Abortion- Right or Wrong

eveie

ok so im carrying over the debate from the ladies lounge as i was told to.
i would like peoples opinion on weather thy thing abortion is right or wrong.
now im aware that thousands of women from ireland have abortion every year but do you think abortion in itself is ok or not.

JC 2K3

I'll just copy and paste from the thread in the Atheism forum:


Ultimately, I might seem a bit cold for saying this, but I really amn't too pushed about the death of something with zero real life experience or anything to define them as a unique person (DNA means nothing to me in this context).

AngryBadger

I think abortion is wrong. With the amount of contraception options available to people these days I really don't see how so many people can just "find" themselves pregnant.

I accept there are people who genuinely find themselves in the family way quite by accident having used contraception correctly and so on, but I think most people that find themselves with an unplanned pregnancy probably got there by being irresponsible.

For me the issue is one of accountability, a lot of people will say "so you'd force a woman to bring a child to term", but that's not really the issue, if people were more responsible about sex, if children were better educated as to the need for safe sex, if Ireland wasn't so close-minded to even talking about sex, I think we'd see a huge reduction in the number of unplanned pregnancies.

So I guess my point, in short, is that a lot of people are going about their daily lives with no responsible attitude toward sex, and essentially using abortion as a kind of post-contraception, which I have a huge problem with. If someone becomes pregnant, and it's not planned, why not give the child up for adoption? There are loads of couples unable to have kids that are travelling the length and breadth of the world to find children they can adopt.

all the stars

Totally a case by case thing.

im 100% pro choice.
whats right for 1 person might not be right for another.

It should at least be an option.
i personally wouldn't imagine i'd go for it- however, that choice is mine to make. and so it should be.

Malari

JC 2K3 wrote: »

I'll just copy and paste from the thread in the Atheism forum:


Ultimately, I might seem a bit cold for saying this, but I really amn't too pushed about the death of something with zero real life experience or anything to define them as a unique person (DNA means nothing to me in this context).

I feel much the same way. I think you need more than just DNA to qualify as a human. A person with relationships, life experiences, memories is to me, much more important to a foetus that I might give birth to.

Earthhorse

JC 2K3 wrote: »

Ultimately, I might seem a bit cold for saying this, but I really amn't too pushed about the death of something with zero real life experience or anything to define them as a unique person (DNA means nothing to me in this context).

Malari wrote: »

I feel much the same way. I think you need more than just DNA to qualify as a human. A person with relationships, life experiences, memories is to me, much more important to a foetus that I might give birth to.

Would you extend this logic to someone who is a minute old? A day old? A week old? What is your cut off point?

JC 2K3

Earthhorse wrote: »

Would you extend this logic to someone who is a minute old? A day old? A week old? What is your cut off point?

Birth. And yes it is somewhat arbitrary, but no more arbitrary than conception, and a lot more practical for the world we live in.

Nevyn

AngryBadger wrote: »

For me the issue is one of accountability, a lot of people will say "so you'd force a woman to bring a child to term", but that's not really the issue, if people were more responsible about sex, if children were better educated as to the need for safe sex, if Ireland wasn't so close-minded to even talking about sex, I think we'd see a huge reduction in the number of unplanned pregnancies.

True but contraception is not always 100% and not every woman can use horror moanal contraception and there will be still women who on finding they are pregnant will not want to continue the pregnancy.

AngryBadger wrote: »

So I guess my point, in short, is that a lot of people are going about their daily lives with no responsible attitude toward sex, and essentially using abortion as a kind of post-contraception, which I have a huge problem with.

Me too that is not acceptable behaviour.

AngryBadger wrote: »

If someone becomes pregnant, and it's not planned, why not give the child up for adoption? There are loads of couples unable to have kids that are travelling the length and breadth of the world to find children they can adopt.

There are several factors why a woman woudl not do this, ideally yes we would have a society where this would be supported by employeers, family ect so that it would be seen as a noble thing to do but that is not the world we live in.

IF you found that someone you slept with was pregnant and she didn't want the child would you raise it ?
If you wanted the child put up for adoption would you be there for her for the duration of the pregnacy and afterwards fully supporting her ?

Malari

Earthhorse wrote: »

Would you extend this logic to someone who is a minute old? A day old? A week old? What is your cut off point?

Personally? I would abort as soon as I found out I was pregnant. And a person who is born does have a connection with the parent, so the logic is applied to a foetus. I don't have to specify a cut-off point to have the view that abortion is suitable for some people.

JC 2K3

Thaedydal wrote: »

Me too that is not acceptable behaviour.

Why not?

Earthhorse

JC 2K3 wrote: »

Birth. And yes it is somewhat arbitrary, but no more arbitrary than conception, and a lot more practical for the world we live in.

I think it is a little more arbitrary than conception, though any point we pick will ultimately be arbitrary. Failing to see how it's more practical though.

