Abortion

ntlbell

marti101 wrote: »

But really you wouldnt have as ay as it would be her choice and not yours.

I didn't say I would have a say I think this is the 3rd time I've said it.

I would want her to keep it my personal preference would be for her not to terminate another child's life but yes at the end of the day I wouldn't have a say, thanks for pointing out the obvious it was a creative and intelligent addition to the thread.

tomski

Re: ru 486 deaths, According to UN statistics Ireland is the safest place in the world to give birth, i.e. it has the lowest maternal mortality rate in the world. Thus the pro-life laws cannot be said to endanger the lives of women.

re: abortion and depression/suicide: the 2 biggest and most comprehensive studies in this area both show a big increase in mental health problems due to abortion. The STAKES report (2004) in Finland showed women who had aboritons compared to women who havent are 6 times more likely to commit suicide. Prof. Ferguson's study (New Zealand, 2007) shows women who have aboritons are significantly more likely to suffer depression and abuse drugs. Both studies are longitudinal and took account of mitigating factors.

re: abortion/breast cancer link... no one can conclusively say at the moment that there either def is or def isnt a link--but its certainly false to claim there is no evidence to support a link... Janet Daling, M.D. "Risk of Breast Cancer Among Young Women: Relationship of Induced Abortion." Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 2 November 1994. claims a substantial link exists even after one abortion.

re: is the embryo a human being...all textbooks on the science of embryology state so, it is a basic scientific fact, see Larsen, 'Human embryology' (1997) pp. 4-11. The question is whether human beings should have human rights? Yes according to International Human Rights, United Nations, the Declaration of the Rights of the Child:
Whereasthe child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth

ntlbell

irishbird wrote: »

Out of all the people i know what have had abortions

None of them have ever felt sudicial, got breast cancer, split with their partners or regreted their decision.

So if you arent speaking for 10 of my friends.

they all feel like they received good counselling.

(i just done a quick email poll)

Well that clears it all up your 10 friends who have terminated their unborn have no guilt so lets open the flood gates.

having 10 friends who have all had abortions..

It's an odd circle of friends...

ntlbell

tomski wrote: »

Re: ru 486 deaths, According to UN statistics Ireland is the safest place in the world to give birth, i.e. it has the lowest maternal mortality rate in the world. Thus the pro-life laws cannot be said to endanger the lives of women.

re: abortion and depression/suicide: the 2 biggest and most comprehensive studies in this area both show a big increase in mental health problems due to abortion. The STAKES report (2004) in Finland showed women who had aboritons compared to women who havent are 6 times more likely to commit suicide. Prof. Ferguson's study (New Zealand, 2007) shows women who have aboritons are significantly more likely to suffer depression and abuse drugs. Both studies are longitudinal and took account of mitigating factors.

re: abortion/breast cancer link... no one can conclusively say at the moment that there either def is or def isnt a link--but its certainly false to claim there is no evidence to support a link... Janet Daling, M.D. "Risk of Breast Cancer Among Young Women: Relationship of Induced Abortion." Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 2 November 1994. claims a substantial link exists even after one abortion.

re: is the embryo a human being...all textbooks on the science of embryology state so, it is a basic scientific fact, see Larsen, 'Human embryology' (1997) pp. 4-11. The question is whether human beings should have human rights? Yes according to International Human Rights, United Nations, the Declaration of the Rights of the Child:
Whereasthe child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth

It's ok you can forget all these medical studies irishbird's 10 friends didn't suffer from any of the above this is obviously nonsense.

JC 2K3

Thanks Thaed.

I wasn't aware that it was only made unconstitutional in 1983.

There was the one in 2002 that was going to remove the thread of suicide as grounds for an abortion too.

