim to understand. So either you don't understand them, or you don't want to go down the road which will clearly show that your simple solution is only simple to a pro-choice advocate (or perhaps one who is abmivalent or uncertain).

Even in countries where abortion is allowed some people disagree.

Yes they do. And in countries where abortion is not allowed, some people disagree - like you do regarding Ireland.

Society as a whole does not see it as murder.

Correct. Now, again, given that you understand the pro-lifer's position, explain the following to me :

Abortion is illegal in Ireland. Therefore, by your reasoning, that must mean that society as a whole does see it as murder. So why should it be legalised?

And when you point out that the wishes of the majority do not necessarily reflect the reality of the current laws, please remember that this also undermines your own assertion that where its legal it is so because thats what society as a whole wants.....which is the basis of that particular argument in the first place.

So again I say, if you are anti-abortion the best thing you can do is not have one,

No, the best thing you can do is everything legal in your power that you feel moved to do to ensure that abortion is illegal in your nation.

Just as you say that the opinion of the pro-lifer is respected in nations where abortion is legal, so too will the opinion of hte pro-choicer be equally respected where abortion is not legal.

It is not legal in Ireland, and were I a pro-lifer, I would respect your opinion to think that our laws are wrong. That doesn't mean that I would support - nor that I should support - the changing of said law.

But you're saying that the pro-lifer should do just that. Support your want to change the law to something they find unacceptable, because you won't support what see as acceptable.

that way you can be sure that you are morally correct

So allowing others to commit murder is morally correct in your view? Because thats what you're saying is how the pro-lifer should behave - and remember that you keep saying you understand their point of view, so you must understand that this is how they see it.

Do you eat meat? Some people think that is murder. Are you going to stop eating meat?

Its not whether or not you should stop. Its whether or not you should accept that the law be changed in order to make it illegal to continue.

If the law is changed, I would stop eating meat. However, as a meat-eater, I do not, will not and should not support the changing of the law as a sop to those who hold beliefs that I do not wish to be subject to. And were their motion successful, and meat-eating were made illegal, I would immediately join the campaign to re-legalise it.

You fight for your belief - so stop suggesting that the simple solution is that others not do the same for theirs. Thats not simple, merely convenient for you.

jc

bonkey

Originally posted by MrPudding
I think you picked my comment on ritual sacrifice wrong. I said it was covered by the law. It is, the law has decided it is illegal. This is what I meant. I never mentioned legalised ritual sacrifice.

But the law currently says that abortion is also illegal. It is covered by law. The law has decided it is illegal.

Your "simple solution" is to legalise abortion so that those who are ok with it can do it. Why would legalising ritual killingsm be any different? Its the exact same logic.

jc

MrPudding

Originally posted by bonkey
But the law currently says that abortion is also illegal. It is covered by law. The law has decided it is illegal.

Your "simple solution" is to legalise abortion so that those who are ok with it can do it. Why would legalising ritual killingsm be any different? Its the exact same logic.

jc

I was talking about countries where abortion is allowed.

MrP

MrPudding

I have just got really busy at work. I don't have time to go through your large post Bonkey but I will get to it at some point.

By the way Zulu, it was bonkey that brought up ritual killings.

And just quickly, I do not agree with honor killings, I find them quite nasty. I also don't support Taliban Law, but, if that is how a society chooses to live then that is up to them.

MrP

MrPudding

OK. Just one quick question. Am I right in thinking that abortion is allowed in Ireland under some circumstances? If this is the case is it seen a murder by the law?

MrP

Zulu

Originally posted by MrPudding
OK. Just one quick question. Am I right in thinking that abortion is allowed in Ireland under some circumstances? If this is the case is it seen a murder by the law?

MrP

It is my understanding that it the pregnance is complicated to a point that it will result in death, a termination will take place. The logic being that both mother and baby will die. Every effort is made to save both.
I don't like where you're going with this argument - so before you do go there - consider conjoined twins - it's not murder to separate them in order to save one.

Ok Bonkey brought up the ritual killings - sorry. ...but the point still remains unanswered - why should I vote for somthing I see as morally incorrect (just because other don't see it that way - appears to be you logic)?

So if I was Taliban, would you vote to support what I don't see and morally incorrect?

MrPudding

Originally posted by Zulu
It is my understanding that it the pregnance is complicated to a point that it will result in death, a termination will take place. The logic being that both mother and baby will die. Every effort is made to save both.
I don't like where you're going with this argument - so before you do go there - consider conjoined twins - it's not murder to separate them in order to save one.

Ok Bonkey brought up the ritual killings - sorry. ...but the point still remains unanswered - why should I vote for somthing I see as morally incorrect (just because other don't see it that way - appears to be you logic)?

So if I was Taliban, would you vote to support what I don't see and morally incorrect?

You should not vote for it, simple. I am not trying to tell you that you should.

But am I right in thinking you do think it is OK to abort in some cases?

MrP

Zulu

Originally posted by MrPudding
You should not vote for it, simple. I am not trying to tell you that you should.

But am I right in thinking you do think it is OK to abort in some cases?

MrP

If their is a great risk that the mother and/or child will die; that the doctors have decided that nothing else can be done, then it's tradgic, but yes an effort should be made to save one of the lives. In this case (as is currently the case in Ireland) it's the mothers choice.
I have no problem with the above.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by bananayoghurt
I don't think u can really argue an ethical pro abortion stance

Actually you can, simply depends upon your ethics. You are assuming that the right to life supercedes all other rights and that all people have equal rights. From those axioms, it is almost a logical inevitability that abortion is ultimately unethical. However, as with any logical construct, if either or both of those axioms are false, then your conclusion (given perfect logic) will also be false. [1]

If we look at the recurring example of honour killings, those societies that practice them will tend to begin with the moral premise that the honour of a family supercedes the right to life. For them it is as moral and rational as the Western notion that the right to life of the individual supercedes all other rights.

By a similar notion, a number of women have responded in this thread quite bluntly saying that they did consider the fetus human, but that their rights superceded those of the human fetus. On that basis, should one accept it, it is an ethical decision.

Originally posted by MrPudding
You should not vote for it, simple. I am not trying to tell you that you should.

But not campaign against it? By your logic you really should not be complaining about the present status quo of the illegality of abortion then?





[1] All right, technically it could still be true, but that’s just pedantry, TBH.