Atheism & Abortion

Ickle Magoo

Boston wrote: »

How much experience do you have with dealing with handicapped children? This is not a case off "my baby doesn't have blue eyes, i'll abort".

Quite a lot actually, I have several friends with children who have various special needs & I don't think aborting a child at 8months because they are, as you so beautifully put it, retarded - should even be an option. Many, many parents of children with special needs would not change their children for the world & the children have a fantastic quality of life. Just because it's harder work for the parents doesn't mean abortion should be allowed. As I stated already having a terrible congenital condition with no chance for survival is one thing - aborting well into a pregnancy because a scan reveals your child is "retarded" or handicapped, ie having less motor skills & slower learning skills is not morally acceptable to me.

Originally Posted by Gurgle
'Pro-choice', its such a lovely phrase. Gives a nice warm feeling of liberty, democracy and freedom. Probably the best PR trick ever pulled off to link it to killing unwanted babies.

Well I'm pro choice: If you choose not to have a child, don't get pregnant. If you screw up and get pregnant, then choose to give it up for adoption.

And victims of rape - what would you allow them to do? :rolleyes:

Scofflaw

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Quite a lot actually, I have several friends with children who have various special needs & I don't think aborting a child at 8months because they are, as you so beautifully put it, retarded - should even be an option. Many, many parents of children with special needs would not change their children for the world & the children have a fantastic quality of life.

However, the same would be equally true of those families if their children were not handicapped. It is not, on the other hand, going to be true of all families. Someone who would rather have an abortion than bring up a handicapped child is not necessarily going to offer them a fantastic quality of life, although they may well turn out to do so.

Hivemind187 wrote:

If you dont want to have an abortion or would oppose it personally yet you would not impose that position on another person you are PRO-CHOICE.

If you believe that you have the right to impose your ideals on another person regardless of their feelings or the evidence they can show you in support of their choice then you are PRO-LIFE.

It is not a question of anything else other than the right to make decisions for yourself and the demand to make decisions for others.

I can't agree with you. If someone genuinely feels that abortion is murder, then they cannot morally choose to allow someone else to commit murder.That's why the nub of the question is when or whether you determine the foetus to be a person. If you consider that the foetus is a person, then you cannot help but consider that abortion is murder, and you cannot let other people commit murder, however strongly you may otherwise feel about the rights of the person.

cordially,
Scofflaw

coffee_cake

Scofflaw wrote:

I can't agree with you. If someone genuinely feels that abortion is murder, then they cannot morally choose to allow someone else to commit murder.That's why the nub of the question is when or whether you determine the foetus to be a person. If you consider that the foetus is a person, then you cannot help but consider that abortion is murder, and you cannot let other people commit murder, however strongly you may otherwise feel about the rights of the person.

Just what I was going to say.

Zombrex

Hivemind187 wrote: »

Sorry, but I still say that all but a few of you are missing the point.

Trying to claim that pro-lifers argument is only that they believe that a zygote/fotus is a person and is therefore entitled to rights is deliberately avoiding reality.

I said it before and I will say it again. Pro-life is about taking other peoples choices from them. no matter what way you try to dress it up it is nothing more than imposing your will on another person. That pro-lifers believe that they are doing the right thing is irrelevant.

Well to be honest Hive that's like saying that people only out law murder to be bossy and controlling.

The pro-life argument is that a foetus is a human person, and has the exact same rights as 5 year old, a 25 year old or a 105 years old.

You don't have the choice to kill a 5 year old, or a 25 year old or a 105 year old. You don't have the choice to kill a foetus, because a foetus is the same as 5, 25, 105 year old person.

Now you are right that this is imposing this standards of ethics on others. But every law is that. I'm not sure what you mean by this being the right thing is irrelevant. It is their argument, there is nothing else. A foetus is the same as a 1 year old. The foetus is the same as a 56 year old. There is no difference. That is their argument.

Hivemind187 wrote: »

It is not a question of anything else other than the right to make decisions for yourself and the demand to make decisions for others.

