Should we legalise abortion?

Trebor

Originally posted by bananayoghurt
what grates on me most is that the only reason all you pro abortionists are here to advocate it is because your mothers didn't have the same view as u, they thought you were human, not cells or tissue or 'non humans' so here you are now, having passed through your 'untermenschen' stage of life unscathed rallying to have those who haven't yet killed, nice one guys

thats not right, i am here because my mother chose to have me. if she didn't want me then she should have had the choice to abort me if she wanted to. the way you are saying it is that all pregnancies will end in abortion. women who have an abortion now may have a child later in life.

bonkey

Originally posted by bananayoghurt
then you must believe there is some instantaneous transition from 'Tissue' to personhood,

Doesn't everyone believe that? You're placing at the moment of conception, but its still cells being considered as a person.

and what exactly occurs in this non time scale measurable period in the biological sense ?

Well. the most standard points where abortion is considered are placed at a point where they will be before key biological events - the main one of which being extra-womb survivability - i.e. the ability to survive outside the mother's womb even if that is not independant survival.

what suddenly occurs to turn a non human into a human,

In what terms? The only meaningful terms where anything changes from non-human to human are legal ones and medical ones, and - well - surprise, surprise, they can't agree on when that happens, or what it constitutes.

what grates on me most is that the only reason all you pro abortionists are here to advocate it is because your mothers didn't have the same view as u,

An atittude which completely ignores the fact that many - if not most - "pro-abortionists" take the stance that regardless of whether they believe they would ever countenance an abortion themselves, they don't feel they have the right to deny others that choice.

If I had that view (which many who clearly haven't read previous abortion threads here seem to think I have), then I wouldn't actually be very worried if my parents shared the same view because they wanted to have a child. (cue infantile "or thats what they tell you" remarks etc. from the gallery.)

Not only that, but your remarks basically imply that anyone who votes yes was an unwanted child who's paren's would have aborted them if they could have. I find that one of the most narrow-sighted, narrow-minded uncharitable and instulting comments I've ever heard being presented in a so-called "rational" discussion. You basically think that some large minority (at the least) of the adult population of Ireland would have been aborted had their parents been willing to vote it in.

I'm amazed. I wonder if you would care to explain how nations which permit abortion don't have a virtually non-existant birth rate? Hell, by your logic, if you do the math on what you're saying, China probably doesn't need its horrific "one child" laws to control its population, they just need to legalise abortion and it will have the same net effect.

jc

isolde

Originally posted by Zulu
Could you not say also say human foetus, human embryo, human child?

Originally posted by monument
Do you think it is human, or not?
Lets not go down the "lets not argue over semantics" road.

Sorry, I'm obviously not being clear enough. I'll give it another shot.

I don't know whether the embryo is a human being from the moment of conception; I don't know when the change from tissue occurs. I don't have medical expertise, my opinions are just that.. opinions.

As I have said several times now, I don't consider it a human being from the minute the egg is fertilised. That again is my personal opinion on the matter.

Your idea of a week old embryo is very different to mine. I'm not trying to convince you otherwise. I have no proof, only personal beliefs.. just like you.

That is the very reason why an issue like this should be a personal choice.

LegacyUser

Originally posted by bonkey
Doesn't everyone believe that? You're placing at the moment of conception, but its still cells being considered as a person.

we are all just cells being considered as a person, whats the difference between you and a fertilized egg ?, consider yourself in a dreamless sleep, you will wake in 9 hours, the child will wake in 9 months, it's just timescale, do you become non-human when you sleep ?, would it be ok for me to end your life while you sleep ? i think we both know the answer is no, just because you aren't runnin about laughin and crackin jokes doesn't mean u are not human, I can't see the difference between aborting a child and killing you in your sleep, they are both equally wrong, both are people waiting to wake up

Well. the most standard points where abortion is considered are placed at a point where they will be before key biological events - the main one of which being extra-womb survivability - i.e. the ability to survive outside the mother's womb even if that is not independant survival.

being in the womb is one stage of life, why is it acceptable to end a life because it can't survive outside the womb ?, what child can survive outside a caring home ?, doesn't mean we can take their lives, by that rational any child that cant fend for itself is fair game
[/B][/QUOTE]

In what terms? The only meaningful terms where anything changes from non-human to human are legal ones and medical ones, and - well - surprise, surprise, they can't agree on when that happens, or what it constitutes.

