17 yr old girl not allowed an abortion

Sam Vimes

PinkPrincess26 wrote:

I have a child. I chose to have that child, at the time my circumstances allowed me to have a child.

But regardless of what circumstances a women is in, she should have the choice to do what she wants with her own body.

Its no one else right.

the right to life?

lets bring back the example of the man with the dodgy liver that was attached to you (not really going to happen of course). would you think its ok to cut him off knowing he'll die? its your body after all

ellenmelon

kizzyr wrote:

Until somehow someday men are forced to endure pregnancy, labour and childbirth they should have no power of granting "permission" to women to decided what will happen to their bodies.

PinkPrincess26

Commander Vimes wrote:

very good point.


having sex is the choice, pregnancy is the consequence. if i kill someone i can tell the judge that i choose not to go to jail

Pregnancy is not always a consequence, in my case it was a choice.
Back to this killing crap...... Its an EMBRYO......

kizzyr

Commander Vimes wrote:

the right to life?

lets bring back the example of the man with the dodgy liver that was attached to you (not really going to happen of course). would you think its ok to cut him off knowing he'll die? its your body after all

Why should you have the responsibility of this when the situation was forced on you? Similarly when you have sex, take precautions, they fail and you get pregnant, the pregnancy has been forced on you, its not something you willingly entered into, why should you be forced to change your entire life for the sake of a person that doesn't even exist in any real sense yet?

Sam Vimes

PinkPrincess26 wrote:

Pregnancy is not always a consequence, in my case it was a choice.
Back to this killing crap...... Its an EMBRYO......

that's where we differ. you keep making the point that its your body and you have the right to choose but when i bring in the example of a person who needs your liver you can see that it would be wrong to cut him off and let him die even though he's affecting your life. you'd waive your rights in that situation to prevent someone dying, as anyone would

this argument has nothing to do with your rights and everything to do with whether or not you consider a fetus to be a person. i do, you don't.

however, i believe that my opinion is based on reason because i'm an objective observer. your opinion is biased by the fact that it can affect your life.

you don't want to believe that a fetus is a person because it could impact negatively on your life, so you choose not to. people have always been able to convince themselves of the silliest things just because they want them to be true

kizzyr wrote:

Why should you have the responsibility of this when the situation was forced on you?

so if a woman runs up to you in the park and shoves a baby in your arms should you be allowed to drop it on the ground and walk off because the situation was forced on you? throughout your life things will be forced on you that you just have to deal with. of all the reasons for abortion, that's not one of them

kizzyr wrote:

Similarly when you have sex, take precautions, they fail and you get pregnant, the pregnancy has been forced on you, its not something you willingly entered into, why should you be forced to change your entire life for the sake of a person that doesn't even exist in any real sense yet?

i think it does exist in a very real sense. and as i said above, the fact that it was forced on you is irrelevant. its wrong to terminate the pregnancy just as its wrong to drop a baby in the park and walk off. at the very least you should bring the baby to social services (the equivalent of getting it adopted)

Boston

kizzyr wrote:

Why should you have the responsibility of this when the situation was forced on you? Similarly when you have sex, take precautions, they fail and you get pregnant, the pregnancy has been forced on you, its not something you willingly entered into, why should you be forced to change your entire life for the sake of a person that doesn't even exist in any real sense yet?

Forced by who, you're own incompetence?

kizzyr

Commander Vimes wrote:

this argument has nothing to do with your rights and everything to do with whether or not you consider a fetus to be a person. i do, you don't.
)/QUOTE]

What makes a person to you? What is a person?

WindSock

Commander Vimes wrote:

i don't see the correlation between aborting a baby that can't survive more than a few minutes and allowing a queue of women around the block with perfectly healthy babies who don't feel like putting them up for adoption

It's probably a lot harder to give up a baby for adoption after goping through the full preganancy and birthing, than it is to have an abortion early on.
Whats wrong with adopting a child from orphanages in other countries?

coffee_cake

Commander Vimes wrote:

you keep telling yourself that.

to a woman who wants a baby, that embryo is most certainly a baby. a woman who wants a baby will kill to protect that embryo. its only those who don't want babies that argue from your perspective

Well done, you've discovered people have different perspectives.
Here's another example.
if someone wants sex, it's great.
If they don't want sex, it's rape and they'll do anything to protect themselves.

allowing a queue of women around the block with perfectly healthy babies who don't feel like putting them up for adoption

If they already have a baby then it's born and there's no question of abortion.


