Abortion

Flojo

Malari wrote: »

I agree, but they are separate issues I think. Women who never wanted to get pregnant and have an abortion are usually doing it for very different reasons than women who would like a baby and decide that it's not as perfect as they would like, so abort.

I wasn't following any previous posts, I was commenting on abortion in general and thats the issue I had with it. All under the same header like....

Nevyn

eveie wrote: »

very good thread its good to see peoples points of views on this subject. i am actively involved in the pro-life movement.

ok.

eveie wrote: »

pro-choice is pro abortion,

Nope.

eveie wrote: »

if it were really pro choice they would suggest other alternatives.

Please show how I am not properly pro choice ?
How do you know what information I have passed on to women over the last 15 years ?
How do you know what options are discussed at a crises pregnancy session ?

eveie wrote: »

i feel it should be known that these so called "family plannin" clinics make massive profits from abortion,

None of the family planning clinics in this country make money from abortions and the maire stopes foundation and BPAS are charities and do not make profits.

So please give me some clear examples ?

eveie wrote: »

these family planning clinics may seem to have the womens best interests at heart but its ALL about profit, they make billions every yr from it, abortion is an up front payement.

This type of rethoric is right wing evangelical Christian spiel which usually is heard from americans and several of them have been funding groups here.

Which group are you active in ?
And how is it funded and by whom ?

Do you any idea how planned parenting works in the usa works ?

eveie wrote: »

also the argument that the child will not be wanted and will possibly fase mental and physical abuse is ridiclous, it is proven that physical abuse of children has risen in every country that has legalised abortion, if we dont have respect for an unborn child its unlikely we'l have respect for a child.

Really have you seen how children are treated in this country ?
Do you know the % of children effected by child poverty ?
Do you know how that effects them ?
Do you know if Ireland has ratified the UN charter on child rigths ?
Do you know if it is illegal to leave a child at home alone ?
Do you know about the lack of facilities for wayward and at risk children ?

Pro choice is not anti child.
Funny how many people who say they are pro life, pro the unborn child aren't actually pro children who are born and need people to work on their behalf. Seriously of 50% of the time and effort over the last 20 years were used in the abortion campaigning from both sides all children in this country would be better of and have better services
and we would have out of hours social care and worker for children at risk.

A_M101

I made the decision a long time ago that if I was ever to get pregnant I would never abort as I thought it was wrong.

Almost a year ago my friend fell pregnant and being pro-abortion was absolutely decided upon it. She didn't want to tell her parents and being the only one in a position to go to England with her, I did. She was a mess, father unknown and kept ignoring the organisation of the trip. Through my help she got herself together and got over there with about 15 weeks gone.

After all of this I became pro-choice. There will always be ways and means for those who really wish to abort and for this reason the support and the structure should be there so they don't have to make the traumatic visit abroad. My personal beliefs on abortion haven't changed and I myself was deeply disturbed by the trip and the loss of life in the clinic that day.

Sugar Drunk

for me if I was unlucky enought to get pregnant abortion would be the only option. I have always felt this way and have discussed with the Bf and he agrees.
Its a debate that there will always be two sides to but my body is my own and my choices are my own to make.

Dragan

Could i just ask what the pro life movment is?

I assume it's the "we don't want YOU to be able to make your own choice" movement?

JC 2K3

I would have assumed it meant they equated abortion with infantcide, and therefore opposed it.

I mean, if you're against infantcide, I wouldn't think it fair to call that stance unreasonable because you're for restricting people from making their own choice about what they do to their children.