No, the only one's are moral and religious, medically and biologically life starts at conception, end of story

An atittude which completely ignores the fact that many - if not most - "pro-abortionists" take the stance that regardless of whether they believe they would ever countenance an abortion themselves, they don't feel they have the right to deny others that choice.

they don't feel they have the right to deny others the choice to end a life ?

Not only that, but your remarks basically imply that anyone who votes yes was an unwanted child who's paren's would have aborted them if they could have. I find that one of the most narrow-sighted, narrow-minded uncharitable and instulting comments I've ever heard being presented in a so-called "rational" discussion. You basically think that some large minority (at the least) of the adult population of Ireland would have been aborted had their parents been willing to vote it in.
jc

no, my remarks simply state that the parents felt they were people, whether planned or unplanned, you are putting words in my mouth

monument

Originally posted by isolde
Sorry, I'm obviously not being clear enough. I'll give it another shot.

I don't know whether the embryo is a human being from the moment of conception; I don't know when the change from tissue occurs. I don't have medical expertise, my opinions are just that.. opinions.

As I have said several times now, I don't consider it a human being from the minute the egg is fertilised. That again is my personal opinion on the matter.

Your idea of a week old embryo is very different to mine. I'm not trying to convince you otherwise. I have no proof, only personal beliefs.. just like you.

That is the very reason why an issue like this should be a personal choice.

From that, the fact that you can't tell me when a human can be called a human could be the very reason the state should protect that possable human.

Zulu

Originally posted by isolde
Sorry, I'm obviously not being clear enough. I'll give it another shot.

I don't know whether the embryo is a human being from the moment of conception; I don't know when the change from tissue occurs. I don't have medical expertise, my opinions are just that.. opinions.

It would seem to me that if you don't know, then surely you should extend the benifit of doubt and give a chance, as opposed to assuming what is conveinent is acceptable. Particulary when life is at stake.

bonkey

Originally posted by bananayoghurt
being in the womb is one stage of life, why is it acceptable to end a life because it can't survive outside the womb ?, what child can survive outside a caring home ?, doesn't mean we can take their lives, by that rational any child that cant fend for itself is fair game

No, by that rationale it doesn't mean that at all.

A foetus prior to a certain point in development physically will not survive outside the womb. No existing medical science will enable it to do so. It will die, no matter how much you love it, care for it, or no matter what you do. It is physically incapable of surviving, regardless of what is done for it. It is 100% dependant on the biological wellbeing of a human "host" There is no other stage of development where this is the case, so arguing that taking a child out of a caring home is the same thing is completely off-target. A child can change homes. It can survive without a home (or have you never heard of orphans). If it has a medical condition, it can be cared for in a hospital. But it is independantly feasible as a form of life. A foetus - up to a certain point - is not.

No, the only one's are moral and religious, medically and biologically life starts at conception, end of story

Thas simply not true.

Medically, both the sperm and the egg are alive prior to conception. The combined result is also alive. Life didn't start, nor did any remarkable event occur at any specific point where you can suddenly say "now its alive".

So life - in the medical sense - isn't created at conception. It doesn't begin. You're blurring - again - the distinction between something that is alive, and something that is a human. The sperm cell that impregnated the egg was alive. The egg was alive. Neither were human beings, but as soon as they combine, the result is a human?

Thats not medical fact at all. Its far from "end of story".

they don't feel they have the right to deny others the choice to end a life ?

Can we drop this vague "a life" term please? I take a life every time I squash a bug. I end a life every time I go fishing and catch a fish for dinner. We end life all the time. Human life is what we're talking here, not life, and that involves determining when something classifies as human.

no, my remarks simply state that the parents felt they were people, whether planned or unplanned, you are putting words in my mouth

I'm not putting words in your mouth.