Malari wrote: »

Personally? I would abort as soon as I found out I was pregnant. And a person who is born does have a connection with the parent, so the logic is applied to a foetus. I don't have to specify a cut-off point to have the view that abortion is suitable for some people.

No, you don't. You don't have to do anything if you don't want.

Zulu

There are other threads on this. However, seeing as you asked for an opinion:

Abortion as family planning is wrong.

Why? Because I think it's wrong to kill another person, for the sake of convenience.

AngryBadger

Thaedydal wrote: »

True but contraception is not always 100% and not every woman can use horror moanal contraception and there will be still women who on finding they are pregnant will not want to continue the pregnancy.

True, but I would not be comfortable having unprotected sex with my gf if she was on the pill. Mainly because I know it's not 100 % effective, granted you could argue the same about condoms, but I feel the individual variation is a huger factor where people are taking the pill, and it's largely impossible to account for, i.e. how to know it will work with person A, but not person B.

Thaedydal wrote: »

There are several factors why a woman woudl not do this, ideally yes we would have a society where this would be supported by employeers, family ect so that it would be seen as a noble thing to do but that is not the world we live in.

IF you found that someone you slept with was pregnant and she didn't want the child would you raise it ?
If you wanted the child put up for adoption would you be there for her for the duration of the pregnacy and afterwards fully supporting her ?

You're correct about that "not being the world we live in", but isn't the obvious solution not to wind up in that situation? I do acknowledge that a small percentage of individuals will be unlucky enough to wind up pregnant in spite of their best efforts, but those are the exception, I think most people who find themselves with an unplanned pregnancy do so because they were just stupid and irresponsible.

I'm not trying to undermine the difficulty in giving up a child for adoption after carrying it for 9 months, but the reality is that having an abortion may leave a woman with serious problems as well, (as indeed it may do to the male half of the equation), but neither is an adequate "solution", to my mind the only solution is for people to be more accoutnable to themselves for what they do.

Granted we could get into semantics re: the question is on the rightness/wrongness of abortion, but I think that question in and of itself serves no purpose other than to muddy the already murky waters around why people keep winding up with these unplanned pregnancies and then getting abortions.

Zulu

Thaedydal wrote: »

IF you found that someone you slept with was pregnant and she didn't want the child would you raise it ?

I'd encourage her to give the child to me.

If you wanted the child put up for adoption would you be there for her for the duration of the pregnacy and afterwards fully supporting her ?

Naturally. I'd be a bit apprehensive about the "afterwards" though. I take it you are talking about post-natal depression?

TerrorFirmer

Don't believe it can ever be justified as 'right', but that doesn't necessarily mean I don't understand why people consider it OK in varying contexts, or fail to respect their personal opinion on the matter.

It might be interesting to see a poll to assert general opinion, I think discussion on the topic has been done sufficiently many times in the past and it gets quite heated.

gcgirl

i am pro choice but i do not agree with it used as contraception ! There is plenty of other methods or whatever to use in order of not getting pregnant! personally i think the cut off point should be 12 weeks for a termination. When it gets to 23/24 weeks it can survive outside the womb(source unit 8 hollo's st spent 6 months there with my lil sister ) it's not all black and white there is plenty of grey ! I know a girl who just after having a down's baby and she is going to be in and out of hospital but she would not swap her for anything ! .

nacho libre

Malari wrote: »

I feel much the same way. I think you need more than just DNA to qualify as a human. A person with relationships, life experiences, memories is to me, much more important to a foetus that I might give birth to.

so you would have no objection to a new born baby being aborted then?

JC 2K3

Earthhorse wrote: »

I think it is a little more arbitrary than conception, though any point we pick will ultimately be arbitrary. Failing to see how it's more practical though.

Well a woman can conceive by accident, but can't give birth by accident.

Malari

nacho libre wrote: »

so you would have no objection to a new born baby being aborted then?

See my previous reply - I already answered this question.

Malari

Zulu wrote: »

I'd encourage her to give the child to me.

But this still takes the choice out of the woman's hands. So she has to go through an entire pregnancy, which she doesn't want to do, apart from having a child at the end of it.

eveie

ok well as many of you will know, i am pro-life.
i do not believe that abortion is a choice or a right, no one has the right to take a life. the only way to say when life begins is to say it begins at conception if this is not done then who is going to draw the line. a few yrs ago it was acceptable to abort a child of 22-24 wks post conception now with medical advances its not, as ive said before an abortion can be carried out on a 22 wk old baby with no seditive yet surgeons have preformend operations on unborn babies at this age and have obviously had to sadate them.
abortion is seen as a righ it is NOT a right, i understand that many women find themselves in tough situations but no situation can excuse the killing of a human being.
the argument of what happend if the women was raped? well the women is already after going thorugh a major violation of her body why put her through another one? if i was suffering from depression and my doctor told me to cure it il remove your abdomen id tell him where to go. abortion will not cure the trauma of being raped or cure depression.
also there are many risks associated with abortion, infertility, suicide, increaed risk of breast cancer women do not realise this.
its not "just your body" when the "thing" which i would refere to as a child your killing has a completley different set of dna then you, it is not a "just your body" when there is not just your heart beat but your childs heart beat as well and it is not "just your body" when the child produces brain waves

AngryBadger

gcgirl wrote: »

i am pro choice

What about the choice to not get pregnant? Not having a dig at you incidentally gcgirl, you just happened to say "pro-choice" which made for a handy quote

eveie

the women does not have a right to choose if her child should live or die simple as, if the women was injectiing heroine up her veins id say yeah ok, its her choice, shes not harming anyone else.