eveie

the pro-life movement is all about choices, whereas pro-choice is just pro-abortion.
the majority of abortions are carried out with pregnancies over 16 weeks, so therefore it is not just a group of cells. there are cases when a surgeon has preformed operations on the un born child and in order to do this they have sedated the child.....why would they do this???? because the child can feel pain simple as, yet an abortionist will disect its body parts or inject ink into the unborn child, now please someone tell me how that is humaine? in my opinion it is sick.
you can raise the question of what if the pregnancy occured through rape etc but a VERY small precentage of women become pregnant from rape, only something like 2% of abortions are due to rape, why not deal with the real reasons.babies are aborted because the have cleft palates, or mild disabilities what does that say about our society? one pro-choice advocate said that all children should be aborted if they have a disability, this man is gay and was asked how would he feel if a gene was found which could tell if a child was gay or not and due to this thousands of babies were aborted because they carried this gene, in many countries being gay is some sort of a disability( i wan to state that i have nothing against gays what so ever but im just trying to make a point)
also they are many pro-choicers who believe that a parent/parents have the right to kill their child within a few months of it being born because it is not an independant being.
if you point is.....its my body.....its feeding off me well then surely you would believe that its ok to kill a born child, its still feeding off you and completely depends on you for life.
the trouble with legalising abortion is a bigger matter then what is right and what is wrong, if its legalised where does this all stop. in countries that have legalised it, unwanted pregancies have grown, teenage pregancys have grown, child abuse has grown, the problem is not being solved.
also in these countries there are still illegal abortion clinics, just because something is mage legal does not mean that there wont be any back alley clinics.
also the argument that it is me body and il do what i want with it and i dont want my figure to be ruined is actually hilarious considering there is a direct link between abortions and an increased chance of cancer, increased chance of sever depression. to be pregnant and have a baby is the most natural thing for a women to do, to abort a child is completely unnatural. we are humans what distincts us from other animals is that we have a onscience so please use it.
i would say to anyone thats on the fence about this matter to really look at both sides and the facts and then make your mind up but do not base your belief from bad sources and then make up your mind.
but it is not just your body there is a human being there with a completely different dna which distincts your body from theirs.
i have not once brought religion into my argument this is not about religion it is about whats right and whats wrong.
i have personal experience with abortion referral clinics, i have seen what they do, abortion does not solve any problems, if you truel believe that it does then you are mislead.
do you think its ok for a women to have numerous abortions, like 6 or 7? this happens all the time.
i also want to make a point that i think this thread is very against pro-life, i could take personal offence of someone being pro-choice yet it is always the other way around, i and every other poster are entitled to their opinion weather it be pro-life or pro-choice but there is alot of bias here

Zaph

eveie wrote: »

i also want to make a point that i think this thread is very against pro-life, i could take personal offence of someone being pro-choice yet it is always the other way around, i and every other poster are entitled to their opinion weather it be pro-life or pro-choice but there is alot of bias here

I think that's very much a function of the demographic using this forum as anything else. If you have a forum such as this full of well urban, educated, independent and generally young individuals the vast majority are going to be hold more liberal ideals and are therefore more likely to be pro-choice. If the demographic was more rural and older and therefore more likely to be religious and/or conservative you'd have a more pro-life bias. I don't think there's anything more than that to it, but I do agree that both sides are entitled to thei ropinion.

The_Minister

Dragan wrote: »

Could i just ask what the pro life movment is?

I assume it's the "we don't want YOU to be able to make your own choice" movement?

Or, in a less inflamatory way it's a "We know that you don't think it has rights or life, but we think it does, and you can't just kill it or pull it out like a rotten tooth" movement.

Liberalism is great, but if there is a disagreement about who human rights apply to (be it black people and slavery or foeti (?) and abortion) then you can't just say "oh its none of your business". If someone truely believes that a foetus is a baby, and then lets abortion be legal without question, then they are just like the Germans who kept quiet during the Holocaust (in that there was a dispute over humanity and they didn't make any noise). The it's none of your beeswax doesn't apply to abortion, because your asking people to stand by and let what amounts to murder (in their eyes) be committed, and no decent person will do that.

NOTE: I don't believe abortion = murder, I just think that pretending that objecting to abortion is the same as objecting say, pornography, is childish. If people look at a foetus and see human life, then they have a duty to object to its destruction.

Nevyn

eveie wrote: »

the pro-life movement is all about choices, whereas pro-choice is just pro-abortion.

Please proof this.

You still not have answered any of my other questions.

eveie wrote: »

the majority of abortions are carried out with pregnancies over 16 weeks,

Where are you getting your data from ?
What study ?
Carried out in what country ?

The current statistics in the Uk are

88% of abortions were carried out at under 13 weeks gestation; 60% were at under 10 weeks

Which is taken from www.dh.gov.uk/en/publicationsandstatistics/

eveie wrote: »

why not deal with the real reasons.babies are aborted

cos women have automny over thier bodies and no long wish to be pregnant ?

eveie wrote: »

this man is gay and was asked how would he feel if a gene was found which could tell if a child was gay or not and due to this thousands of babies were aborted because they carried this gene, in many countries being gay is some sort of a disability( i wan to state that i have nothing against gays what so ever but im just trying to make a point)

What a straw man.

eveie wrote: »

also they are many pro-choicers who believe that a parent/parents have the right to kill their child within a few months of it being born because it is not an independant being.

Please proof your statement as being more then demonising people who do not agree with you and poisoning the well.

eveie wrote: »

the trouble with legalising abortion is a bigger matter then what is right and what is wrong, if its legalised where does this all stop. in countries that have legalised it, unwanted pregancies have grown, teenage pregancys have grown, child abuse has grown, the problem is not being solved.

Yep.
Seem most of the pro lifers who are catholic and don't believe in the choices of parents who wish to have sexual and contraception education in schools and better acces to those who wish to use contraception.

eveie wrote: »

also in these countries there are still illegal abortion clinics, just because something is mage legal does not mean that there wont be any back alley clinics.

eveie wrote: »

and i dont want my figure to be ruined is actually hilarious

NO one here has said this, again is an agruement deployed by right wing american evangelical christian movements, say you never did say what pro life group you are invovled in and how they are funded.

eveie wrote: »

considering there is a direct link between abortions and an increased chance of cancer,

Cite your references and do not scare monger.

eveie wrote: »

increased chance of sever depression.