You said that if the parents of the pro-choice people had felt like the pro-choice people, then they would have aborted them.

Not that they would have had the option to...they would have been. You said the only reason the pro-choice people are here is because their parents weren't pro-choice.

Look : here it is again :

the only reason all you pro abortionists are here to advocate it is because your mothers didn't have the same view as u

So, if the mother (not even the parents) of anyone who supports abortion had supported abortion, they would have aborted their kids, because this lack of support for abortion is the only reason they didn't do it.

See? No words being put into anyone's mouth. It mightn't have been what you intended to say, but its what you said.

jc

Zulu

Originally posted by bonkey
No, by that rationale it doesn't mean that at all.

A foetus prior to a certain point in development physically will not survive outside the womb. No existing medical science will enable it to do so. It will die, no matter how much you love it, care for it, or no matter what you do. It is physically incapable of surviving, regardless of what is done for it. It is 100% dependant on the biological wellbeing of a human "host" There is no other stage of development where this is the case, so arguing that taking a child out of a caring home is the same thing is completely off-target. A child can change homes. It can survive without a home (or have you never heard of orphans). If it has a medical condition, it can be cared for in a hospital. But it is independantly feasible as a form of life. A foetus - up to a certain point - is not.

Ok so abortion is legal until such time as medical science can't support the growth of a foetus outside the womb. Then, once it can - we make it illegal? :rolleyes:

Originally posted by bonkey
Can we drop this vague "a life" term please? .

Yea sure, and can we drop this vague "human rights" term also? It's setting back progress in Iraq somthing awful.
Perhaps instead if feotus we can say tax, and instead of abortion, we can say pay rise. "We need to get rid of taxs and have more pay rises!" - now that sounds SO much better, even I can agree.

Originally posted by bonkey
We end life all the time. Human life is what we're talking here, not life, and that involves determining when something classifies as human.

Can't you agree that a feotus is a human feotus?
Can't you agree that a feotus is indeed alive and not dead?

:rolleyes:

bonkey

Originally posted by Zulu
Ok so abortion is legal until such time as medical science can't support the growth of a foetus outside the womb. Then, once it can - we make it illegal? :rolleyes:

You can roll your eyes all you like, but in a lot of places where abortion has been legalised that is exactly what has happened, and as medical science advances, the absolute limit at which abortions are considered has become earlier and earlier in the term.

I'm simply pointing out that there is an identifiable, medical threshhold before which a developing foetus is not independantly viable. It may not be a fixed threshold but it is an identifiable threshold. There are others, ranging from conception, through initial emergence of specialised cells, to emergence of specific specialised cells (e.g. brain), through independant vability, right through to birth.

There are cases of greater and lesser strength to be made for each of these, and from a medical point of view, there is no clear concensus as to which is the right one to base the decision on.

You say its conception. Some doctors say its the emergence of specialised cells. Others say its any point prior to the emergence of the brain. Others say its any point prior to independant feasibility.

Now go back and look at the question I was originally addressing with this point :

and what exactly occurs in this non time scale measurable period in the biological sense what suddenly occurs to turn a non human into a human

Conception is just another "non-time scale measurable period" where biologically, some threshold is passed and some people decide that this is the threshold. Others don't.

But again, as with the point I was making when I came in originally, for anyone to claim that their opinion of which is the critical point is the truth should really go and explain to the experts in the medical field what glaringly simple facts they're overlooking because they cannot reach consensus.

Placing the "transition point" at conception is still just another choice. Its no more, or less "true" than other choices.

Yea sure, and can we drop this vague "human rights" term also?

Oh well thats logical.

I'm asking that you be more precise in your language, and your smart-alec reply is that you are implying I'm asking you to stop using something thats actually an accurate term?

When someone refers to "life", they could be referring to any form of life, human or otherwise.

As I've already pointed out, sperm cells are alive. They are a form of life. Going one step further, their makeup is human. They are, therefore, even a form of human life.

I don't see anyone here singing Every Sperm is Sacred, and calling out for rights for sperm cells. But they're talking about the importance of lfe. Somewhat contraductory, wouldn't you think.