However, I'm correct in saying that there's never been a referendum on legalising abortion in this country

marti101

No point getting snotty,as you say i was pointing out the obvious but the way your other posts were wordrd you would swear only you were right and nobody elses opinion was important.I know 1 person who has had an abortion and over all she says it was the right thing to do.Of course theres nights she has a think and a cry about it but thats just being human.I dont know myself if id ever be able to have one as i endured 3 miscarriages the last being quite bad thinking that id never have another baby and then this year i did.And as for Piste thinking that shed have an abortion and then go on to have ekids,things dont always work out like that.Y ou may have an abortion then to find out that you cant have any more kids how would cope with news like that.I think id never be able to go through with it but i dont think i have the right to stop anyone else having one,there circumstances are completely different to mine.

Dragan

eveie wrote: »

just because thousands of women are choosing abortion does not make it right, if thats your logic we could say that drug dealers should be allowed become legal.
im very busy im work at the minute but i promise you post up links from where you can find this information.
and i am not judging women i am sayingthat abortion is wrong by saying that i am not judging women but abortion its-self
the i.f.p.a are looking to make on demand abortion legal in this country, yes i am well aware they do not provide 486 but that is something their interested in and when questioned about the 18 women dying as a direct consquence of it they chose to ignore the question.
i would also say to people here(pro-choice) that as far as i know not once has religion come into any argument so why are you all bringing it up, i would personallyu not consider myself very religious and i have not brough God into anything.
also i know that everyone makes mistakes but why lat a baby die because of the mistakes you make.
oh and someone said about lets deal with the relity of pregnancy and abortion, i am dealing with the reality of abortion

Hey Evie,

still waiting on links to that scientific study.

If it exists.

Thank you.

ntlbell

marti101 wrote: »

No point getting snotty,as you say i was pointing out the obvious but the way your other posts were wordrd you would swear only you were right and nobody elses opinion was important.I know 1 person who has had an abortion and over all she says it was the right thing to do.Of course theres nights she has a think and a cry about it but thats just being human.I dont know myself if id ever be able to have one as i endured 3 miscarriages the last being quite bad thinking that id never have another baby and then this year i did.And as for Piste thinking that shed have an abortion and then go on to have ekids,things dont always work out like that.Y ou may have an abortion then to find out that you cant have any more kids how would cope with news like that.I think id never be able to go through with it but i dont think i have the right to stop anyone else having one,there circumstances are completely different to mine.

I don't really understand what your saying, I have an opinion on abortion of course I think my opinion is right otherwise my opinion would be different?

I can't stop anyone from having an abortion I would never try and stop anyone from having one.

If I'm asked for my opinion I present it no more no less.

tomski

To Dragan, please look at my post above re: the science concerning when individual human life begins. Also, you can try www.ingentaconnect.com/content/mcb/031/1999/00000019/F0020003/art00004;jsessionid=2cjestoptpj47.alexandra

Even the recent report by the Irish Council for Bioethics recognised the simple fact that individual human being begins at the moment of conception. Irelands 2 leading experts in this area are prof. Martin Clynes of DCU and Prof. William Reville of UCC, both hold the same scientifically orthodox view.

tomski

Could someone who has expressed pro-choice views respond to my above post entitled "few points"... The head of the IFPA simply ignored these psychological findings, findings which the Royal College of Psychiatrists in London acknowledged. Does it change anyones views to know that the embryo form the moment of conception is a human being? Should we deny human beings basic human rights, such as the right to life?

Nevyn

tomski wrote: »

Could someone who has expressed pro-choice views respond to my above post entitled "few points"... The head of the IFPA simply ignored these psychological findings, findings which the Royal College of Psychiatrists in London acknowledged. Does it change anyones views to know that the embryo form the moment of conception is a human being? Should we deny human beings basic human rights, such as the right to life?

May I direct you to the humanities forum, it's better for that type of discussion,
you will find it here.

tomski

But this goes to the very heart of the abortion debate, am I not right in saying that this is the title of the thread? For democratic debate to occur it is important for all the information to be made available, whether it be scientific, psychological, philosophical or legal. I used to lean towards a pro-choice view but when you investigate all the issues it is hard to go against science, human rights and psychology. Again, any takers for the above few posts...?