Same chances as those who suffer miscarriages and have no support and don't get help.

eveie wrote: »

to be pregnant and have a baby is the most natural thing for a women to do,

I gather you have not had kids then ?
Trust me there is a whole heap of things which happen when you are pregnant, give birth and afterwards which do not feel 'most natural'.

eveie wrote: »

to abort a child is completely unnatural.

Actually women's bodies natural abort non viable zygotes, it is why a woman may conceive and not ever be pregnant as the zygote does not implant and the womans body rejects it, most miscarriages are natural abortions.

If a woman is 2 weeks pregnant and drinks a lot of raspberry leaf tea is that
a natural abortion ?

eveie wrote: »

we are humans what distincts us from other animals is that we have a onscience so please use it.

we have the right to self determine also.

eveie wrote: »

i would say to anyone thats on the fence about this matter to really look at both sides and the facts and then make your mind up but do not base your belief from bad sources

Any chance of you referencing any of your sources any time soon ?

eveie wrote: »

is about whats right and whats wrong.

Which is a matter of morals true and they are personal.

eveie wrote: »

i have personal experience with abortion referral clinics, i have seen what they do, abortion does not solve any problems, if you truel believe that it does then you are mislead.

I too have had experience with them and have traveled with people and I know several young women who having an abortion did solve some of their problems but no one ever has a problem free life.

eveie wrote: »

do you think its ok for a women to have numerous abortions, like 6 or 7? this happens all the time.

Really again please cite your reference for this, have you a link to a report ?

reports from uk state that it is women who have had repeat abortions have had 3/4.
http://www.abortionreview.org/index.php/site/article/74/

eveie wrote: »

i also want to make a point that i think this thread is very against pro-life, i could take personal offence of someone being pro-choice yet it is always the other way around, i and every other poster are entitled to their opinion weather it be pro-life or pro-choice but there is alot of bias here

Why say pro life ?
Why not say anti abortion ?

Pro life is a loaded term for a lot of people due the fact that people who state they are that tend to be religious, anti contraception, anti sex before marriage and are bigoted in a lot of ways.

Anyone who has had to suffer the 'charming' Pro Life protestors in this country will be biased.

Rosita

panda100 wrote: »

So while I think abortion is fundamentaly wrong I think If there was a referendum on it tommorow I would probably vote to legalise abortion beacuse I would rather women have their abortions here then travelling overseas. What are the boardies thoughts?

I think this is quite bizarre. Surely if you think something is fundamentally wrong you should not support it? What you are doing is like saying I think drink-driving is fundamentally wrong but I would support people's rights to do it locally.

Rosita

Thaedydal wrote: »

Why say pro life ?
Why not say anti abortion ?

I agree with you. They should say anti-abortion. In the same way that the others should be honest and say pro-abortion. That kind of unspeak is sickening.

Other than that I find the nature of your views quite scary.

Rosita

Thaedydal wrote: »

Pro life is a loaded term for a lot of people due the fact that people who state they are that tend to be religious, anti contraception, anti sex before marriage and are bigoted in a lot of ways.

I assume you will proof this one yourself?

Nevyn

Rosita wrote: »

I agree with you. They should say anti-abortion. In the same way that the others should be honest and say pro-abortion. That kind of unspeak is sickening.

I am not pro abortion, I think it would be a great thing if not a single woman had to have make that choice, but until we advance in education and contraception or an artifical womb is created it is the reality of the world we live in.

Rosita wrote: »

Other than that I find the nature of your views quite scary.

How so ?
What ones ?

Rosita wrote: »

I assume you will proof this one yourself?

SPUC
Youth Defense
Natural law party
The mother and child campaign

The above are all catholic 'Pro life' groups that campagained against contraception, sex education and abortion in this country.

Am I the only one old enough to remember the late 80s and early 90s in this country ?

JimiTime

The_Minister wrote: »

Or, in a less inflamatory way it's a "We know that you don't think it has rights or life, but we think it does, and you can't just kill it or pull it out like a rotten tooth" movement.

Liberalism is great, but if there is a disagreement about who human rights apply to (be it black people and slavery or foeti (?) and abortion) then you can't just say "oh its none of your business". If someone truely believes that a foetus is a baby, and then lets abortion be legal without question, then they are just like the Germans who kept quiet during the Holocaust (in that there was a dispute over humanity and they didn't make any noise). The it's none of your beeswax doesn't apply to abortion, because your asking people to stand by and let what amounts to murder (in their eyes) be committed, and no decent person will do that.

