Should we legalise abortion?

LegacyUser

Originally posted by bonkey

independant feasibility.

a child isn't independently feasible untill its about 10 years old, what is the difference between being nutured in the womb and outside the womb, again by the 'independent feasibilty' rational i could abort a 5 year old because they can't survive without outside intervention, they are not 'independantly feasible', neither by the way are many handicapped people

Moriarty

Originally posted by bananayoghurt
a child isn't independently feasible untill its about 10 years old, what is the difference between being nutured in the womb and outside the womb, again by the 'independent feasibilty' rational i could abort a 5 year old because they can't survive without outside intervention, they are not 'independantly feasible', neither by the way are many handicapped people

Not to put words in bonkey's mouth, but you've misunderstood - either intentionally or not - what he said. He was referring to biological feasibility. You can feed an infant food, you can't feed an embryo or an early foetus food. Infants have a heart and lungs that work, embroys and early foetuses don't. The list goes on and on.

LegacyUser

Originally posted by Moriarty
Not to put words in bonkey's mouth, but you've misunderstood - either intentionally or not - what he said. He was referring to biological feasibility. You can feed an infant food, you can't feed an embryo or an early foetus food. Infants have a heart and lungs that work, embroys and early foetuses don't. The list goes on and on.

actually you can feed an embryo or an early foetus food, its called the umbillical cord, and removing it is no different from removing a bottle or spoon, they both result in death, basically what you guy's are saying is that a life begins when someone who cares enough about it can take over from someone who cares nothing about it, and that pretty much sums it up

Moriarty

Now you're definitely just being obtuse, but at least you have acknowledged that foetuses are not biologicaly feasible without the mothers umbilical cord, so that's something.

If I wanted to say that "life begins when somone who cares enough about it can take over from somone who cares nothing about it" I would have said it. I am sufficiently satisfied with my ideals and values that I don't feel the need to hide them. Don't tell me what you think I said in future, I know better. If you can't understand the position that is your problem and failing, not mine.

LegacyUser

Originally posted by Moriarty
Now you're definitely just being obtuse, but at least you have acknowledged that foetuses are not biologicaly feasible without the mothers umbilical cord, so that's something.

im not being obtuse, how about you acknowledge no child is feasible without outside intervention, whether that be a mothers womb or otherwise untill they are old enough ie at least 10 to be able to fend for themselves

Moriarty

Originally posted by bananayoghurt
im not being obtuse, how about you acknowledge no child is feasible without outside intervention, whether that be a mothers womb or otherwise untill they are old enough ie at least 10 to be able to fend for themselves

You're confusing "biological feasability" with "feasability". An embryo or early foetus would die within minutes of being removed from the womb. It has no lungs to breath with. It has "at best" the beginings of a brain. It has no developed circulatory system. It is completely biologicaly unfeasable in its current state without the mother's body. The same is not true for a late-term foetus, newborn, or young child. If you can't see the distinction, you're blinding yourself.

LegacyUser

Originally posted by Moriarty
You're confusing "biological feasability" with "feasability". An embryo or early foetus would die within minutes of being removed from the womb. It has no lungs to breath with. It has "at best" the beginings of a brain. It has no developed circulatory system. It is completely biologicaly unfeasable in its current state without the mother's body. The same is not true for a late-term foetus, newborn, or young child. If you can't see the distinction, you're blinding yourself.

so basically you value life on how long it can independently sustain itself, good for you, yes an unborn child will die in minutes and a born one will die in days, both result in death, two dead babies, one lasted a few days longer, thats great, there is no difference between biological and sociological feasability, without care they will both die, biological feasability doesn't matter, care within and without the womb is indistinguishable, if givin a healthy child will result if not you got a dead baby

bonkey

Originally posted by bananayoghurt
so basically you value life on how long it can independently sustain itself, good for you,

No. Maybe if you go back and read where the point arose from, you'd see that its not a question of when you value life. and you wouldn't be trying to - again - make it appear that people are saying something they are not.

Lets make this very simple...

Lets say that a pregnant woman (say at the start of the second trimester) and the mother of a newly-born child get shot (accidentally or otherwise) in the head and killed.

Which (if any) of the two offspring are physically capable of surviving this? For the sake of argument, we'll say that you have access to all the medical equipment in existence.

Now tell me there is no distinction in independant feasibility.

Once you recognise that, tell me why the two entities - child and end-of-first-trimester-foetus are unquestionably the same.

Whether you want to admit it or not, from a certain point, to another certain point, the foetus is entirely biologically dependant on the mother. This is an absolutely unique point - barring unusual circumstances like certain types of conjoined twins, there is simply no comparable situation.

To claim that this does not - at the very least - bear consideration as a case seperate to the rest of our lives is disingenuous. Convenient, but disingenuous.

jc

Originally posted by bonkey

To claim that this does not - at the very least - bear consideration as a case seperate to the rest of our lives is disingenuous. Convenient, but disingenuous.

jc

Come again?
A few pages back, you made the point that the foetus's potential life effectively didn't matter as to assign it an equal importance to those already out of the womb would be to equate us all as being in a passage to death therefore we are dead...
That would in my view be a very disingenous position to take as it devalues the importance of life as a state and side steps (without resolution) the certain fact that the majority of foetuses killed are being denied the same opportunity of life that we have had by virtue of their parent electing to kill them.

LegacyUser

Originally posted by bonkey
No. Maybe if you go back and read where the point arose from, you'd see that its not a question of when you value life. and you wouldn't be trying to - again - make it appear that people are saying something they are not.

Lets make this very simple...

Lets say that a pregnant woman (say at the start of the second trimester) and the mother of a newly-born child get shot (accidentally or otherwise) in the head and killed.

Which (if any) of the two offspring are physically capable of surviving this? For the sake of argument, we'll say that you have access to all the medical equipment in existence.

Now tell me there is no distinction in independant feasibility.

Once you recognise that, tell me why the two entities - child and end-of-first-trimester-foetus are unquestionably the same.

Whether you want to admit it or not, from a certain point, to another certain point, the foetus is entirely biologically dependant on the mother. This is an absolutely unique point - barring unusual circumstances like certain types of conjoined twins, there is simply no comparable situation.

To claim that this does not - at the very least - bear consideration as a case seperate to the rest of our lives is disingenuous. Convenient, but disingenuous.

jc

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

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.