I'll say it again: if people want to talk about killing babies, go make a thread on infanticide :rolleyes:

PinkPrincess26

Its funny that the two posters who seem completely against this are MEN. you dont know what its like to feel pregnan and you never will, you will never have to make the choice on wheather to keep or abort a pregnancy as it is ultimately the choice of the women as it is HER BODY.

what has a person who needs a liver got to do with chosing to go through with a pregnancy or not, Im not seeing the comparison here, As im talking about an embryo and your talking about a person............

WindSock

PinkPrincess26 wrote:

I decided to have sex. I decided to get pregnant. I decided to go through with the pregnancy.

You decided to have sex-If you didnt decide to have sex but were forced to anyway, this is rape and its against the law (rape within the marriage has only been recognised too recently)

You decided to get pregnant-If you didn't decide to get pregnant, you could have used contraceptives, which are legal. (a persons right to use contraceptives has only been recognised all to recently)

You had no choice but to go through with the pregnancy-If you didnt decide to go through with the pregnancy, it is illegal to choose not to.

It seems blindgly obvious what the next step needs to be regarding the law and women in Ireland.

A Child has rights, of course but that is when they are born and are there for the rest of us to interact. If a foetus has rights then why is it not illegal for women to smoke and drink while pregnant?

kizzyr

Boston wrote:

Forced by who, you're own incompetence?

How are you being incompetent? You've taken precautions and for reasons beyond your control they didn't work properly and so you are pregnant. By taking precautions in the first place it is clear that you didn't want a pregnancy to result but it has and now you have a choice to make: go through with this pregnancy that you don't want and so has been forced on you or you can decide not to and terminate it.

Sam Vimes

bluewolf wrote:

Well done, you've discovered people have different perspectives.

well done. you've discovered sarcasm

bluewolf wrote:

Here's another example.
if someone wants sex, it's great.
If they don't want sex, it's rape and they'll do anything to protect themselves.

i'm not sure of your point. mine was that women decide whether or not a fetus is a baby based on what they want to be true rather than what is true. what's your point?

bluewolf wrote:

If they already have a baby then it's born and there's no question of abortion.

i think you missed mty point there. i was talking about pregnant women with healthy babies

PinkPrincess26 wrote:

Its funny that the two posters who seem completely against this are MEN.

more objective maybe?

and two people is hardly a decent sample size. there's are millions of women who are against abortion

PinkPrincess26 wrote:

you dont know what its like to feel pregnan and you never will, you will never have to make the choice on wheather to keep or abort a pregnancy as it is ultimately the choice of the women as it is HER BODY.

once there's a baby growing inside her its not her just her body anymore. its also an incubator for a new life

PinkPrincess26 wrote:

what has a person who needs a liver got to do with chosing to go through with a pregnancy or not, Im not seeing the comparison here, As im talking about an embryo and your talking about a person............

and again we get back to the real point of the debate. rights don't come into it. the question is whether or not a fetus is a person. i believe it is. you want really badly to believe its not

Sam Vimes

boreds wrote:

It's probably a lot harder to give up a baby for adoption after goping through the full preganancy and birthing, than it is to have an abortion early on.
i'm sure it is hard. to me, murder would be harder.

boreds wrote:

Whats wrong with adopting a child from orphanages in other countries?

for one thing most of those babies are taken from their parents by force and sold by the orphanages. madonna's baby was and its extremely common

besides that, nothing. that's not really the point here

Sam Vimes

kizzyr wrote:

How are you being incompetent? You've taken precautions and for reasons beyond your control they didn't work properly and so you are pregnant. By taking precautions in the first place it is clear that you didn't want a pregnancy to result but it has and now you have a choice to make: go through with this pregnancy that you don't want and so has been forced on you or you can decide not to and terminate it.

again, no. having sex was the choice. there is always a risk in having sex that you will get pregnant.

getting pregnant is the consequence of that risk. it is not a choice.

