Abortion

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

JC 2K3

eveie wrote: »

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.

Well that's societal guilt, isn't it? The guilt and depression that drives them to commit suicide or abuse drugs has to come from somewhere

eveie wrote: »

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 could use Photoshop to create a picture of a dead foetus that looked real, or even make a 3D model of one, and a child would ask of it "what happened to the baby?". Just because it looks like a baby doesn't make it one.

You simply subscribe to the belief that all human life is inherently sacred, presumably from the moment of conception onwards. Personally, I don't believe in this inherent sacredness, but rather that we protect people in our society, and I don't think it's rational to call any human organism a person until they are born. It's not to do with what they look like or what they've developed, it's the fact that they exist in the outside world and are embraced by society.

Dragan

eveie wrote: »

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?

The child will recognise another young member of the same species, that is hardly surprising and hardly unique to humans either.

eveie

yes dragan but another person of mature age would deny it was a human where it is obvious that it is.
any bona-fide campaign will not use photoshoped picyures although i do know they excist.
again this is where people are denying that the picture they are seeing is a baby a child, injected with salt solution ir suc into several pieces.
i dont think its societal guilt i think we feel guilt if we know we've done something worng. i know a few women who have had abortions and not one of them is 100% happy with their decision.
yes i suppose i do believe that all human life is sacred.
what annoys me is that abortion for instance in england was brought in solely for cases where the child would be suffering from a disability (i do not agree with this either) and they are thousands of perfectly formed children being aborted every yr. i have a cousin for instance who has many disibilities, some people who agrue that she has no quality of life, she is loved and cared for, she does not have a long life expectancy, and although her condition is very difficult on her family they love and accept her regardless, who has the roigh to say that she doesnt have the right to life. abortion is being abused everyday, it is being commercialised and anyone can avail of it, which is wrong, abortion is not a right, whereas every human has the right to life.

Nerin

Pro-choice- a womans body is her own freakin business. If i had something growing inside me i'd Certainly want rid of it. As for the right to life folk,who try and come off as the good guys,they're usually the ones that make great adverts for abortion. I've had 3 or 4 friends go for such procedures, and receive terrible treatment from irish people 'in the options business'. (disclaimer-i don't think all right to life folk are bad,just 80percent of the ones i've talked to) (awaits baby murderer insults)

eveie

nerin i dont know who youve talked to, but they certainly had no right to talk to your frineds like that. it would be hypocritical of me to verbally abuse a women who chooses abortion yet defend the right to life.
why is the bad press ALWAYS coming from the pro-life side of things. how about these abortion referral clinics who scan a girl and so not let her see the scan stating "there is nothing to see" yet when its demanded that they see it a clearly visable child is in the picture, how is that fair, thats misleading and cruel. its ironic that most doctors become doctors to save lives yet they destroy lives every day.
in one section of a hospital they may be fighting to save an unborn child but in another section they are tearing it to pieces

JC 2K3

eveie wrote: »

i dont think its societal guilt i think we feel guilt if we know we've done something worng.

Morality is derived from society.

eveie wrote: »

yes i suppose i do believe that all human life is sacred.

That's your belief. Others do not share this belief, and that's what it all comes down to.

eveie wrote: »

what annoys me is that abortion for instance in england was brought in solely for cases where the child would be suffering from a disability (i do not agree with this either) and they are thousands of perfectly formed children being aborted every yr. i have a cousin for instance who has many disibilities, some people who agrue that she has no quality of life, she is loved and cared for, she does not have a long life expectancy, and although her condition is very difficult on her family they love and accept her regardless, who has the roigh to say that she doesnt have the right to life. abortion is being abused everyday, it is being commercialised and anyone can avail of it, which is wrong, abortion is not a right, whereas every human has the right to life.

Now you're rambling. I thought abortion annoyed you in the first place, why the tangent?

Rabies

eveie wrote: »

in one section of a hospital they may be fighting to save an unborn child but in another section they are tearing it to pieces

Thats a bit rich now isn't it.

Abortions are not carried out in hospital where normal general health care is performed.

Abortions are separate and done in specialised clinics.

Bit of a difference.