Nevyn

Who ever said this was a debate ?
The humanities forum is for debating such issues.

tomski

Im not sure what definition of debate you are working from so ill just edit my earlier post and say that this goes to the heart of the abortion discussion. Again, I am interested in hearing responses to those earlier posts, so we can openly and without censorship discuss these issues further...

Wibbs

tomski wrote: »

To Dragan, please look at my post above re: the science concerning when individual human life begins. Also, you can try www.ingentaconnect.com/content/mcb/031/1999/00000019/F0020003/art00004;jsessionid=2cjestoptpj47.alexandra

Which would be great if we could all read it without coughing up 35 bucks for the privilege.

Even the recent report by the Irish Council for Bioethics recognised the simple fact that individual human being begins at the moment of conception. Irelands 2 leading experts in this area are prof. Martin Clynes of DCU and Prof. William Reville of UCC, both hold the same scientifically orthodox view.

Goalpost changing frankly. Regardless of one's view on morality, all one can scientifically say is that at the moment of fertilisation of any animal, human or not, that fertilised egg has the potential of becoming an implanted foetus and an animal down the line. That's it. End of. Many many fertilised eggs fail to implant. Even if they do implant, then they may still naturally abort. Now one can be pedantic and suggest that because of that uniqueness and potential of it's DNA to grow into a human, then it is a human. It's not. Technically it's possible to clone humans(it is with animals) from stem cells, or other undifferentiated cells. Does this mean that the cells I hacked up from coughing with bronchitus are human? Nope sorry no sale.

My personal take on abortion? I have serious social, moral and scientific issues with it. From all sides. I think we can differentiate between different stages of the egg/foetus. I would have no objection to the MAP for example. I would have little or no objection to aborting a foetus in the first weeks. Me personally I would set a limit at 4 to 6 weeks, except in exceptional circumstances(danger to the mother etc, inc. suicide risk). In those circumstances I would also acknowledge what was being done too in the name of society. When it's at 10 15 or 20 weeks I would have serious objections as the nervous system is forming rapidly and I personally could not live with termination at that stage.

While I agree we all have some self determination when it comes to our own bodies, I do feel that in some cases this can be used as a catch all and a sliding scale. EG I have little or no objection to body modification. Piercings tattaoos etc even to an "extreme" degree, but would I consider it a right to say have fingers amputated if that became fashionable? Is it not your body after all? Society and medical ethics would likely disagree.

Another issue I would have is how do we balance the rights of the three people involved. The mother, the father and the foetus/baby. If the foetus at say 20 weeks is abortable then as such has technically no rights as far as it goes. The mothers rights are paramount. After that what's the deal?

The rights of the potential father is an interesting one. If I as a potential father have ultimately no say in whether a woman chooses to abort our baby, why should I then have to take responsibility if she chooses to keep said baby (particularly if I don't want it) when that child is born? In essence what is the time frame for a foetus that is abortable to one that a man has to take responsibility for? Kinda similar to when does actual human life start?

Nevyn

tomski wrote: »

Im not sure what definition of debate you are working

It is a discussion for people to say what they think and share their experiences and opinions not to point score, debate or to try and change the opinion and point of view of others.

Nerin

ntlbell wrote: »

Well that clears it all up your 10 friends who have terminated their unborn have no guilt so lets open the flood gates.

having 10 friends who have all had abortions..

It's an odd circle of friends...

Have you a point or is that a veiled and failed attempt at a smart ass snooty response? How is it "odd"?If i have 50 friends who had abortions,whats it to you?

ntlbell

Nerin wrote: »

Have you a point or is that a veiled and failed attempt at a smart ass snooty response? How is it "odd"?If i have 50 friends who had abortions,whats it to you?

It's nothing to me it would be just 5 times odder than having 10 friends who had one I guess?