Well again you don't have the choice to kill me. That isn't a bad thing. Your right to choose to kill me doesn't over rule my right to be protected from harm by you. Denying your choice to kill me is not a bad thing. Nor is the purpose of such rules to restrict your freedom. The purpose of such laws is to protect me.

Boston

Hivemind187 wrote: »

If you dont want to have an abortion or would oppose it personally yet you would not impose that position on another person you are PRO-CHOICE.

If you believe that you have the right to impose your ideals on another person regardless of their feelings or the evidence they can show you in support of their choice then you are PRO-LIFE.

I can accept the reality of abortions. That its something which occurs regardless of the law. That sweeping the problem under the carpet and shipping it abroad is probably the single biggest reason why there are so many Irish women who feel they have no choice but to have an abortion, usually alone. As such I believe education and social policy is the best approach, not the legal system. Ultimately, even today, its the person decision to make. Thats a far cry from believing that woman have the sole right to decide if a pregnancy should be aborted.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Quite a lot actually, I have several friends with children who have various special needs & I don't think aborting a child at 8months because they are, as you so beautifully put it, retarded - should even be an option. Many, many parents of children with special needs would not change their children for the world & the children have a fantastic quality of life. Just because it's harder work for the parents doesn't mean abortion should be allowed. As I stated already having a terrible congenital condition with no chance for survival is one thing - aborting well into a pregnancy because a scan reveals your child is "retarded" or handicapped, ie having less motor skills & slower learning skills is not morally acceptable to me.

Did you read my later posts? I never claimed that the burden on the parents was a valid reason for abortion. You also seem to have suddenly developed a hang up about the term retarded, which i have already dropped.

Ickle Magoo

I know that's true Scofflaw but we could all decide at 8months in that we just can't do it & the child is better of with someone else. For me, part of being a parent is taking responsibility of your child. Nobody knows what lies in store for them, kids can be diagnosed with thousands of things that change our lives that a 20wk scan will never find - do we just chuck it in because when we find out because it's going to be too much like hard work (and what other reason would a parent have for aborting a child that could live a relatively normal life) - where do you draw the line?

While I agree with a womans choice as to whether she wants to remain pregnant close to conception, deciding what kind of child she'd prefer once heavily pregnant is bit more of a leap & not one I'm entirely comfortable with. Obviously it's not black & white, these are only my opinions & I completely agree with clally re the enormous decision it is & the huge impact abortion has on the parents regardless of the stage in pregnancy.

I don't mean to belittle the choice other parents or potential parents have to make. I am a parent, my best friend has had an abortion, I have several friends with special needs children who have had some pretty awful questions about whether they wish they'd had aborted their children & I'm adopted, so I am finding this debate fascinating on many levels.

Ickle Magoo

Boston, sorry, we posted at the same time. I did read your subsequent posts & I suppose the grey area of what constitutes "quality of life" comes into play. To me retardation or handicap does not infer a life of pain or suffering so forgive me if I didn't pick up your meaning correctly...and I've had a hang-up about the word retarded since about 1981.

Zombrex

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

do we just chuck it in because when we find out because it's going to be too much like hard work

Why not?

If by some amazing medical break through a machine could tell you that if you have sex tonight your future child would be handicapped, wouldn't you simply not have sex, not have this future handicapped child. That isn't a big deal. You just don't have sex. I don't think anyone would go "But what about that child you didn't create! They could have had an ok life! It wouldn't have been perfect, but it would have been better than nothing!"

If that sounds like I'm belittling the issue that is because I think you have already decided that the unborn handicapped child is a human person. In which case is abortion even an option then? You cannot kill a handicapped person, even if they are handicapped. Doesn't that equally apply even if they aren't born yet so long as they are the same as the born handicapped person?

But if the unborn handicapped child is not yet a person, then aborting that foetus isn't actually any different than simply not having sex in the example above. Both stop a potential human being from existing, but neither destroy a human being.

Scofflaw

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I know that's true Scofflaw but we could all decide at 8months in that we just can't do it & the child is better of with someone else.