Nerin

eveie wrote: »

nerin i dont know who youve talked to, but they certainly had no right to talk to your frineds like that. it would be hypocritical of me to verbally abuse a women who chooses abortion yet defend the right to life.
why is the bad press ALWAYS coming from the pro-life side of things. how about these abortion referral clinics who scan a girl and so not let her see the scan stating "there is nothing to see" yet when its demanded that they see it a clearly visable child is in the picture, how is that fair, thats misleading and cruel. its ironic that most doctors become doctors to save lives yet they destroy lives every day.
in one section of a hospital they may be fighting to save an unborn child but in another section they are tearing it to pieces

I agree,they had no right to speak to my friends like that,and if i was there my mind would be clear enough for tongue lashing and name taking. I'm not one for generalisations(in serious discussions at least ) i think the worst thing for your movement are the crazies that stand outside abortion clinics shouting and holding up signs. As for doctors giving and taking life,in one instance,the unborn child is wanted,in the other it is not. Its simple for some of us,like me,to see it that way,i understand it seems ridiculous to you,but such is life. God takes life indiscriminately,we have the ability to take it when needed. The choice still should be there,if you believe only god should decide,don't get an abortion,but if i believe we should be able to choose,you should not stand in my way.

JC 2K3

eveie wrote: »

why is the bad press ALWAYS coming from the pro-life side of things. how about these abortion referral clinics who scan a girl and so not let her see the scan stating "there is nothing to see" yet when its demanded that they see it a clearly visable child is in the picture, how is that fair, thats misleading and cruel.

I would say that they refrain from showing the woman in case she may have a negative, irrational, emotional reaction to seeing what looks like, but isn't, a baby. It's quite considerate really.

eveie wrote: »

in one section of a hospital they may be fighting to save an unborn child but in another section they are tearing it to pieces

Presumably one set of parents would like the foetus inside the mother to grow into a person and the others do not want this, so choose to get rid of it.

No different to one couple not using a condom because they want to conceive and another couple using one because they don't. The latter couple could be said to be "denying a potential child the right to life", but personally I don't believe it's out moral obligation to give life to any potential person.

eveie

in england abortions are carried out in public hospitals.....fact
jc2k3 if a women/man had a tumor, or liung cancer and the doctor did not tell him the the facts about his/her diease it would be a breach of conduct, you cannot withhold any medical evidence or information from a patient. therefore by denying the women of a visual of the c=hild that grows inside her is a breach of conduct. yet abortion is the ONLY surgery which can be carried out without the patirent knowing all the facts about the procedure. not you can argue the whole she may have a negative, irrational, emotional reaction, but surley you can see that thisid a form of denial.
are you saying that something that clearly looks like a baby is not a baby? how can someone mistaken what a baby looks like and how can someone deny then that it is a baby? that makes no sense.

JC 2K3

eveie wrote: »

are you saying that something that clearly looks like a baby is not a baby? how can someone mistaken what a baby looks like and how can someone deny then that it is a baby? that makes no sense.

Because the distinction between a mere organism with human DNA and an actual person, a member of society, is immaterial. The state of being a person which society protects is a philosophical concept. Looking at the situation from a logical standpoint, there's no reason to apply this concept to the unborn.

eveie

so we should not protect the unborn? of a women is in labour and something happens which is deathramantal to the unborn baby we should do nothing about it? whats the difference between a baby thats 1 wk away from being born then a baby thats a day old? has the born baby a greater right to life?
and im not talking about a mere organism im taking about a child thats about 10-12 weeks concieved.
there is every reason to protect the unborn, just because of their situation you are saying they've less of a right to live. they maybe in a womb but they are still alive, still people.
can i ask do you agree with partial bith abortions? surely you do if you state
"The state of being a person which society protects is a philosophical concept. Looking at the situation from a logical standpoint, there's no reason to apply this concept to the unborn. "Today 11:12
sure to hell with it lets kill all children and old people that are dependant on others.

Nerin

You were doing so well until the kill all children bit. Now its becoming similar to the crazy posts from a similar thread in humanities.

eveie

nerin i didnt use "kill" to describe the termination of a preganncy i used it in relation to born children that are obviously dependant on others, what im saying is if we use the excuse of oh well the unborn is dependant on me and cannot live with out so therefore it is my decision then that argument can be easily transended to the born child who is still dependant on the parent, is it ok to kill a born child? if that is someones way of thinking then it would only make sense that that would be their feeling on the born child

john_aero

i can see the mind set of some people if they had been attacked or abused and got pregnant of for medical reasons where the child or parnet may die during pregnancy or birth but if i knew some one had my child i would want to know and would want them to be born

minidazzler

Thaedydal wrote: »

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.