NOTE: I don't believe abortion = murder, I just think that pretending that objecting to abortion is the same as objecting say, pornography, is childish. If people look at a foetus and see human life, then they have a duty to object to its destruction.

I think any pro-choice/abortion folk should read the post above. A well rounded, unbiased sensical position. To reiterate it, if one believes that an unborn child, is still a child, then they can hardly say 'oh its up to you if you want to kill your child. To them, each abortion is a mother killing her child. If this is ones belief, they are hardly going to give a monkeys about you wanting 'that' choice. To them its the equivalent to someone saying, 'I killed my newborn, because I didn't want them'.

Nevyn

I understand that JimiTime, I honestly do but what I don't is the lying about cancer, depression and abortion stastics.

Or is it ok to leave morals aside and lie and scare monger people about abortion ?
What else is it ok to leave morals aside for to prevent women from having abortions ?
To imprison them ?
To shoot drs who preform them ?
To blow up clinics ?

JimiTime

Thaedydal wrote: »

I understand that JimiTime, I honestly do but what I don't is the lying about cancer, depression and abortion stastics.

Agreed.

Or is it ok to leave morals aside and lie and scare monger people about abortion ?

Absolutely not. The ends do not justify the means.

What else is it ok to leave morals aside for to prevent women from having abortions ?
To imprison them ?

TBH, if its actually viewed as 'the unlawful killing of a child', then a prison sentance would be appropriate would it not?
I'm not saying that this is what should be done btw, however, if someone does see abortion as the killing of a child, then why would they want to let the perpatrator away with it? Unless of course they don't 'truly' see it as a child.

To shoot drs who preform them ?

Again, absolutely not. If a doctor is acting within the law, then the issue is with the law makers. As I said, the ends does not justify the means.

To blow up clinics ?

See above.

Rosita

Thaedydal wrote: »

I am not pro abortion.

So you support the continued outlawing of it in this country?

This is a situation where human life is ended so people are either pro or anti, nothwithstanding their semantic gymnastics on the matter - there is no middle ground.

Stheno

Rosita wrote: »

So you support the continued outlawing of it in this country?

This is a situation where human life is ended so people are either pro or anti, nothwithstanding their semantic gymnastics on the matter - there is no middle ground.

It's not imo, it's a situation where the potential for a human life to exist is ended.

Nevyn

Rosita wrote: »

So you support the continued outlawing of it in this country?

No, but with restrictions.

Rosita wrote: »

This is a situation where human life is ended so people are either pro or anti, nothwithstanding their semantic gymnastics on the matter - there is no middle ground.

Ah you see I don't think it is that straight forward, yes potiental human life, totally, but I think there is a point where it goes from potiental to actual human life, when we don't have enough data on.

JC 2K3

Rosita wrote: »

This is a situation where human life is ended so people are either pro or anti, nothwithstanding their semantic gymnastics on the matter - there is no middle ground.

There's no moral middle ground, there is however a thing called tolerance which, in this imperfect world, is necessary for peace and harmony.

I mean it might be sad and so terribly wrong in your opinion that people are having abortions, but think of the bigger picture and all of the wrongs in the world that you passively tolerate, probably unthinkingly, on a daily basis, and you'll realise that the deaths of a few unborn children are hugely insignificant compared to the suffering that exists in the world today. Despite the fact that you oppose abortion, is it really such a big deal for it to be legal? The abortions would most likely have happened anyway. So while they might be something you're deeply against, keeping them illegal isn't going to stop them happening.

Rosita

JC 2K3 wrote: »

There's no moral middle ground, there is however a thing called tolerance which, in this imperfect world, is necessary for peace and harmony.

I mean it might be sad and so terribly wrong in your opinion that people are having abortions, but think of the bigger picture and all of the wrongs in the world that you passively tolerate, probably unthinkingly, on a daily basis, and you'll realise that the deaths of a few unborn children are hugely insignificant compared to the suffering that exists in the world today. Despite the fact that you oppose abortion, is it really such a big deal for it to be legal? The abortions would most likely have happened anyway. So while they might be something you're deeply against, keeping them illegal isn't going to stop them happening.

I never said I opposed abortion. I just challenged some of the spurious arguments put up, some of which are exemplified by yourself.

Would you agree with legalising murder on the basis that it'll "most likely happen" anyway? Would you agree with legalising murder on the grounds that while there is no moral middle ground, we must show "tolerance" of murderers in the interests of "peace and harmony"?

Should Hitler have been shown "tolerance" even though there was no moral middle ground in relation to extermination camps?

Would you agee with gunning down five people at a bus-stop on the grounds that there's loads of people suffering in Africa and in that context that number of death are "hugely insignificant"?