Well, about 6 weeks after the birth of our first child, I think we all decide that.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

For me, part of being a parent is taking responsibility of your child. Nobody knows what lies in store for them, kids can be diagnosed with thousands of things that change our lives that a 20wk scan will never find - do we just chuck it in because when we find out because it's going to be too much like hard work (and what other reason would a parent have for aborting a child that could live a relatively normal life) - where do you draw the line?

In my own case, or for other people? For other people, I think they get to draw their own lines. Mine is where I feel I couldn't cope with the demands, in which case I feel I shouldn't become a parent. I would consider that part of taking responsibility for the potential child.

I'm self-employed, as is my wife, and work from home, so the decision to have a child at all had a huge impact. Having a special needs child....I don't know. I'm glad I didn't have to face the decision, since I would always have regretted the abortion (assuming I could have persuaded my wife, that is, which I probably couldn't have).

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

While I agree with a womans choice as to whether she wants to remain pregnant close to conception, deciding what kind of child she'd prefer once heavily pregnant is bit more of a leap & not one I'm entirely comfortable with. Obviously it's not black & white, these are only my opinions & I completely agree with clally re the enormous decision it is & the huge impact abortion has on the parents regardless of the stage in pregnancy.

I don't mean to belittle the choice other parents or potential parents have to make. I am a parent, my best friend has had an abortion, I have several friends with special needs children who have had some pretty awful questions about whether they wish they'd had aborted their children & I'm adopted, so I am finding this debate fascinating on many levels.

Yes, it's not black and white. People often pretend it is, so I was pretty interested in seeing the subject discussed without anyone being able to use "God says so" as if it were a reason.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Asiaprod

Scofflaw wrote: »

Yes, it's not black and white. People often pretend it is, so I was pretty interested in seeing the subject discussed without anyone being able to use "God says so" as if it were a reason.

cordially,
Scofflaw

God is sitting this one out, he has his own thread in Christianity.
Great thread Scoffflaw, glad you took the Dollar. Guess we get to keep Tar's one:)

Ickle Magoo

True Scofflaw, it is a very personal decision. Making decisions about whether to abort a child once you learn about specific features of that child is in that big grey area for me but if I were honest, I'd be leaning to the no's...

Wicknight, if there was a way of knowing not to procreate at specific times & thereby never getting pregnant & ruling out any & all disabilities in this world I'm sure we would all jump at it, its not the same thing as aborting an 8month old foetus because they are disabled tho...that's what I posted about, early abortion is early abortion & I don't care what reason is given because I don't have a problem with it.

Zombrex

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Wicknight, if there was a way of knowing not to procreate at specific times & thereby never getting pregnant & ruling out any & all disabilities in this world I'm sure we would all jump at it, its not the same thing as aborting an 8month old foetus because they are disabled tho...

The question is why thought? that is at the heart of this debate. Is the foetus a human person yet. What makes it a human person

Scofflaw

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

True Scofflaw, it is a very personal decision. Making decisions about whether to abort a child once you learn about specific features of that child is in that big grey area for me but if I were honest, I'd be leaning to the no's...

Well, the thought of making such a decision after seeing the first scan...not possible, I think, because that immediately makes it a person to you. Having said that, I don't know whether I would have felt the same about a scan that showed obvious developmental defects. I probably wouldn't.

I do think that having an abortion is damaging to the parents, because you do have to repress your empathy to do it. On the other hand, doctors apparently do that every day (which is why I was sorry to see one of my closest friends become a doctor).

cordially,
Scofflaw

JimiTime

Scofflaw wrote: »

'Personhood' is not a scientific concept, but a legal one. The law decides, say, that a foetus is not a legal person until it is viable independent of its mother, and leaves it to scientists to determine when that is.

Again, on what authority does it decide this? Law changes from country to country, so 'personally', I can't accept that. But, again its probably a whole different conversation, so I'll let it drop.

Again, this is a statement of position that completely trivialises parenthood. No-one here has argued that abortions are a good thing, or should be undertake in order to avoid 'inconvenience'. Having a child as a single mother at the age of say 20 is not 'inconvenient', but life-changing. I find it equally baffling that you appear not to take this into account at all.