and again, have you ever in your life done something you were force to do or have you always said "no, i have a right not to do it". that must have pissed your parents off a good bit

Sam Vimes

can we please stop talking about rights and being forced to do things and emotional stress etc etc etc. its all beside the point

everyone here would waive their rights in order to prevent someone dying. there wouldn't be talk of a choice if the baby was a year old

the question here is whether or not a fetus is a person. i believe it is. you lot are the people suggesting we end a new life so imo the burden of proof is on you. prove to me that its not

kizzyr

Commander Vimes wrote:

well done. you've discovered sarcasm


i'm not sure of your point. mine was that women decide whether or not a fetus is a baby based on what they want to be true rather than what is true. what's your point?


i think you missed mty point there. i was talking about pregnant women with healthy babies


more objective maybe?

and two people is hardly a decent sample size. there's are millions of women who are against abortion


once there's a baby growing inside her its not her just her body anymore. its also an incubator for a new life


and again we get back to the real point of the debate. rights don't come into it. the question is whether or not a fetus is a person. i believe it is. you want really badly to believe its not

What makes it a person?
There was a case in the High Court last year with a woman from sub Saharan Africa who was HIV+ and pregnant. Her doctors wanted to start her on anti retrovirals which would protect the baby from contracting HIV from its mother (in any permanent way). This woman was convinved that God would protect her and her baby and so refused the treatment. The hospital took a case to court and the judge said that while he couldn't bodily force her to take the tablets he could and would restrict her freedom of movement and so leave her with taking the tablets as her only viable option.
I'm not saying this woman was anything other than as mad as a box of frogs for thinking that God would somehow deliver her child from the path of HIV but because she was pregnant her rights as an individual, her right to decide what to put in her system, her right to say no, were all taken away for the sake of this potential person. This proves that being pregnant is a massive huge thing for a woman where she effectively becomes a second class citizen for the duration of her pregnancy. Some women are not willing to endure this and if they are not willing to then they should not be expect to.

Sam Vimes

kizzyr wrote:

What makes it a person?

what makes it not a person?

kizzyr wrote:

I'm not saying this woman was anything other than as mad as a box of frogs for thinking that God would somehow deliver her child from the path of HIV but because she was pregnant her rights as an individual, her right to decide what to put in her system, her right to say no, were all taken away for the sake of this potential person. This proves that being pregnant is a massive huge thing for a woman where she effectively becomes a second class citizen for the duration of her pregnancy.

sorry, that's life. if you don't accept the responsibility of being a woman stop having sex or get yourself sterilied

kizzyr wrote:

Some women are not willing to endure this and if they are not willing to then they should not be expect to.

i'm afraid they should. men can't bear children, women can. unfortunately for them that means that there's someone growing inside them who has the same rights that they do

_blank_

kizzyr wrote:

would protect the baby from contracting HIV from its mother (in any permanent way).

Sorry to take this OT, but is there a non-permanent way to contract HIV?

coffee_cake

Commander Vimes wrote:

i'm not sure of your point. mine was that women decide whether or not a fetus is a baby based on what they want to be true rather than what is true. what's your point?

A baby is born, a fetus is not.

and again we get back to the real point of the debate. rights don't come into it. the question is whether or not a fetus is a person. i believe it is. you want really badly to believe its not

We don't "want" to believe it's not, we already believe it's not.

the question here is whether or not a fetus is a person. i believe it is. you lot are the people suggesting we end a new life so imo the burden of proof is on you. prove to me that its not

If all "new life" is so precious, stop eating, stop washing your hands, stop cleaning.
Now, back to you.

sorry, that's life. if you don't accept the responsibility of being a woman stop having sex or get yourself sterilied

I'm not staying absintent my whole life (or until whatever time I want children, and then have sex ONLY for children) just because it might offend you if I don't :rolleyes:
And you may have missed thaed's post about how easy it is for any women to get "sterilised".

kizzyr

seansouth wrote:

Sorry to take this OT, but is there a non-permanent way to contract HIV?