Dou you think all laws should be chuck in the bin and a Hobbesian society allowed to develop in the area of all currently illegal acts, on the basis "keeping them illegal isn't going to stop them happening".

Rosita

Thaedydal wrote: »

No, but with restrictions.

What restrictions? And how would those restrictions be policed and abortion be prevented from becoming de facto legalised on the slippery slope principle?

Nevyn

Rosita wrote: »

I never said I opposed abortion. I just challenged some of the spurious arguments put up, some of which are exemplified by yourself.

Would you agree with legalising murder on the basis that it'll "most likely happen" anyway? Would you agree with legalising murder on the grounds that while there is no moral middle ground, we must show "tolerance" of murderers in the interests of "peace and harmony"?

Should Hitler have been shown "tolerance" even though there was no moral middle ground in relation to extermination camps?

Would you agee with gunning down five people at a bus-stop on the grounds that there's loads of people suffering in Africa and in that context that number of death are "hugely insignificant"?

Dou you think all laws should be chuck in the bin and a Hobbesian society allowed to develop in the area of all currently illegal acts, on the basis "keeping them illegal isn't going to stop them happening".

This style of debate is more suited to the humanities forum.

JC 2K3

Rosita wrote: »

Would you agree with legalising murder on the basis that it'll "most likely happen" anyway? Would you agree with legalising murder on the grounds that while there is no moral middle ground, we must show "tolerance" of murderers in the interests of "peace and harmony"?

No, because murder is axiomatically wrong, it's a cornerstone of our society. In fact, the whole abortion debate originates in this axiom.

Rosita wrote: »

Should Hitler have been shown "tolerance" even though there was no moral middle ground in relation to extermination camps?

Godwin's Law.

And he was for a good 4/5 years with the Allies' appeasement policy, but aside from that, Nazi Germany was a huge exception to the normal order of the world.

Rosita wrote: »

Dou you think all laws should be chuck in the bin and a Hobbesian society allowed to develop in the area of all currently illegal acts, on the basis "keeping them illegal isn't going to stop them happening".

All laws? No. Many laws? Yes. Abortion, prostitution, drugs etc.should all be legal IMO.

Rosita

JC 2K3 wrote: »

1) No, because murder is axiomatically wrong, it's a cornerstone of our society. In fact, the whole abortion debate originates in this axiom.


And he was for a good 4/5 years with the Allies' appeasement policy, but aside from that, Nazi Germany was a huge exception to the normal order of the world.


All laws? No. Many laws? Yes. Abortion, prostitution, drugs etc.should all be legal IMO.

1) Then I presume you would acknowledge the weakness of your "tolerance" argument for those who believe that abortion too is axiomatically wrong?


2) Discussion of where the Nazis fit in the history book is a different matter. I simply asked if your idea that tolerance in the face of moral wrong-doing is ok in that situation, in order to show that you are far more inconsistent that your initial comments suggest.

On an aside - it is ahistorical to confuse 1930s appeasement policies with my question about extermination camps which came much later.

3) On what basis do you think abortion should be made legal? You have implicitly eliminated 'choice' as an argument already as you accept that there needs to be laws without regard for what people might like to do and which impinge on choice, so what would your key arguments be?

Zaph

Thaedydal wrote: »

This style of debate is more suited to the humanities forum.

When the conversation starts turning into a debate that includes Hitler and the Nazis I am inclined to agree.

Moved from The Ladies Lounge

Rosita

Zaph wrote: »

When the conversation starts turning into a debate that includes Hitler and the Nazis I am inclined to agree.

Moved from The Ladies Lounge

I'm not sure this was necessary. It was hardly a major debate in the Nazis. It was simply brought up in a couple of posts alongside drink-driving, murder etc. in order to highlight inconsistencies on moral issues, which for many abortion is.

Nevyn

Rosita wrote: »

What restrictions? And how would those restrictions be policed and abortion be prevented from becoming de facto legalised on the slippery slope principle?

I would have no qualms about medical abortion via the abortion pill being available under prescription here.

Zaph

Rosita wrote: »

I'm not sure this was necessary. It was hardly a major debate in the Nazis. It was simply brought up in a couple of posts alongside drink-driving, murder etc. in order to highlight inconsistencies on moral issues, which for many abortion is.

Which is why it's back now. Apologies for the slight break in continuity there.

JC 2K3

Rosita wrote: »

1) Then I presume you would acknowledge the weakness of your "tolerance" argument for those who believe that abortion too is axiomatically wrong?

Believing abortion to be axiomatically wrong would be an odd moral position. I would have presumed most anti-abortion folk would be opposed to abortion becaue they think it's murder, rather than it being an entirely different moral wrong.

And, to clarify, what I mean by "axiomatically wrong" is that it is something that is generally accepted as universally wrong. Murder is, abortion is not.

