17 yr old girl not allowed an abortion

Sam Vimes

i suggest you read the rest of the thread. i'm the most outspoken person here against abortion and i'm an atheist. also, the rest of your points have already been dealt with

everyone thinks she should be allowed go btw


basically it boils down to: i see the developing fetus as a person and you don't. if you believed that the fetus was a person there would be no question of the mother's right to choose. to me choosing to have an abortion is no different to choosing to drown your 6 month old child, something which we can all agree no one should have the right to choose to do (although JC 2k3 might not agree)

Sam Vimes

nesf wrote:

You miss my point. I'll try and be clearer. I'm not condoning killing someone. I'm putting the point to you that killing someone might not be wrong in and of itself but because we as a race have disagreed with killing people (at least one's in our own tribe/group) for a very long time. We might as a race be pre-programmed to consider murder within our group as a bad thing and should be punished (and thus wrong) but that doesn't mean that murder is wrong in an absolute manner.

Does that make more sense?

well that's calling into question the whole of civilisation. who's to say anything is anything except those around us

some things are of course open to interpretation but i never thought "murder is wrong" would be one of them

Boston

Kaiser2000 wrote:

OK I read the first 6 or 7 pages but lost interest in the whole Nazi-ism and the Catholic Chruch argument..

I personally believe that in the modern world, the Church has no place (or say) in the running of the State. Unfortunately (as evidenced by this very thread), their influence still casts a long shadow over Irish society. Furthermore, the abuse inflicted upon generations of Irish people by Nuns and Christian brothers has destroyed any credibility they might have.

I believe the Catholic religion should no longer be taught in schools as it's increasingly inappropriate (and irrelevant) in our growing multi-cultural society. Religion belongs at home, and if parents took a more active role in the raising and education of their children anyway, it could only be a good thing.

With regards to this debate, regardless of whether you believe this foetus has individual human rights or not, the facts are that it will not survive anyway and thus forcing the mother to go through with the pregnancy so the pro-life element can assuage their consciences is morally and ethically wrong. There can be no valid reason for asking this 17 year old girl to suffer like that.

On the larger issue of the right to abortion generally, I believe that each circumstance is different and that neither State nor Church has any rights or say in the matter. Certainly they can provide options and advice - in fact better education is the key to the whole debate - but strictly in an objective manner only. It is ultimately the girl's/woman's decision, and noone should be forced to have a child against their will.

The girl at the centre of this latest debate should be allowed to travel abroad immediately.

The pro-choice side turned this into a church debate. Also the vast majority of the pro-lifers who have posted on this thread agree that she should be allowed have an abortion, and personally I don't think she should have to travel for it either.

_Kaiser_

Boston wrote:

and personally I don't think she should have to travel for it either.

I'd agree with this as well.

nesf

Commander Vimes wrote:

well that's calling into question the whole of civilisation.

Yup.

Commander Vimes wrote:

some things are of course open to interpretation but i never thought "murder is wrong" would be one of them

In my opinion it's things like "murder is wrong" that deserve the most debate. Why do we all generally hold killing innocent children as being wrong? It's an interesting question and even while holding it as true you can draw some interesting argument from it.

JC 2K3

Commander Vimes wrote:

i've thought of a way that it affects society. thousands of women have commited suicide after having abortions

And it's people like you who incease the amount of society-incduced guilt on them that make them do it.

Commander Vimes wrote:

so let me put this to you then:

imagine a homeless person comes into your town and you talk to him for a while and you find out that he's been homeless for 20 years and has no family and no friends, ie no one to miss him. is it ok to kill him?

I get asked that a lot when I make this point. My response is that it is almost unfeasable that you would come across such a person, who's death would not affect anyone. If such a person did exist I suppose you could kill them.

Sam Vimes

JC 2K3 wrote:

And it's people like you who incease the amount of society-incduced guilt on them that make them do it.

so i'm responsible because they feel guilty?