Rayven199

Thaedydal wrote: »

It is a discussion for people to say what they think and share their experiences and opinions not to point score, debate or to try and change the opinion and point of view of others.

To me it looks as though that is exactly what this has turned into - points scoring for each side. This is not a discussion from what I have read its a fight and you all keep attacking each other! Im not going to give my opinion because I dont like being mis-quoted,attacked and dismissed for my opinion!
Also the argument is quite obviously one sided.

tomski

Wibbs, here is the free link (hopefully): www.l4l.org/library/mythfact.html

This is not a matter of goalposts changing btw, all of your reasons for claiming the embryo is potential human life and not a human being are scientifically false, the above article and any textbook on embryology shows why.

Jermoe le Jeune, who won a Noble Prize for his work on Down's Syndrome, says this on the issue:
'To accept the fact that, after fertilization has taken place, a new human has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or of opinion. The human nature of the human being from conception to old age is not a metaphysical contention. It is plain experimental evidence.

When we accept the science of the issue the ethics follows: human beings deserve human rights. But If you allow for abortion then you have emptied human rights of its meaning, it is a matter of science and logic. I appreciate that sometimes science tells us things we do not want to hear because it may upset our worldview, but we cannot be inconsistent just to appease our emotions

The term 'potential human being' has no scientific basis whatsoever, science does not investigate potentialities, only what actually physically exists. A skin cell is completely different from an embryo cos the embryo is the self-organising totality of a human being, whereas the skin cell is not.

Dragan

tomski wrote: »

Could someone who has expressed pro-choice views respond to my above post entitled "few points"... The head of the IFPA simply ignored these psychological findings, findings which the Royal College of Psychiatrists in London acknowledged. Does it change anyones views to know that the embryo form the moment of conception is a human being? Should we deny human beings basic human rights, such as the right to life?

Cheers for the links there tomski.

I'm a bit pushed in work at the moment but if you give me a while i'll review your posts and the studies and get back to you if thats okay?

I do have to warn you though, you may not like some of my views around this issue but hopefully we can still have a nice polite discussion on them.

Nevyn

I cant read that post at all tomski.

Rayven199 I have never had a problem with someone saying to me that they are pro life and think that abortion is wrong morally and ethically and my stance on it is wrong.

ntlbell

tomski wrote: »

Wibbs, here is the free link (hopefully): www.l4l.org/library/mythfact.html

This is not a matter of goalposts changing btw, all of your reasons for claiming the embryo is potential human life and not a human being are scientifically false, the above article and any textbook on embryology shows why.

Dr. Jermoe le Jeune, who won a Noble Prize for his work on Down's Syndrome, says this on the issue:
'To accept the fact that, after fertilization has taken place, a new human has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or of opinion. The human nature of the human being from conception to old age is not a metaphysical contention. It is plain experimental evidence.'

When we accept the science of the issue the ethics follows: human beings deserve human rights. But If you allow for abortion then you have emptied human rights of its meaning, it is a matter of science and logic. I appreciate that sometimes science tells us things we do not want to hear because it may upset our worldview, but we cannot be inconsistent just to appease our emotions.

The term 'potential human being' has no scientific basis whatsoever, science does not investigate potentialities, only what actually physically exists. A skin cell is completely different from an embryo cos the embryo is the self-organising totality of a human being, whereas the skin cell is not.

grrr

friggim tags

Drift

I've read this thread from start to finish all the way through but I haven't posted yet because I find it quite difficult to express my feelings in a way that makes them clear and understandable to people who read them from different points of view. But I'm going to try anyway.