Of course i take it into account, I'm surprised you assumed I didn't Also how does it trivialise parenthood? I also never said that I thought people thought abortion was a good thing Believe me, I know how life changing a child is, however, thats not really the point. Actually, I'm not really sure what you are saying here? Are you saying that I implied it was not life changing? Or that using the term 'inconvenient' is an understatement? My point is really, no matter how life changing etc it is, if having an abortion is killing a person, then to be cold about it, you must deal with it. Adoption is an option.

Well, I feel that you are glossing over the impact of not having an abortion - on the mother, the father, their families, and the wider community. I also feel that you have missed the essentially legal nature of the concept of personhood.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Indeed, the legal nature of personhood I was unaware of. I'd neve base my ethics on what the law states though TBH. As I said, it varies from place to place. And i am not glossing over anything. I haven't even gone there. Essentially, 'if' it may be a person, then the position of the family have little to do with if aborting is right or wrong.

Also, to clarify, if the world allows abortion, I'm not going to fret about it. I certainly wont grab the plackards. As a Christian, I can choose not to agree with abortion, or not to look at porn etc etc. If there are people who don't have an issue with it, and others who don't have an issue with performing it, then so be it. The world will do what the world will do. So in short, I'm not pro-choice, but I'm not 'lets force those who disagree with me', neither.

wicknight wrote:

Personally I think the argument that the circumstances of the sexual intercourse has bearing on the abortion issue is ridiculous. Whether or not the child was the product of a rape or not has absolutely no bearing on whether or not the child is a person, or at what stage they become a person.

Is that what I said? No its not. What i said, is that I could empathise with an expetant mother who wishes to abort their child if it was concieved through rape. 'I was clear' in saying that it was still wrong, but that I can understand that the trauma etc of such a thing could lead to a decision such as that!

wicknight wrote:

I would be as horrified with someone saying that it is only ok to abort this child if the child is the product of a rape as I would be with saying that its ok to kill a 2 month old because she is the product of a rape.

Scofflaw thinks I'm not thinking of the mother, You interpret that I'm thinking too much of the mother!! Again, to clarify!! I did not say it was right! What I said was that I would be empathetic to a woman feeling such a way.

Ickle Magoo

Wicknight wrote: »

The question is why thought? that is at the heart of this debate. Is the foetus a human person yet. What makes it a human person

I said earlier that my definition would be after viability...can a human person only be classed as such after birth? At 39 wks they are not a human person? I guess it comes downs to personal opinion. My son was born prematurely & required no intervention - when you see it happening up close like that it makes you wonder if an abortion at 32+wks should ever be an option.

Well, the thought of making such a decision after seeing the first scan...not possible, I think, because that immediately makes it a person to you. Having said that, I don't know whether I would have felt the same about a scan that showed obvious developmental defects. I probably wouldn't.

I do think that having an abortion is damaging to the parents, because you do have to repress your empathy to do it. On the other hand, doctors apparently do that every day (which is why I was sorry to see one of my closest friends become a doctor).

cordially,
Scofflaw

I don't think I could I have had an abortion regardless of what the scans showed...I think living with a child with special needs would be easier (for me) tbh.
My friend is still completely cut up about her abortion, it's an awful decision for anyone to have to make.

Scofflaw

JimiTime wrote: »

Again, on what authority does it decide this? Law changes from country to country, so 'personally', I can't accept that. But, again its probably a whole different conversation, so I'll let it drop.

It's also the law that decides whether something is murder, or manslaughter, or accidental. Similarly, it's a legal statement that makes a corporation a 'legal person'.

JimiTime wrote: »

Of course i take it into account, I'm surprised you assumed I didn't Also how does it trivialise parenthood? I also never said that I thought people thought abortion was a good thing Believe me, I know how life changing a child is, however, thats not really the point. Actually, I'm not really sure what you are saying here? Are you saying that I implied it was not life changing? Or that using the term 'inconvenient' is an understatement? My point is really, no matter how life changing etc it is, if having an abortion is killing a person, then to be cold about it, you must deal with it.