Rosita wrote: »

2) Discussion of where the Nazis fit in the history book is a different matter. I simply asked if your idea that tolerance in the face of moral wrong-doing is ok in that situation, in order to show that you are far more inconsistent that your initial comments suggest.

On an aside - it is ahistorical to confuse 1930s appeasement policies with my question about extermination camps which came much later.

Ok, touché. on appeasement.

However, while tolerance for such terrible wrongdoing isn't ok (it's never 100% ok if you're opposed to it), it's important to note that the holocaust wasn't the reason the Allies fought back against the Germans, but rather because their interests were threatened.

I suppose I just take a very cynical view of the situation. In a world where the vast majority of people are passively indifferent to what they presumably all interpret as such great wrongdoings, I don't see why those who are anti-abortion would be so concerned about something that they alone consider to be wrong and that is so small and insignificant in the grand scheme of things. The only conclusion I can come to is proximity to said wrongdoings, which is a bit of an illogical argument.

Rosita wrote: »

3) On what basis do you think abortion should be made legal? You have implicitly eliminated 'choice' as an argument already as you accept that there needs to be laws without regard for what people might like to do and which impinge on choice, so what would your key arguments be?

Well my key argument would be that there's nothing wrong with killing foetuses because I don't believe they're people.

At the end of the day, however, it comes down to democracy. Many people, myself included, think abortion is perfectly fine, or at least support its legalisation, and I suppose that is what it comes down to really. Respect for the beliefs and choices of others in relation to what is such an insignificant wrongdoing(in their eyes) would be my appeal to the anti-abortion crowd as well as the undecided to support its legalisation.

Zaph

OK, now that we're back, no more discussions about Nazis, the Holocaust, appeasement, etc., if you wouldn't mind. While I understand that such comments were being made in in relation to moral issues, the moral issue here (for some) is abortion, so please try to keep on topic.

Thanks

Zaph

Rosita

Thaedydal wrote: »

I would have no qualms about medical abortion via the abortion pill being available under prescription here.

But you said previously that you were not pro abortion? Now it appears you are as long as it's by a certain method.

Rosita

JC 2K3 wrote: »

1) Believing abortion to be axiomatically wrong would be an odd moral position. I would have presumed most anti-abortion folk would be opposed to abortion becaue they think it's murder, rather than it being an entirely different moral wrong.

And, to clarify, what I mean by "axiomatically wrong" is that it is something that is generally accepted as universally wrong. Murder is, abortion is not.


2) Well my key argument would be that there's nothing wrong with killing foetuses because I don't believe they're people.

3) At the end of the day, however, it comes down to democracy. Many people, myself included, think abortion is perfectly fine, or at least support its legalisation, and I suppose that is what it comes down to really. Respect for the beliefs and choices of others in relation to what is such an insignificant wrongdoing(in their eyes) would be my appeal to the anti-abortion crowd as well as the undecided to support its legalisation.

1) I am not sure about your axiomatic definitions. Plenty of people are perfectly happy to commit murder without moral qualm.

2) If they are not people what are they?

3) But the corollary of this is that a hit-man should legally entitled to kill people on the basis that he considers (presumably) it an insignificant wrong-doing. This is just whatever you are having yourself libertarianism which - when you strip away the superficial attraction and tolerance - tends to be deeply flawed and inconsistent.

JC 2K3

Rosita wrote: »

1) I am not sure about your axiomatic definitions. Plenty of people are perfectly happy to commit murder without moral qualm.

Yes, but I said "generally universally accepted". Society functions better and people feel more secure when moral deviants are deterred by laws.

Rosita wrote: »

2) If they are not people what are they?

Humans at such an early stage of development that the philosophical label of "personhood" and the societal protection and human rights that come with it do not apply to them.

Rosita wrote: »

3) But the corollary of this is that a hit-man should legally entitled to kill people on the basis that he considers (presumably) it an insignificant wrong-doing. This is just whatever you are having yourself libertarianism which - when you strip away the superficial attraction and tolerance - tends to be deeply flawed and inconsistent.

The difference being, the death of a member of one's society is significant, whereas abortion has no negative impact on society.

Rosita

JC 2K3 wrote: »

1) Yes, but I said "generally universally accepted". Society functions better and people feel more secure when moral deviants are deterred by laws.


2) Humans at such an early stage of development that the philosophical label of "personhood" and the societal protection and human rights that come with it do not apply to them.


3) The difference being, the death of a member of one's society is significant, whereas abortion has no negative impact on society.

1) Who decides who moral deviants are?

2) You have not answered the question. I asked you what they are, you are telling me what they are not.

3) Well that is, as the man said, an unknown unknown isn't it? We cannot measure its impact, that's all. Potentially some of the greatest contributors to the human race could have been victims of abortions.

JC 2K3

Rosita wrote: »

1) Who decides who moral deviants are?