Fundamentally I see abortion as the deliberate ending of a human life. I know to some people it doesn't count as a human life until birth and others don't until the baby would be viable outside the womb. Still other people view a difference between human life and sentient life or between human life and "personhood." In my case, however, I count it as a human life at implantation; which as far as I'm aware is where the current law defines the start of pregnancy. In fact although I struggle with how this relates to certain methods of contraception I think I consider it a human life from conception. I'm going to put that aside for the current discussion though because anything that is referred to as abortion occurs after implantation. So whereas some people view abortion as the ending of a process that will lead to the creation of a human being I see it as the ending of this human being's life. As such I would never vote to allow it to occur in this country because in my opinion it would be wrong even if the people doing it thought it was right. I would see it as me turning a blind eye to something occuring in my midst that was wrong. Some people think mugging old ladies for their handbags is ok but I don't so I wouldn't vote to allow it because even though it may not directly effect me I wouldn't want to think it was occuring and I didn't do what I could to stop it. In the case of abortion what I could do to "stop" it is vote against it and explain to others my reason for doing so. (I apologise for the weak nature of the mugging analogy. I'm not being facetious just trying to explain my way of thinking.)

OK that's the "simple" part of anyones belief system. The plain fact of the matter is that abortion is available in the UK and other countries and whether people like it or not thousands of Irish women every year avail of them. From my point of view this is a terrible thing and we as a society should try hard to reduce these numbers significantly. I think many "pro-choice" lobby groups are even of this opinion. What leads to a lot of problems is that different people have different methods of trying to reduce the numbers. For some lobby groups the method chosen is to shock people by showing graphic and distubing images of aborted and disassembled feotii. While I think these images should be available for those who want to see them I don't think there is any reason to force them in peoples faces. For example we all know war is terrible without the need to be shown pictures of soldiers with bullet holes in their faces. Other lobbyists seem to be of the opinion that women getting abortions must be selfishly only thinking of themselves (this is NOT my opinion) and they decide to appeal to this perceived selfish side by "warning" women of all the things that could happen to them after abortion such as breast cancer, depression etc. In the process of furthering their cause some people will distort the figures and misuse statistics to "prove" their point. However, I think these distorted figures and statistics are often believed to be correct by well meaning "pro-life" activists. Obviously there are people who compile these distorted statistics who are knowlegable enough to know what they are doing. These are the ones at fault and are obviously of the "end justifies the means" variety of activists. Again I see this as completely the wrong way of going about things.

In my opinion the best way to reduce the number of Irish women availing of abortion is a comprehensive and detailed education programme starting at a young age combined with an extensive public information campaign involving open discussion of the issues. Sexual health, sexual relationships, contraception and abortion are still taboo subjects in Ireland and I think that needs to change. Without proper open discussion sex views tend to become distorted. It's protrayed in the media as fun-times for all with no consequences and in other circles as "something we don't talk about" because it's so vile. Sex is fun but it's also a serious business and people need to realise that by having sex regardless of precautions taken there is a possibility of becoming pregnant. There still seem to be a lot of people out there of all ages who operate on the head-in-the-sand, it will never happen to me principle. I would hope that a comprehensive programme of not just sexual but relationship education might at least make people think and consider ALL the consequences of sex and sexual encounters. I also don't for a second think that this education should be confined to schoolgoers. There's plenty of head-in-the-sand adults going around aswell.

Secondly the systems in place to support single mothers and indeed parents in general could do with an overhall to ensure that parenting is not seen as an insurmountable or huge burden that prevents people from living their life. I think this needs to be combined with a re-evaluation of the adoption system in Ireland. I for one am not very knowlegable about this and I'm pretty sure many prospective mothers aren't either.

I am a realist though and I recognise that some women will still choose to have abortions. I wouldn't want to make it easier for them to chose to have them because I think it's a bad choice. Having said this I do believe that they should go into any decision they make with the fullest of impartial information available. There should also be an extensive system of councilling and support available both before and after an abortion. I see no reason why this cannot be provided in Ireland by the Irish government. It's abortion I'm opposed to, not helping people!