Well, it's the "inconvenient" I object to, really. 'Inconvenient' summons up images of people having abortions in order to look their best at a party, rather than people who can barely keep their heads above water deciding they'll sink if they have a child, or someone with a traditional family facing the ruin of their relationships and career.

JimiTime wrote: »

Adoption is an option.

Not one that works in the second case above, though. Also, adoption itself is a huge trauma. I can see that one might say that any amount of trauma is worth not taking a life, and I would respect someone who acted on that basis - but not someone who decided that for other people.

JimiTime wrote: »

Indeed, the legal nature of personhood I was unaware of. I'd neve base my ethics on what the law states though TBH. As I said, it varies from place to place. And i am not glossing over anything. I haven't even gone there. Essentially, 'if' it may be a person, then the position of the family have little to do with if aborting is right or wrong.

Also, to clarify, if the world allows abortion, I'm not going to fret about it. I certainly wont grab the plackards. As a Christian, I can choose not to agree with abortion, or not to look at porn etc etc. If there are people who don't have an issue with it, and others who don't have an issue with performing it, then so be it. The world will do what the world will do. So in short, I'm not pro-choice, but I'm not 'lets force those who disagree with me', neither.

Curiously enough, that is the pro-choice position. I don't think anyone on this thread is positive about abortion. Come to that, I don't think I've met that many people who are even neutral about it. I'm certainly not, but I definitely don't think I have the right to take other people's choice away form them.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I said earlier that my definition would be after viability...can a human person only be classed as such after birth? At 39 wks they are not a human person? I guess it comes downs to personal opinion. My son was born prematurely & required no intervention - when you see it happening up close like that it makes you wonder if an abortion at 32+wks should ever be an option.

That's what makes the boundary fuzzy.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I don't think I could I have had an abortion regardless of what the scans showed...I think living with a child with special needs would be easier tbh.
My friend is still completely cut up about her abortion, it's an awful decision for anyone to have to make.

People are for years - indeed, the impact can last a lifetime, particularly if they never have a child. The same is true of giving a child up for adoption.

cordially,
Scofflaw

JimiTime

Scofflaw wrote: »

Curiously enough, that is the pro-choice position. I don't think anyone on this thread is positive about abortion. Come to that, I don't think I've met that many people who are even neutral about it. I'm certainly not, but I definitely don't think I have the right to take other people's choice away form them.

cordially,
Scofflaw

The difference is, i would not advocate abortion or say that an expetant mother should have a choice about it neither. Its just that I would not actively try stop clinics etc from operating. Or start hurling abuse at abortion candidates etc. If someone said, 'do you agree with abortion?' i would say no. if they said, do you think that someone should have the option to carry one out, i would also say no. But I accept that it is something acceptable in this world. So would probably just see it as another step this world takes towards ungodliness. If the decision to allow abortion was mine, I couldn't allow it in good concience. But its not mine, so thats it.

Scofflaw

JimiTime wrote: »

The difference is, i would not advocate abortion or say that an expetant mother should have a choice about it neither. Its just that I would not actively try stop clinics etc from operating. Or start hurling abuse at abortion candidates etc. If someone said, 'do you agree with abortion?' i would say no. if they said, do you think that someone should have the option to carry one out, i would also say no. But I accept that it is something acceptable in this world. So would probably just see it as another step this world takes towards ungodliness. If the decision to allow abortion was mine, I couldn't allow it in good concience. But its not mine, so thats it.

All other things being equal, would you vote for a candidate or party that was in favour of criminalising abortion rather than one that wasn't?

cordially,
Scofflaw

JimiTime

Scofflaw wrote: »

All other things being equal, would you vote for a candidate or party that was in favour of criminalising abortion rather than one that wasn't?

cordially,
Scofflaw

i don't think its that simple. I'd like to know their motivation. The person who would allow abortion may have a better and more honourable motivation to why they'd allow it. I still would not vote for them though. If the anti-abortion canditate was all pomp and bombast I think I'd refrain from voting. however, on the grounds that the anti-abortion candidate is anti abortion for the right reasons, i.e. Understands that not all abortion canditates are cold hearted murderers, but at the same time cannot in good concience allow abortion to take place when they have the power to stop it in their juristiction. I'd give them my thumbs up.