Kind of:) If a woman who is pregnant and HIV+ takes these tablets the child will be born HIV+ but within 6 weeks if re tested come back HIV- I don't fully understand the way the science behind this works but somehow the virus is worked out of the baby's system. It is somehow similar to the way that every baby, after birth, for a few weeks has quite a high immunity and this they get from their mother. This too works itself out the system and the child builds an immune system of its own.
This is part of the reason that many people are up in arms over the price of these drugs and the fact that if they were supplied FOC to the women in sub Saharan Africa then there would be (to a certain extent) some way of managing one way AIDS / HIV is being spread so quickly there.

kizzyr

Commander Vimes wrote:

what makes it not a person?

Life experience makes a person. The act of being born is one of the first steps on this road. An ability to think, breathe, interact, experience life makes you a person. An embryo / foetus is essentially a parasite, living off the woman its growing inside. It has the potential to become a person but until it is a viable human life that can survive physically independently of that woman it is not a person. As I said earlier if it was then death certificates would be given out to women who miscarry at 20 weeks but they aren't because in reality it is not a person.

Sam Vimes

bluewolf, you completely missed the point in everything you said

bluewolf wrote:

A baby is born, a fetus is not.

so is it ok to perform an abortion 2 days before the woman is due?

bluewolf wrote:

We don't "want" to believe it's not, we already believe it's not.

missed the point here. i said they believe it because they want to

bluewolf wrote:

If all "new life" is so precious, stop eating, stop washing your hands, stop cleaning.
Now, back to you.

i only care about human life. swing and a miss

bluewolf wrote:

I'm not staying absintent my whole life (or until whatever time I want children, and then have sex ONLY for children) just because it might offend you if I don't :rolleyes:

yes indeed the murder of babies offends me.

and i'm not asking you to abstain, i'm simply asking women to live with the consequences of not abstaining, ie putting a child up for adoption


if you're going to be sarcastic and agressive at least try not to miss the point of everything the person you're being sarcastic towards is saying

Sam Vimes

kizzyr wrote:

Life experience makes a person. The act of being born is one of the first steps on this road. An ability to think, breathe, interact, experience life makes you a person. An embryo / foetus is essentially a parasite, living off the woman its growing inside. It has the potential to become a person but until it is a viable human life that can survive physically independently of that woman it is not a person.

i suppose i'll ask you too, is it ok to abort a baby two days before its due?

i'm going to assume you'll say no. if so, you believe that it becomes a person at some point in the womb. can you pinpoint the day that it stops being ok to kill it?

does it become a person when its first nerve forms because then it can experience the world? that happens within the first few weeks


and what about if a baby was born with a serious ailment that meant it would never wake up and spend its life hooked up to machines? i think we'll all agree that it should be allowed to die. but what if you knew that the baby would recover completely in 9 months? would you still let it die?

my point being, the fact that it can't experience the world now isn't as important as the fact that unless you kill it, it will

kizzyr wrote:

As I said earlier if it was then death certificates would be given out to women who miscarry at 20 weeks but they aren't because in reality it is not a person.

that's the legal situation. that has little to do with anything

Lemming

Commander Vimes wrote:

i only care about human life. swing and a miss

Ah, and the sanctity of life comes crashing down ..... So ... some life is more important than other life then? What happened to "All life is sacred"?

You, sir, are a hypocrite. A-la-carte quasi-religious to make yourself feel morally "comfortable" at the expense of others. Otherwise known as a chicken-hawk.

Nice to finally see your true colours on show for all the world to see.

yes indeed the murder of babies offends me.

Well then you're getting upset over nothing since a foetus is not a "baby". I challenge you to find, in any reputable medical textbook, a reference that a foetus IS a "baby" as opposed to a potential baby.

and i'm not asking you to abstain, i'm simply asking women to live with the consequences of not abstaining, ie putting a child up for adoption

Well then you wont mind depriving yourself of sex either then will you? :rolleyes:

Sam Vimes

Lemming wrote:

Ah, and the sanctity of life comes crashing down ..... So ... some life is more important than other life then? What happened to "All life is sacred"?

i'm not totally sure. i never said that or anything like it

Lemming wrote:

You, sir, are a hypocrite. A-la-carte quasi-religious to make yourself feel morally "comfortable" at the expense of others. Otherwise known as a chicken-hawk.