Animals of all forms also are autonomous lifeforms, and therefore one each constitutes "a life". Not jus animals. Spermcells are alive, and autonomous. Each sperm can also constitute "a life".

So perhaps - given that you ridiculed my request for more exactness - you could explain to me why the term "life" carries such weight again, when clearly you're not talking about "life" but some specific subset of it - which asking you to clearly define is apparently being unreasonable

Can't you agree that a feotus is a human feotus?

I'll accept that in the context of the discussion, yes.

Can't you agree that a feotus is indeed alive and not dead?

I most certainly can.

Can you similarly agree that the sperm cell which was involved in conception was also, indeed, alive prior to conception and not dead?

I'll take it that you will, and that you're not going to clarify the difference because you just ridiculed me for asking for you to be more clear in your terminology for exactly that reason.

Now can you explain to me why the terms "alive", "life" or "a life" carry any weight, bearing in mind that asking you to be more specific is apparently unreasonable.

:rolleyes:

Roll them all you like. It doesn't worry me in the slightest that you think I'm being stupid asking you to clearly differentiate between a sperm cell (which is alive) and a foetus (which is also alive), or between an animal or sperm cell (which can have a life) and a human (which can have a life).

If you want to continue to base your argument in language that clearly fails to make those distinctions, feel free. Its entirely your perogative.

I'm sorry for even suggesting that you make your argument clearer and stronger. I won't do it again as it clearly exasperates you so much, what with all the eye-rolling and all.

jc

Wrestlemania

One way or the other it is the choice of the Woman as she has to live with it for the rest of her live.

Weither is should be legalised I dunno, only thing I disagree with is Women who do it because it does not suit them or factor into there career that is wrong but there are plenty of other legitimate reasons.

As for those sick ba5tards who show pictures of dead babies in public they are sick very sick and wrong, they should be locked up for there obscene behaviour.

As while walking outside trinity a while back with a 6 year old niece she got very upset, they are really big people, they are monsters there is other ways of displaying your point without that sh1t.

Zulu

Originally posted by bonkey
I'm asking that you be more precise in your language, and your smart-alec reply is that you are implying I'm asking you to stop using something thats actually an accurate term?

When someone refers to "life", they could be referring to any form of life, human or otherwise.

As I've already pointed out, sperm cells are alive. They are a form of life. Going one step further, their makeup is human. They are, therefore, even a form of human life.

I don't see anyone here singing Every Sperm is Sacred, and calling out for rights for sperm cells. But they're talking about the importance of lfe. Somewhat contraductory, wouldn't you think.

Nope I wouldn't think. Sperm cells don't develope into a person all by themselves.

Originally posted by bonkey
Animals of all forms also are autonomous lifeforms, and therefore one each constitutes "a life". Not jus animals. Spermcells are alive, and autonomous. Each sperm can also constitute "a life".

So perhaps - given that you ridiculed my request for more exactness - you could explain to me why the term "life" carries such weight again, when clearly you're not talking about "life" but some specific subset of it - which asking you to clearly define is apparently being unreasonable

It is important because it highlights key factors in the debate. When we use certain terms, we sanitise language, and manipulate people.
If we use kill/life/murder we invoke a reaction. If we use terminate/bundle of cells we invoke another reaction. I would have figured this was obvious. But I can guess want your next argument will be - so - before you do - remember the same tactics are employed on both sides.

Originally posted by bonkey

I'll accept that in the context of the discussion, yes.
I most certainly can.

Following that, then you accept that abortion is the act of killing human life?

Originally posted by bonkey
Can you similarly agree that the sperm cell which was involved in conception was also, indeed, alive prior to conception and not dead?

I can, but I hold no regard for this level of life. The fact that it will not develop into anything until it penitrates a human egg, lets me hold such disregard for this level of life.

Originally posted by bonkey
you just ridiculed me

rollyeyes hurt you that much - I'll try not to use them so. (a bit sensitive today?)

Originally posted by bonkey
I'm sorry for even suggesting that you make your argument clearer and stronger. I won't do it again as it clearly exasperates you so much, what with all the eye-rolling and all.

jc

Come on no need for this - just argue the point

Zulu

Originally posted by Wrestlemania
One way or the other it is the choice of the Woman as she has to live with it for the rest of her live.