Scofflaw

JimiTime wrote: »

i don't think its that simple. I'd like to know their motivation. The person who would allow abortion may have a better and more honourable motivation to why they'd allow it. I still would not vote for them though. If the anti-abortion canditate was all pomp and bombast I think I'd refrain from voting. however, on the grounds that the anti-abortion candidate is anti abortion for the right reasons, i.e. Understands that not all abortion canditates are cold hearted murderers, but at the same time cannot in good concience allow abortion to take place when they have the power to stop it in their juristiction. I'd give them my thumbs up.

Fair enough - I retract my description of your position as 'pro-choice'! You're aware that making abortion illegal apparently doesn't have any impact on the rate of abortion, but does increase the risk to the mother?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Boston

Scofflaw wrote: »

All other things being equal, would you vote for a candidate or party that was in favour of criminalising abortion rather than one that wasn't?

cordially,
Scofflaw

The thing about criminalising abortion in Ireland is that currently, you can have an abortion if you have the money to pay for it. Thats a simple fact. And the more money you have the better the English clinic you can attend and the better support you can receive. So when people talk about abortion being a crime, they really mean that its a crime for the poor, who ironically, are the ones most likely to be negatively affected by unplanned pregnancy. So no, despite being pro-life I couldn't support a party that would maintain the status quo here.

Dades

On the subject of "special needs" kids... isn't it not possible to get certain tests done on a foetus in Ireland? I seem to recall the wife of a friend going home (she was from the continent) to have a test done for Down's Syndrome, as this was standard procedure in her country. I never ventured the question what would have happened had the test come up positive.

I'm wondering if those tests are disallowed here because abortion is illegal?

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

Is that what I said? No its not. What i said, is that I could empathise with an expetant mother who wishes to abort their child if it was concieved through rape.

Fair enough. Would you equally empathise with a mother who wished to kill her 6 year old son who was conceived through a rape?

Hivemind187

To Wicknight and Scofflaw;

with all due respect, that way of looking at things only applies if you can somehow validate the pro-life argument - which you cant in any reasonable fashion.

A foetus is developed using the genetic information of two individuals. That is the point at which all participation in the physical process of gestation for one of the parties ends. From this point on it is the hosts body which is providing the incubation environment and the phsycial material to allow a foetus to develop, at the hosts expense. In a very real sense the foetus is actually a part of the hosts body and therefore should be governed by the laws surrounding that.

In these terms, demanding abortion be made illegal is akin to making body piercing, cosmetic surgery etc illegal. It is imposing a set of ideals on another person dictating what they can and cannot do with the produce of their own body.

I understand full well that the pro-life argument intends to "protect life" but they cannot define what life is, where it begins or ends etc in any reasonable or concrete fashion. It is only an argument of opinion and philosophy that they can make, and it still boils down to wantign to dictate ideals to another person.

Zombrex

Hivemind187 wrote: »

To Wicknight and Scofflaw;

with all due respect, that way of looking at things only applies if you can somehow validate the pro-life argument - which you cant in any reasonable fashion.

Well that doesn't really matter. It is their argument. You can disagree with its basis, but it is their argument.

You seem to be suggesting that they know this argument is nonsense, but are pushing it anyway because they have some undefined desire to control what people do, as if being anti-abortion is just an excuse to boss people around.

I don't see any reason to believe that.

Any evidence I've seen strongly suggests that the anti-abortion side take this side because of the belief in the argument that the foetus is as valid a human person as any other human being. Therefore killing the foetus is murder. Its a pretty simple motivation, I don't seem much reason to believe there is an alteria motive.

Hivemind187 wrote: »

I understand full well that the pro-life argument intends to "protect life" but they cannot define what life is, where it begins or ends etc in any reasonable or concrete fashion.

I'm pretty sure most anti-abortion groups define "life" as beginning at conception, which is a pretty well defined biological stage.