JC 2K3 wrote:

I get asked that a lot when I make this point. My response is that it is almost unfeasable that you would come across such a person, who's death would not affect anyone. If such a person did exist I suppose you could kill them.

in all honesty, i would consider that view psychotic. not psychotic as in "hey you're so crazy". i mean psychotic as in actually psychotic. you show no empathy for people on a personal level which is a symptom of it


edit: psychotic might not be the right medical definition. does anyone know what its called when someone has no empathy for people to the point that they'd kill them and not even consider feeling guilty



edit2: this reminds me of a time that someone i know said that if his (imaginary) child was sick and the operation would cost so much money that it would pretty much bankrupt the family, he'd let the child die because, wait for it, its what the child would want. even if the child was unconscious and couldn't make the choice himself, he said he'd feel comfortable making it for him.

what i said to him at the time was he's either saying it to be controversial or he's insane.

JC 2K3

Commander Vimes wrote:

so i'm responsible because they feel guilty?

You and those who actvely campaign against abortion coupled with the long history of the Catholic Church's strangle hold on this country, yes.

Commander Vimes wrote:

in all honesty, i would consider that view psychotic. not psychotic as in "hey you're so crazy". i mean psychotic as in actually psychotic. you show no empathy for people on a personal level which is a symptom of it

Funnily enough I do have empathy for a lot of other people. Just not unborn foetuses.

Sam Vimes

JC 2K3 wrote:

You and those who actvely campaign against abortion coupled with the long history of the Catholic Church's strangle hold on this country, yes.

let's accept for a minute that that's true. even it it is, they should feel guilty. its not a good thing to do. if scooping a baby out was perfectly fine these women wouldn't bat an eyelid. the fact that so many people regret it afterwards says a lot to me tbh


i'm going to go cry now because i made people who killed their babies feel guilty

JC 2K3 wrote:

Funnily enough I do have empathy for a lot of other people. Just not unborn foetuses.

and people with no family. you would be capable of killing someone and not feeling guilty as long as no one else was upset. that is not normal

davyjose

Just a question - possibly already asked/answered here, but I'm not going to trawl 400 posts for it :P

Anyway: can they stop her going on "Holiday"? Surely it's a basic european right to be allowed travel within the EU???

JC 2K3

Commander Vimes wrote:

i'm going to go cry now because i made people who killed their babies feel guilty

You feel bad for the babies dying, why have you no sympathy for the mothers who commit suicide?

Commander Vimes wrote:

and people with no family. you would be capable of killing someone and not feeling guilty as long as no one else was upset. that is not normal

People with no family and no social status or connections whatsoever do not exist outside the womb.

Sam Vimes

JC 2K3 wrote:

You feel bad for the babies dying, why have you no sympathy for the mothers who commit suicide?

i never said that did i? i feel bad for them but you're saying i should feel guilty. there is a difference

JC 2K3 wrote:

People with no family and no social status or connections whatsoever do not exist outside the womb.

except homeless people and loners and a lot of other people i'm sure

tell me, did you come up with this idea with only abortion in mind? i can sort of see where you'd get the idea for it with abortion because you don't think think the fetus is a person but if you apply the idea to anything else it sounds completely insane

JC 2K3

Commander Vimes wrote:

except homeless people and loners and a lot of other people i'm sure

With NO connection, not even a small one with ANYONE else in the world? Very hard to imagine.

Commander Vimes wrote:

tell me, did you come up with this idea with only abortion in mind? i can sort of see where you'd get the idea for it with abortion because you don't think think the fetus is a person but if you apply the idea to anything else it sounds completely insane

Well I guess it could kinda be argued that my train of thought is motivated by I believe a person is defined by their opinions, their thoughts, their connections with other people in society etc. rather than anything physical. A foetus does not have such connections and their "potential" to develop does not concern me. Perhaps you can understand my point of view better now I've explained it like that? Maybe by your definitions of certain words my view could be summed up with: "I do believe "life" begins at conception, but I don't believe it's a "person" ".

WindSock

C. Vimes, you have put up quite a fight in this thread and I have to respect your integrity and belief that you have for the unborn.
The problem is that many women don't share the same ideas, and when people like myself and yourself are not in their situations, we cannot judge them or completly block them from doing as they Will. While Abortion has been Illegal in many countries and in ours for a long time, that has not prevented Women from availing of it. Unfortunately, many have lost their lives due to the practice been pushed to the backstreets. The ultimate decision comes down to only one person, and we want to be able to support the Woman in every stage of the process.