Thaedydal, May I ask what you would consider a Crisis Pregnancy.

I assume you mean a pregnancy as a result of sexual assault. Not one as a result of a voluntary one night stand?

JC 2K3

eveie wrote: »

so we should not protect the unborn? of a women is in labour and something happens which is deathramantal to the unborn baby we should do nothing about it?

Well if the woman wants the child then presumably doctors would try and save it.

eveie wrote: »

whats the difference between a baby thats 1 wk away from being born then a baby thats a day old? has the born baby a greater right to life?

Yes it does. You have to draw the line somewhere. I could equally ask you what's the difference between a sperm and ovum a week before they potentially bind and become a zygote and the resulting zygote? I mean you could say that every time a sperm and ovum are destroyed, a person is denied the right to life.

However, see the last line of this post.

eveie wrote: »

can i ask do you agree with partial bith abortions?

I suppose I do. It's not pretty, but I can't allow squeamishness to get in the way of my rational thought.

Though, leaving an abortion to such a late stage would be pretty stupid IMO. A 24 week legal limit, while arbitrary, would probably please most pro-choice people and make more sense for a number of reasons.

Nevyn

JC 2K3 wrote: »

Well that's societal guilt, isn't it? The guilt and depression that drives them to commit suicide or abuse drugs has to come from somewhere.

It the guilt, the taboo, the shame foisted on women and that fact that they do grieve the child that they never had.

Every woman, which is roughly at least 6,000 a year who goes to have an abortion knows full well that they would have a baby if they did not have the procedure and will wonder what might have been and grieve, that plus the taboo and thinking that they can't tell anyone as they will be abused and ostricised and the biochemical changes that thier body will do through will it goes from being pregnant to not being pregnant had it's effects and the first year is hard.

This is why we do need better education and supports, more then just the 6 week post check up or so called pro life post abortion support groups which as their first steps ask women to declare what they did was wrong and to pray for forgiveness and healing.

Still the vast majority of women and at this stage over the last 20 years we are talking at least 80,000 choose to abortion as they do not wish to continue the pregnancy and knew full well what that ment.

eveie wrote: »

in england abortions are carried out in public hospitals.....fact

Some are carried out in clinics which are on the same grounds as hospitals the most are done in totally separate clinics not attached to a hospital.

eveie wrote: »

there is every reason to protect the unborn, just because of their situation you are saying they've less of a right to live. they maybe in a womb but they are still alive, still people.

Many disagree with that.

eveie wrote: »

surely you do if you state
"The state of being a person which society protects is a philosophical concept. Looking at the situation from a logical standpoint, there's no reason to apply this concept to the unborn. "Today 11:12
sure to hell with it lets kill all children and old people that are dependant on others.

That is inflammatory posting.

I am looking at the links you gave so far, again you have not mentioned which group you are invovled with.

Nevyn

minidazzler wrote: »

Thaedydal, May I ask what you would consider a Crisis Pregnancy.

I assume you mean a pregnancy as a result of sexual assault. Not one as a result of a voluntary one night stand?

You assume wrongly.

Crisis Pregnancy is when a woman on finding out she is pregnant is upset, unhappy and in a quandry as to what do next. What choices she will make will depend on many differing circumstances. Ideally it would be great if we did have the support systems in place so that she could consider continuing the pregnancy and give the child up for adoption if she didn't want to keep it, unfortunately that is currently not an option for a lot of women due to the slut shaming that goes on.

eveie

Thaedydal
you are not reading my posts, i have stated that im am involved with PLC (pro-life campaign)
i do not know of ANY pro-life organisation here that will tell a women to pray for forgivness or to ommit she was wrong,and to be degrading to a women like that. i treat women in this situation with compassion and respect, and so do all of my co-workers. maybe in america but not here, can i ask where you got that "fact" from
guilt is a natuarl feeling although nurtured through society it is the same as feeling love or hurt. each and everyone of us has a conscience when we do something that is fundamantallly wrong that plays on out conscience.
getting away from why women have abortion economics,not the right time selfishness, family issues, rape, incest, etc do you think that abortion in itself is wrong? i know its difficult to answer that question as we all attach abortion to some outside factor