No one. They are simply those whose perceptions of morality are vastly different to the majority.

Rosita wrote: »

2) You have not answered the question. I asked you what they are, you are telling me what they are not.

I did tell you what they were, read my post again.

Rosita wrote: »

3) Well that is, as the man said, an unknown unknown isn't it? We cannot measure its impact, that's all. Potentially some of the greatest contributors to the human race could have been victims of abortions.

You see, I don't see any difference between saying that or saying that potentially some of the greatest contributors to the human race could have been victims of girls refusing to have sex with me or me using a condom during sex.

omb0wyn5ehpij9

I am pro-life. If i was going out with a girl and she decided to abort my child, i could never speak to her again. Obviously everybody is different though

Rosita

JC 2K3 wrote: »

1) I did tell you what they were, read my post again.

2) You see, I don't see any difference between saying that or saying that potentially some of the greatest contributors to the human race could have been victims of girls refusing to have sex with me or me using a condom during sex.

1) Yes, but this confuses me greatly. The one word that is not telling me what they are not is the word "humans". You define foetuses as "humans" albeit "without the philosophical label of 'personhood' and the societal protection and human rights that come with it do not apply to them". (it does seem odd for an person in Ireland to describe them as not having societal protection and human rights considering abortion is illegal in this country but that's an aside).

Again, to reiterate, you defined foetuses as "humans", yet in your post at 17.28 today you wrote "my key argument would be that there's nothing wrong with killing foetuses because I don't believe they're people".

If your key argument is that foetuses are not people............does describing them as humans in a later post not suggest some significant ambiguity in your key argument since the terms are synonymous?

OED definition of 'person' - a human being regarded as an individual.

North&South

Abortion. One of the topics that should stand alongside religion & politics where an open debate is concerned.

For some people, it's a highly emotive issue. It should be a topic where other folks opinions are respected, whether you agree or not.

For some, it's the correct choice - for others, it's not.

On a personal note, it was correct for me at 15yrs of age - again, it was NOT the correct choice at 21. Each pregnancy should be dealt with individually - and all parties involved should be consulted and be in agreement.

Beyond that, there should be no intervention - and yes, it should be legal in this day and age.

My opinion, whether it's agreed with or no, it's how I view things.

JC 2K3

Rosita wrote: »

the terms are synonymous?

They're not synonymous, not by my philosophy anyway (perhaps my terminology is stricly incorrect, but the distinction between humanity and personhood is often discussed in abortion debates). I don't think that any organism posessing human DNA is inherently sacred. I see laws against murder to function as more of a means of collective security rather than protecting some sacred right to life.

baglady

I don't know what to label myself really. I would like to say I would never have an abortion, unless of course my life was at risk, but it is possible I would change my opinion if I were raped. In my current situation if I found out I was pregnant, I would go through with it, no questions asked. I know it is not an ideal time in my life but I know I could not deal with having an abortion. I am in a longterm r'ship. I know that if I had gotten pregnant a few years ago at the start of this r'ship I would still have gone through with it. A friend of mine had a baby just before she turned 19, we had just started 2nd year in college. When I think to how well she has coped etc. it kind of scares me to think that she could have had an abortion and not her daughter would not be here. I don't think I should have the right to tell other people what to do, even if what they are doing is wrong imo. However, I really really don't understand it when women say "it's my body" because as far as I am concerned, inside your body there is another being. At 4 weeks there is another heart beat begining to develop. To me that is a person, I know people will disagree, but it is how I fundamentally feel about it.

watna

Like a number of other posters here I firmly believe every woman should have the choice to have an abortion.

Personally, I don't think I could ever do it and I don't believe it's the right thing for myself but I'd never judge a woman who had. Everyone's situation is different.

JimiTime

watna wrote: »

Like a number of other posters here I firmly believe every woman should have the choice to have an abortion.

Personally, I don't think I could ever do it and I don't believe it's the right thing for myself but I'd never judge a woman who had. Everyone's situation is different.

The issue for those who are anti-abortion, is the fact that the growing child is viewed as a person. So whatever ones views are about choices, the anti-abortion person just see's you as murdering your own child. So really this 'right to choice', means absolutely nothing to them. Its the equivalent of having the 'right to choose' to murder their newborn. I think lots of people fail to grasp that concept.

minidazzler

JimiTime wrote: »

The issue for those who are anti-abortion, is the fact that the growing child is viewed as a person. So whatever ones views are about choices, the anti-abortion person just see's you as murdering your own child. So really this 'right to choice', means absolutely nothing to them. Its the equivalent of having the 'right to choose' to murder their newborn. I think lots of people fail to grasp that concept.

That's the same way I see it. However, I do think the MAP is a good thing since it is only licenced for up to 72 hours after sex. I believe that if mothers are eventually given the "Right to choose" abortion then they should consequentally be give the "Right to choose" to kill there off spring any time they want.