i'm an atheist in fact. and what's your point? i don't mind putting someone out a bit to prevent someone dying. if that makes me a "chicken hawk" then i suppose that's what i am


and if you eat meat but not people, then you're also a hypocrite by your own standards

Lemming wrote:

Well then you're getting upset over nothing since a foetus is not a "baby". I challenge you to find, in any reputable medical textbook, a reference that a foetus IS a "baby" as opposed to a potential baby.

you know i'm not going to trawl through medical text books for random people on the internet.

at what point does it become a person then?

i challenge you to get a medical text book etc etc etc

Lemming wrote:

Well then you wont mind depriving yourself of sex either then will you? :rolleyes:

i will not but if i get my gf pregnant i most certainly will not kill the results

kizzyr

Commander Vimes wrote:

at what point does it become a person then?/QUOTE]
Once it is possible for it to survive outside the uterus. This can happen 2 days before the due date, it can happen 2 weeks before the due date. This is why there are cut off points for abortion.

Lemming

Commander Vimes wrote:

i'm not totally sure. i never said that or anything like it

Common line from the anti-abortion crowd, although in fairness of a religious persuasion. I'll admit to having just lumped you in with the rabid christio-facists out of laziness. My mistake.

i'm an atheist in fact. and what's your point? i don't mind putting someone out a bit to prevent someone dying. if that makes me a "chicken hawk" then i suppose that's what i am

You're not preventing "someone" dying. Go consult a medical textbook to show otherwise. You're the one making the unqualified statement challenging medical fact, it's up to you to prove your statement.

and if you eat meat but not people, then you're also a hypocrite by your own standards

No it doesn't actually. you really do need to think your arguments through. My eating meat but not people is not hypocrasy since I'm not the one arguing that life should be protected and then go and tuck into a nice big fat juicy burger.

you know i'm not going to trawl through medical text books for random people on the internet.

In that case your statement is utterly unfounded and based on pure opinion rather than fact. So drop the pseudo-science. It's not science. It's personal belief.

at what point does it become a person then?

When it's born. And I think you'll find the state agrees since a birth cert will be issued and the child recognised as a citizen of the state with all the privelges entailed. Until it's born, no such recognition will be conferred by the state on what is a "possible" person and citizen.

i challenge you to get a medical text book etc etc etc

I don't need to. you're the one trying to argue against medical treatise. Doesn't work that way ... Sorry, better luck next time.

And as an aside, if you cannot be bothered to look - and freely admit to it - why the f*ck should I indulge you laziness?

i will not but if i get my gf pregnant i most certainly will not kill the results

Are you speaking for her too? ...

coffee_cake

Commander Vimes wrote:

so is it ok to perform an abortion 2 days before the woman is due?

Terminology is seperate to rights. Calling it a "baby" does not mean it inherently has rights; [correctly] calling it a fetus does not mean it inherently has none.

And no, I don't believe it is.

missed the point here. i said they believe it because they want to

As opposed to what? You believe otherwise because you want to. That's how opinions work...

i only care about human life. swing and a miss

Then say so instead of "new life"

yes indeed the murder of babies offends me.

Then make a thread about infanticide somewhere

and i'm not asking you to abstain, i'm simply asking women to live with the consequences of not abstaining, ie putting a child up for adoption

Abortion is a consequence, it's just one you don't like

if you're going to be sarcastic and agressive at least try not to miss the point of everything the person you're being sarcastic towards is saying

I'm not even being sarcastic...

kizzyr

bluewolf wrote:

Then make a thread about infanticide somewhere
QUOTE]
Ah yes infanticide, I had forgotten about this. It may have changed very recently I'm not sure but on the assumption that it has, I will use the past tense on this one. Did you know that until recently if a woman killed her baby within one year of it being born she could not be charged with (and so found guilty of) murder whereas if the father did the same he would be. The reasoning behind it was hormones, PPD etc all affecting the mental state of the mother.
So I wonder if all those who are saying that aborting a 10 week old foetues by a woman who just cannot deal with the pressures of pregnany and all it entails, the idea of abortion not to mention full time motherhood is somehow worse than killing her 2 month old baby because the reality of the situation is crushing her and people prevented her from accessing abortion services at week 10.