Sam Vimes

JC 2K3 wrote:

With NO connection, not even a small one with ANYONE else in the world? Very hard to imagine.

but possible nonetheless

JC 2K3 wrote:

Well I guess it could kinda be argued that my train of thought is motivated by I believe a person is defined by their opinions, their thoughts, their connections with other people in society etc. rather than anything physical. A foetus does not have such connections and their "potential" to develop does not concern me. Perhaps you can understand my point of view better now I've explained it like that? Maybe by your definitions of certain words my view could be summed up with: "I do believe "life" begins at conception, but I don't believe it's a "person" ".

and we're back to the key point where we differ.

i see humans as very complicated biological computers. the embryo contains all the instructions necessary to make a new person and the womb provides with an incubator to carry out those instructions. there's no magic "soul" injected into the fetus at some point during development that stops it being a clump of cells and makes it a person.

as far as i'm concerned we're all just clumps of cells carrying out the instructions in our dna.

Sam Vimes

boreds wrote:

C. Vimes, you have put up quite a fight in this thread and I have to respect your integrity and belief that you have for the unborn.
The problem is that many women don't share the same ideas, and when people like myself and yourself are not in their situations, we cannot judge them or completly block them from doing as they Will. While Abortion has been Illegal in many countries and in ours for a long time, that has not prevented Women from availing of it. Unfortunately, many have lost their lives due to the practice been pushed to the backstreets. The ultimate decision comes down to only one person, and we want to be able to support the Woman in every stage of the process.

yes indeed women get abortions in back street clinics and things go wrong.

"people are going to do it anyway" is not a reason to legalise anything. the reason we have laws in the first place is to tell people what's acceptable to do and what's not

lots of people take heroin and sometimes they get a bad batch and die. should we legalise heroin to prevent that?


edit: just to be clear, i would legalise heroin so it could be regulated to control supply, provide quality control and tak it out of the hands of criminals. that's if someone wants to kill himself with heroin that's his business. unless its a pregnant woman of course

i mentioned it because its something that most people wouldn't legalise

JC 2K3

Commander Vimes wrote:

yes indeed women get abortions in back street clinics and things go wrong.

"people are going to do it anyway" is not a reason to legalise anything. the reason we have laws in the first place is to tell people what's acceptable to do and what's not

lots of people take heroin and sometimes they get a bad batch and die. should we legalise heroin to prevent that?


edit: just to be clear, i would legalise heroin so it could be regulated to control supply, provide quality control and tak it out of the hands of criminals. that's if someone wants to kill himself with heroin that's his business. unless its a pregnant woman of course

i mentioned it because its something that most people wouldn't legalise

I'd legalise heroin and I'm strongly in favour of legalising all drugs for that matter. Perhaps we can put that as something which we can both agree on. I don't think we're really getting anywhere with the abortion debate so let's just leave it for now, neither one of us is going to convince the other and it's off topic anyway.

The Sweeper

And if I had an unwanted pregnancy that I felt I could not go through with I'd have an abortion. And frankly, I don't think you have the right to judge me for that.

But you will anway, because that's the beauty of the abortion debate, isn't it?

Boston

Minesajackdaniels wrote:

And if I had an unwanted pregnancy that I felt I could not go through with I'd have an abortion. And frankly, I don't think you have the right to judge me for that.

But you will anway, because that's the beauty of the abortion debate, isn't it?

For every major life choice that you take, someone, usually more then one, will judge you.

Sam Vimes

Minesajackdaniels wrote:

And if I had an unwanted pregnancy that I felt I could not go through with I'd have an abortion. And frankly, I don't think you have the right to judge me for that.

But you will anway, because that's the beauty of the abortion debate, isn't it?

and if i have a 6 month old child and i feel that i'm not capable of raising it so i drown it, would you judge me for that?

Sam Vimes

JC 2K3 wrote:

I'd legalise heroin and I'm strongly in favour of legalising all drugs for that matter. Perhaps we can put that as something which we can both agree on. I don't think we're really getting anywhere with the abortion debate so let's just leave it for now, neither one of us is going to convince the other and it's off topic anyway.

fair enough so. no hard feelings

kizzyr

Commander Vimes wrote:

and if i have a 6 month old child and i feel that i'm not capable of raising it so i drown it, would you judge me for that?