Rosita

JC 2K3 wrote: »

They're not synonymous, not by my philosophy anyway (perhaps my terminology is stricly incorrect, but the distinction between humanity and personhood is often discussed in abortion debates). I don't think that any organism posessing human DNA is inherently sacred. I see laws against murder to function as more of a means of collective security rather than protecting some sacred right to life.

What I said was that 'human' and 'person' are synonymous. I said nothing about 'personhood' except to include it, for completeness, in a quote of your own.

I have no idea what the definition of 'personhood' is. I cannot find it in the dictionary. But I presume it is some fluid kind of philosophical definition relating to rights etc.

As for the right to life.....I'm would be concerned about the used of the adjective 'sacred' as it might have a tendency to make ant-religious zealots go opver the top.

But society in effect asserts the 'right to life' by outlawing murder, though certainly their is no inalienable right to life as defined by many societies,(as opposed to 'sacred') as many societies come down like a ton of bricks on murder while simultaneously tolerating the death penalty. The difference is that the ending of life via the death penalty is a punishment while the ending of life via abortion is a slightly different matter and whether it should be allowed is a different debate.

What is preposterous is the idea that it should be allowed simply because people should have the 'right to choose'. Neither is their any such thing as the inalienable right to choose and certainly under no circumstances should the 'right to choose' be deemed superior to a 'right' generally greatly defended by society.

JC 2K3

Rosita wrote: »

The ending of life via abortion is a slightly different matter and whether it should be allowed is a different debate.

What is preposterous is the idea that it should be allowed simply because people should have the 'right to choose'. Neither is their any such thing as the inalienable right to choose.

??

What have we been discussing for the last few posts then? I never mentioned choice, and in fact you dismissed the idea that we were discussing a matter of choice in your second reply to me......

Indeed the whole "The woman has the right to choose" argument is a load of crap IMO, since to the audience they're trying to convince it essentially means "The woman has the right to choose to kill for her own convenience and wellbeing".

All I said was that if pro-lifers considered how insignificant a wrong abortion is in the grand scheme of things, that it's understandable that others mightn't consider it murder and that they're going to happen anyway, then maybe they could find legal abortion more acceptable.

ChickCool

im defo pro life, a baby is a life as soon as a woman is pregnant and i dont believe anyone has the right to take a life away. feel sorry for the women who have an abortion though because it cant be an easy decision to make

Nevyn

Rosita wrote: »

But you said previously that you were not pro abortion? Now it appears you are as long as it's by a certain method.

I believe that women have the right to choices when they are in a crises pregnancy and those should be supported, legal and non hypocritical choices.

eveie

Thaedydal

i am not in the slightest bit impressed that you think that ive used scare tactics!
it is true and documented that there IS a direct link between certain types of cancer and abortion. also research carried out in sweeden and findland has discovered that a women who has had an abortion is 6 times more likely to commit suicide. they are more likely to be drug abusers etc.
i am involved in the PLC (pro-life campaign) and i am pro-life not just anti-abortion. i am not very religious although i do have some faith. although i never base my arguments on religion. the majority of younger people joining campaigns like this are the same.
the major issue people have with for instance "youth defence" is their use of graphic pictures that show aborted babies. people seem to have a major issue with this? why? many people have lost a loved one through a car accident and find it very distressing to watch a advertisment showing the effects of speeding etc yet they dont kick up blue murder about it. and as we all know some of these advertisments are very graphic,and in fact they use scare tactics to try and prevent us from drink driving/speeding.now i will say there is a time and a place for this and i do not agree with many of the things that they do.
if you were to show a child these pictures they would ask "what happened the baby" if a child can reconiose one of these beings as a baby then why cant we?
i take great offfence in Thaedyal saying that i am scare mongering, i want an apology. anything i have stated here is facts, i am not altering them in anyway.
when a women comes face to face with a crisis pregnancy do yo really think she is of the right mind frame to make the right decision, that is why its called a crisis, we do things in a crisis that we would never consider otherwise. unless you have evidence to show that what i said is a lie then you dont have the right to tell me im scare mongering. this really annoyes me, if women knew the side affects of abortion i believe many would choose not to have one.
a miscarraige is a natural occurance, for some reason or another a womens body cannot facilitate the growing baby and rejects it, however it is very insensitive to compare this with abortion as many women who have suffered miscarraiges have wanted their child it was their body that rejected it, where abortion is where a women chooses to terminate her pregnancy

here are some websites you can check out and sorry for the delay in getting them to you
www.abortionfacts.com
www.afterabortion.org
www.abortionconcern.org
www.doctorsforlifeinternational.com
www.chmeds.as.nz/research/chds/view1.pdf

the last site is about abortion and depression and is the largest study ever undertaken on the subject