A few extra points that I couldn't fit in:

I think "pro-life" has become almost a by-word for religious zealotry and right-wing fanaticism due to the activities of SOME so called pro-life organisations. In any issue where two sides disagree there will also be people on both sides who scaremonger and twist the facts to suit their own agenda. This does not mean that all people who oppose abortion are fire and brimstone burn in hell nut jobs nor does it mean that all people who do not oppose abortion are heartless users who view it as a form of contraception.

I would like to think that a woman who conceived a baby through rape would be mentally strong enough to bring the child up as her own child regardless of it's origins, however I'm not naive enough to believe that is the case in many or even the majority of occurences. I genuinely find it hard to know where I stand on this issue.

Finally with regards to statistics that show higher rates of breast cancer or other medical issues among women who have had abortions I have no medical qualifications whatsoever but I do have quite a detailed knowledge of data collection and statistics and I can say that a skilled statistician can put forward figures in favour of almost any claim. In almost every statistical statement made in the press or on the internet there isn't sufficient information given to prove or disprove the argument in question. In all cases one should request the original scientific paper in full. A detailed examination of many of these papers would yield almost as many counter arguments as there are arguments for the proposed hypothesis.

P.S. I'm not bothering to proof read because it took me so long to type this tome!! E & OE etc.

king_of_inismac

Obviously this is a very contentious issue, and there are hardliners on each side.

My opinion on most things is that if you are too sure or definite about any issue you haven't thought that much about it.

Why are people so passionate about this particular issue?

Well the pro-choice side feel that women should be allowed to control their own bodies, and not have the state dictate what happens to them

Conversely, the pro-life side feel that abortion is tantamount to murder of innocent children and so are equally passionate about defending these children

Both sides are admirable in their passion, and both believe they are defending the weak...

After much deliberation, I find myself on the pro-life side. Why?

While I don't believe the life of an unborn child is worth more than that of the mother, but I do believe it should be given equal respect.

Drawing arbitrary lines in time, saying after x days, its a human with all the rights that go along with that definition, but at (x-1) days its just a mass of cells, seems nonsensical to me if I'm being honest.

I know I will get slated here for saying this, but I REALLY think people need to me more responsible and use proper contraceptives. Personally, I don't want kids at this stage in my life, and choose to use two types of contraception. Maybe if abortion wasn't an option, people would be forced to be more sexually responsible.

I know people will argue that no matter what you do accidents do happen, but I wonder how many of you know someone who got pregnant while using conceptives properly, very few I'd imagine. People in this country need to grow up and take some responsibility!

tomski

Your point about stem cells shows that the embryo is a human being, there is a difference between adult stem-cells and embryo stem cells, the difference lies in that adult stem cells are pluripotent whereas embryo ones are totipotent, only an individual human being at the earliest stages of his/her life possesses totipotent stem cells. Why are we so quick to accept science on almost any other issue but this? Its because of a fear of responsibility and our duty to all human beings.

Nevyn

ntlbell wrote: »

grrr

friggim tags

It's not just the tags I use a skin with a black background as it's better for my dyslexia and the default colour adjusts to this, when someone needlessly uses the black colour tags I can't read it at all.

Rayven199

Thaedydal wrote: »

I cant read that post at all tomski.

Rayven199 I have never had a problem with someone saying to me that they are pro life and think that abortion is wrong morally and ethically and my stance on it is wrong.

I was referring to others in the post, not singling you out Thaedydal.

tomski

Wow Drift thats a huge post. Just to clarify, if some people think that abortion is the ending of a potential human life then thats fine. But its not scienitifically, it is the deliberate killing of an individual human being. I am entitled to beleive the earth is flat, but my beleiving this doesnt make it so.

About the ability of a statistician to present evidence in a subjective manner-- Prof. Ferguson, whi is responsible for the most comprehensive study showing strong links between suicide, depression ,drug abuse and abortion, is actually pro-choice!! He has claimed his study surprised him and that he is reconsidering his position.

Why isnt adoption mentioned more often in this discussion??

ireneeny!!

theres always one ignoramous who has to call abortion murder. narrow minded people. im sure society is very proud of you