Nevyn

Abortion is illegal here and medical personal would be prosecuted if the DPP felt there was enough proof for a case against them, this has happened a few times already, their clients usually end up being rushed to one of the maternity hospitals.

The fact that in this country we don't prosecute for crimes committed outside the state
means that women who travel to have abortions are not prosecuted.

Boston

Dades wrote: »

On the subject of "special needs" kids... isn't it not possible to get certain tests done on a foetus in Ireland? I seem to recall the wife of a friend going home (she was from the continent) to have a test done for Down's Syndrome, as this was standard procedure in her country. I never ventured the question what would have happened had the test come up positive.

I'm wondering if those tests are disallowed here because abortion is illegal?

Afaik thats not available in the republic.

Nevyn

Boston wrote: »

Afaik thats not available in the republic.

Those tests are done here but it is not broadcast and it means the the medical professionals who deal in this area have a very tricky time of it.
This has come up in the parenting forum recently: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055149206

One parents experience:

Prosperous Dave wrote: »

My wife is pregnant on our 4th child - 13 weeks now . We attended Holles Street last Thursday for the first visit during which the Consultant raised the issue of my wife's age - 40 now and 41 when baby is due. She kept harping on about the "tests" that were available without mentioning anything specific. My wife looked a little confused at the doctor's cryptic messages and so I butted in and said "are you talking about a nuchal fold test and/or amnio". The doctor looked at me and nodded without saying anything. She then said she could do the tests and if the results were positive (I presume she meant down syndrome), then we had the option of "taking vigorous action". My wife looked more than a little worried at this stage so I turned to her and said "what the doctor is trying to tell us is that if our child has down syndrome, then we can think about getting an abortion". This drew an angry look from the doctor so I asked her if I had misrepresented her musings. She said she had not mentioned anything about an abortion so I asked her what she meant by "vigorous action". She said if the tests showed the presence of downs, then we would have to look at our options. My wife and I agreed that if that happened, i.e. the child had downs, then we would love it as much as our other three children.

We then had a mini scan and the doctor tried to check the nuchal fold but the baby was being as "difficult" as its father and was in the wrong position. We'll have to wait for the baby to be born to find out - hopefully everything will be alright.

Hivemind187

Wicknight wrote: »

Well that doesn't really matter. It is their argument. You can disagree with its basis, but it is their argument.

You seem to be suggesting that they know this argument is nonsense, but are pushing it anyway because they have some undefined desire to control what people do, as if being anti-abortion is just an excuse to boss people around.

I don't see any reason to believe that.

Any evidence I've seen strongly suggests that the anti-abortion side take this side because of the belief in the argument that the foetus is as valid a human person as any other human being. Therefore killing the foetus is murder. Its a pretty simple motivation, I don't seem much reason to believe there is an alteria motive.



I'm pretty sure most anti-abortion groups define "life" as beginning at conception, which is a pretty well defined biological stage.

Yes well, considering that definition of "life" they should be arresting every woman whose body has ever flushed a zygote after the morning after pill.

As for their "valid argument" it is no more valid than flat-earthers, intelligent design, creationism or any of a thousand other nonsensical positions. Just because they "believe" it is a life does not quantify it as such, any more than beliving their are faries in your airing cupboard makes them magically appear. It is an invalid position.

Further, no matter how you try to spin it or re-define it (the proverbial rather than the literal you) it doesnt cahnge a simple fact that one group of people are demanding to impose their beliefs on another person. The opinions of the mother do not appear to be to important to the types of people who go around with placards and make claims like "travelling abroad for an abortion is illegal and you will go to jail". They are imposing, or attempting to impose their beliefs on another person.

I conceed however that I may need to restructure my approch to their argument since so many believe in their twoddle that clutters the issue. If "opinions" are what will decide this matter rather than a cold approch (which considering the range of different emotions people have regarding it seems the only logical method) then we are in major trouble.

Edit: While "conception" might be a biological stage it is just as arbitrary as any other point. The position that conception is the magical point at which life begins is nonsense since the gametes are alive before they fuse. Therefore, all these people have done is move the goal post slightly in relation to where we start to call something "alive" conveniently ignoring the facts.