That is different though. A 10 week old foetus has no chance of survival outside the uterus. A 6 month old baby, does and as it has already experienced life independent of its mother and has an established personality and it is a person that is being killed. A foetus does not.
However, you see them as one at the same thing albeit at different stages of development and you are entitled to that view. As are those who see it differently. That is why I (and many other posters) feel that the decision is, ultimately the woman's to make and she alone has to live with the consequences of it, as she has to live with the consequences of going through with the pregnancy and being a mother.

Marksie

Commander Vimes wrote:

. the reason we have laws in the first place is to tell people what's acceptable to do and what's not

As a counterpoint, it was illegal until 1995 to sell condoms and give advice. That was a law which told people what was acceptable or not?

Boston

Commander Vimes wrote:

edit: just to be clear, i would legalise heroin so it could be regulated to control supply, provide quality control and tak it out of the hands of criminals. that's if someone wants to kill himself with heroin that's his business. unless its a pregnant woman of course

You've not a clue about the affect of Heroin. It's a horrific drug which people will do anything to obtain regardless of how legal it is.

Sam Vimes

kizzyr wrote:

That is different though. A 10 week old foetus has no chance of survival outside the uterus. A 6 month old baby, does and as it has already experienced life independent of its mother and has an established personality and it is a person that is being killed. A foetus does not.

we're just going around in circles here. i don't think its different. its a living being and the fact that it currently needs to survive inside a womb doesn't mean it has no right to life. women are in the unfortunate position of being capable of producing new life which has all the same rights they do.

women certainly do have rights but they also have responsibilities and one of them is to bring this new life to full term and not scoop it out because its inconvenient

kizzyr wrote:

However, you see them as one at the same thing albeit at different stages of development and you are entitled to that view. As are those who see it differently. That is why I (and many other posters) feel that the decision is, ultimately the woman's to make and she alone has to live with the consequences of it, as she has to live with the consequences of going through with the pregnancy and being a mother.

i think its murder and you don't so you should be allowed choose? since we're going around in circles i'll just repeat myself:

if a group of people get together and decide that black people are of lesser value than whites and decide that its ok to kill them, should they be allowed choose or should society stop them?

just because you decide something is ok doesn't mean it is. if that was the case there'd be no need for laws

marksuttonie wrote:

As a counterpoint, it was illegal until 1995 to sell condoms and give advice. That was a law which told people what was acceptable or not?

my point was that the fact that people are breaking a law doesn't mean it should be repealed and that point stands

Boston wrote:

You've not a clue about the affect of Heroin. It's a horrific drug which people will do anything to obtain regardless of how legal it is.

i know that this woman is far from unique:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3592877.stm

which is why i think we should do the same here

Boston

Commander Vimes wrote:

i know that this woman is far from unique:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3592877.stm

which is why i think we should do the same here

Thats drug treatment as part of a program. It's not the same as drug being legalised for general sale.

Sam Vimes

Boston wrote:

Thats drug treatment as part of a program. It's not the same as drug being legalised for general sale.

well that's not what i was suggesting. sorry if i was unclear

Boston

Commander Vimes wrote:

well that's not what i was suggesting. sorry if i was unclear

I fail to see how you'll take it out of the hands of dealers in that case.

Sam Vimes

Boston wrote:

I fail to see how you'll take it out of the hands of dealers in that case.

well she's not going to a dealer is she?

people try heroin once or twice and then they get hooked. they're dependent on it so their life goes down the tubes because the drug is the most important thing to them and they'll do whatever it takes to get money for it

if someone could register as a heroin addict and get it free from then on they wouldn't go to drug dealers. it definitely works because, as you can see in the link, it has already worked.

there's no money in selling heroin to somebody once so they'll stop selling it. all i'm worried about is what they'll move onto


from the article

Supporters of this policy, such as the independent research group DrugScope, say controlled distribution by the state can drastically reduce crime.

They also argue that clean heroin like diamorphine is not in itself dangerous, just incredibly addictive. And a pharmaceutical prescription excludes all the risks associated with unsafe injecting and enables the user to gradually be weaned off the drug.

can't go wrong there tbh

JC 2K3

Most of the problems associated with heroin came about after it was made illegal, and the actual chemical isn't very dangerous in itself, just addictive. Sure they give it to women giving birth in some countries as a painkiller(I'm not sure about here). It's the lifestyle that comes with heroin addiction that's the problem. With legalised, regulated heroin there'd be less people adopting this lifestyle.