Weither is should be legalised I dunno, only thing I disagree with is Women who do it because it does not suit them or factor into there career that is wrong but there are plenty of other legitimate reasons.

As for those sick ba5tards who show pictures of dead babies in public they are sick very sick and wrong, they should be locked up for there obscene behaviour.

As while walking outside trinity a while back with a 6 year old niece she got very upset, they are really big people, they are monsters there is other ways of displaying your point without that sh1t.

Whats a legitimate for killing another human except self defence?
As for the pictures - I agree with you, ......but the pro-life people here would have you believe that your just looking at "a bundle of cells" or "a cancerous growth" or "a parasite" - so by that logic - why is it sick and disturbing???

Wrestlemania

Children do not need to see that, that is my point..

These anti-abortion people may have a point but they are not going about it the right way and makes me want to smack one of them, like Youth Defence (if they are still around) etc.

Wrestlemania

If a woman is raped or a girl abused and she is made pregnant by that I agree and also if the child will be horribley disabled etc.Thats legit, dont you think ??

Zulu

Originally posted by Wrestlemania
Children do not need to see that, that is my point..

These anti-abortion people may have a point but they are not going about it the right way and makes me want to smack one of them, like Youth Defence (if they are still around) etc.

Don't get me wrong - I strongly agree with you. Children shouldn't see that.

But why is it disturbing for a child to see a "bundle of cells"?
I mean a child wouldn't be disturbed if it saw a picture of tumor, or removed tonsils for example.

Wrestlemania

She was, keep crying all the way home. She thought it was'nt a real baby/foteus until she asked another girl with us and she told here it was real.

She is a child we are adults we can deal better with this, still makes me angry although.

Zulu

Originally posted by Wrestlemania
If a woman is raped or a girl abused and she is made pregnant by that I agree and also if the child will be horribley disabled etc.Thats legit, dont you think ??

No definatly not, and be careful. Are you advocating the termination of downsyndrom children, define horribley disabled - does that include blind people. (Disfigured people have a right to life also, and can lead very productive lives).

As for the rape/abuse. Again I can't agree. How do you prove it? A court case? What if the girl dosen't want the humilation of a court case? What if a girl wasn't raped but want an abortion, will this encourage her to "cry rape"?

While I agree that it's tradgic that people who are raped become pregnant - killing the child isn't the solution. This won't make/help her forget the horrendious crime. Abortion may in fact compound the problem.

Rev Hellfire

Originally posted by Wrestlemania
also if the child will be horribley disabled etc.Thats legit, dont you think ??

I suggest you take that opinion to the disablility board, I'm sure they'll all be very glad to hear the suffering you'll be saving them. You need to be careful with issues like quality of life, what may seem as unbearable to you may not be to others.

Wrestlemania

On the Disabled point, children that would not have any quality to life at all.

I still stand on Rape, yes it is a life but borne from violence and the woman/girl might hate the child or unless she puts it up for adpotion.

Gurgle

I'm totally anti convenience abortions but I've always felt that the fùckwits who run around the streets waving pictures of aborted foetuses should themselves be retroactively aborted.

My reasons for my position on abortion are not related to the mess made of the foetus, I object to the killing of it in the first place.

You might as well wave a picture of a heart operation around and declare that to be wrong because its messy.

As for rape/incest babies - killing the baby does not undo the crime. This just puts more emotional / psychological strain on the victim.
The father should be used for medical experiments & the baby given up for adoption. Mother should have extensive councelling.

Originally posted by Wrestlemania:if the child will be horribley disabled

Again, dodgy ground.
When you cross that line, where do you draw the next one ?

Zulu

Originally posted by Wrestlemania
On the Disabled point, children that would not have any quality to life at all.

I still stand on Rape, yes it is a life but borne from violence and the woman/girl might hate the child or unless she puts it up for adpotion.

Again - define quality. Rev Hellfire is right - take it to the disability board - I dare you.

