Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Abortion

Options
1…5681011…16

Comments

  • Options
    #212
    Rosita
    Registered Users Posts: 4,011 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #213
    Rosita
    Registered Users Posts: 4,011 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #214
    Rosita
    Registered Users Posts: 4,011 ✭✭✭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?


  • Options
    #215
    Nevyn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 43,045 ✭✭✭✭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 ?


  • Options
    #216
    JimiTime
    Registered Users Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭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'.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #217
    Nevyn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 43,045 ✭✭✭✭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 ?


  • Options
    #218
    JimiTime
    Registered Users Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #219
    Rosita
    Registered Users Posts: 4,011 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #220
    Stheno
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 51,687 Mod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #221
    Nevyn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 43,045 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #222
    JC 2K3
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,794 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #223
    Rosita
    Registered Users Posts: 4,011 ✭✭✭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".


  • Options
    #224
    Rosita
    Registered Users Posts: 4,011 ✭✭✭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?


  • Options
    #225
    Nevyn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 43,045 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #226
    JC 2K3
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,794 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #227
    Rosita
    Registered Users Posts: 4,011 ✭✭✭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?


  • Options
    #228
    Zaph
    Registered Users, Subscribers Posts: 47,304 ✭✭✭✭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


  • Options
    #229
    Rosita
    Registered Users Posts: 4,011 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #230
    Nevyn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 43,045 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #231
    Zaph
    Registered Users, Subscribers Posts: 47,304 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #232
    JC 2K3
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,794 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #233
    Zaph
    Registered Users, Subscribers Posts: 47,304 ✭✭✭✭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


  • Options
    #234
    Rosita
    Registered Users Posts: 4,011 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #235
    Rosita
    Registered Users Posts: 4,011 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #236
    JC 2K3
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,794 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #237
    Rosita
    Registered Users Posts: 4,011 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #238
    JC 2K3
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,794 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #239
    omb0wyn5ehpij9
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,095 ✭✭✭✭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


  • Options
    #240
    Rosita
    Registered Users Posts: 4,011 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #241
    North&South
    Registered Users Posts: 108 ✭✭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.


Advertisement