You say the mother might "hate" the child. I don't know any mothers who hate their children. The mother may "love" their child. But you still haven't addressed what I said. How do you prove it? A court case? What if the girl dosen't want the humilation of a court case? What if a girl wasn't raped but want an abortion, will this encourage her to "cry rape"?

Wrestlemania

True maybe I will retract that tbh on hindsight

Zulu

Originally posted by Wrestlemania
True maybe I will retract that tbh on hindsight

Good man Westlemania. Fair play!

This must a first - someone backing down!!!

Wrestlemania

Wrestlemania

I probadly would vote No although in an abortion referundum alhtough.

we can all say what we like but if our girlfriends/wife were in the situation I'd say we would have different views.

Zulu

Originally posted by Wrestlemania
I probadly would vote No although in an abortion referundum alhtough.

we can all say what we like but if our girlfriends/wife were in the situation I'd say we would have different views.

Sorry, don't follow. Are you saying that I would back it? or how do you mean I would have different views.
Honestly - I don't think I would at all. I would have no problem raising my offspring if she (the non existant girlfriend) didn't want the child.

...which raises another argument - what about the rights of the father?
(man am I gonna regret mentioning that!)

Wrestlemania

I would reckon we would change our tunes one way or the other as personal experience from talking about it changes our views i think.

and as for fathers i think they have little or no rights at all these days.

it is a womans world after all !:)

isolde

It would seem to me that if you don't know, then surely you should extend the benifit of doubt and give a chance, as opposed to assuming what is conveinent is acceptable. Particulary when life is at stake.

You're right, I don't know. I've said that about ten times now and I'm still no closer to knowing. This discussion is becoming more and more pointless to me because I'm just repeating myself over and over.

Apart from neither of us being able to define when life actually begins - apart from giving our own personal views on the issue - I guess now what it boils down to is that, like I said before, I put the rights of the mother before the rights of the fertilised egg. I've read every post on this thread and I can genuinely see where people are coming from, as long as words like "kill" and "murder" aren't being stuffed down my throat.

I don't know if you've taken my views on board but I have taken yours. But you see, people like remote viewer's views have meant much more to me.. because she knows what it's like to be pregnant and she knows what it's like to have to agonise over such a decision. So I respect what she says 100%, even though she disagrees with me, because she too realises that at the end of the day it should be left up to the girl to make the choice because only she knows what is right for her.

Obviously men can't get pregnant and that's not their fault and they're still entitled to hold a view on the issue. But for someone to say that every woman should have to go through with her pregnancy, despite her wishes to have a termination, despite her reasons.. well that to me is completely unrealistic and horribly PC. I don't see how anyone can possibly condemn all those who have an abortion without knowing and assessing every single case individually. I find such blanket condemnation so completely ignorant.

And I find talk of girls "crying rape" equally chilling. The notion of a girl who was brutally raped and became pregnant as a result having to go through with that pregnancy.. that sickens me to the core. Sometimes, just sometimes, would it not be possible to have a shred compassion for other people and rather than making every girl who has an abortion out to be the scum of the earth, try to imagine for a moment what it must be like to be raped and forced to have a baby that was conceived as a result of such a brutal, hateful and horrific act.

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.

So continue with your talk of "murder" and continue condemning every one of the 100+ Irish women who have to travel to England every week to have terminations. At any rate it's too late to change my mind.

~ isolde.

bonkey

Originally posted by isolde
it should be left up to the girl to make the choice because only she knows what is right for her.

And of course, she will naturally put an equal value on what is right for the foetus?

jc

isolde

And of course, she will naturally put an equal value on what is right for the foetus?

No, the value she puts on what is right for the foetus will depend on how she feels about abortion, etc. If she is pro-life then I imagine the value she puts on what is right for the foetus will be very high because it is linked to how she sees the foetus. However if she doesn't consider it to be a human being from conception then she won't regard it as highly. Again it boils down to whether she gives the embryo absolute priority or whether she puts her right to bodily integrity before it. It boils down to her view on abortion and whether or not she feels she wants to have a baby, for whatever reason.

~ isolde.