Earthhorse

Malari wrote: »

But this still takes the choice out of the woman's hands. So she has to go through an entire pregnancy, which she doesn't want to do, apart from having a child at the end of it.

On the other hand legalising abortion takes the choice of whether to keep and raise a child entirely out of the man's hands.

eveie

how do men feel about the women saying "its my choice" if you found out that your child was going to be aborted would you so easily say oh well its the womens choice

nacho libre

Malari wrote: »

See my previous reply - I already answered this question.

sorry about that. i saw that as soon as i posted.

It's handy you don't have to specify a cut off point.

Anyway in my view you are wrong that killing/aborting is a suitable option. Thankfully most people in this country see it the same way. So abortion won't be legal here anytime soon.

nacho libre

eveie wrote: »

how do men feel about the women saying "its my choice" if you found out that your child was going to be aborted would you so easily say oh well its the womens choice

i wouldn't. however, it is a nice double standard that some women employ.

JC 2K3

eveie wrote: »

no situation can excuse the killing of a human being.

I disagree.

The death of an unborn, unwanted child is of no consequence to society. And just because I take this position doesn't mean I advocate the killing of any other human ex utero.

So therefore, the one situation where I would advocate the killing of a human being would be if it were unborn, as I don't see any inherent need to grant it any rights.

Zulu

Malari wrote: »

But this still takes the choice out of the woman's hands. So she has to go through an entire pregnancy, which she doesn't want to do, apart from having a child at the end of it.

And what of the fathers choice?
Or the childs choice?

..or do these two people not count?


I

eveie

excatly nacho libre, i find it terrible that a women could pick or choose.
i often think of how id feel if my mother was pro-choice and if she would have no problem aborting a baby, i think id actualy feel pretty insecure about it, i mean if she was of that mind frame she could have aborted me,but many i was lcuky. you see life is not about luck, its about rights and every child regardless of age, sex, location, disability has the right to experience life in whatever way they can.

Malari

Earthhorse wrote: »

On the other hand legalising abortion takes the choice of whether to keep and raise a child entirely out of the man's hands.

Yes, this is true in some circumstances. But a man's investment in reproduction is over at conception, whereas a woman needs to invest a lot more through pregnancy. So it's not exactly the same.

Publin

Earthhorse wrote: »

On the other hand legalising abortion takes the choice of whether to keep and raise a child entirely out of the man's hands.

An excellent point, and one often forgotten/ignored in the heated debate that this topic often generates.

Malari wrote: »

I don't have to specify a cut-off point to have the view that abortion is suitable for some people.

That's fair enough, but if we were to legalise it we'd need a cut-off point.

For me, abortion is wrong. I do however, believe it will be legalised here, probably within a decade or two, and certainly within my lifetime.

I know contraception doesn't work all the time etc. but if you're adult enough to be having sex you should be adult enough to accept the potential consequences if there is an "accident".

eveie

"I disagree.

The death of an unborn, unwanted child is of no consequence to society. And just because I take this position doesn't mean I advocate the killing of any other human ex utero.

So therefore, the one situation where I would advocate the killing of a human being would be if it were unborn, as I don't see any inherent need to grant it any rights. " qoute form jc2k3

if we so flipently dispose of the unborn we are attacking the most vunerable in our society, if we cannot look after the most vunerable who can we look after.
would you say that a child 3 minds pre born has no rights?>>
Today 12:27

Wibbs

Earthhorse wrote: »

On the other hand legalising abortion takes the choice of whether to keep and raise a child entirely out of the man's hands.

That's part of the issue I have with this. In the case of abortion, many pro choice will say it's entirely the woman's choice, her body etc and as a man I have no right to make a choice on this either way. Yet when she gives birth I then have to take responsibility in law and society in the supporting of that child. Even if I didn't want the child in the first place.

JC 2K3

eveie wrote: »

if we so flipently dispose of the unborn we are attacking the most vunerable in our society, if we cannot look after the most vunerable who can we look after.

What does that even mean? That's just a load of meaningless rhetoric.

To attempt to answer your question: em... the second most vulnerable group and up?

Personally, I don't believe unborn children to be a part of society anyway.

eveie wrote: »

would you say that a child 3 minds pre born has no rights?

What?

Zulu

Malari wrote: »

Yes, this is true in some circumstances.

Its true in all circumstances. Unless you care to believe that the immaculate conception is a more commonly occurring phenomenon.

But a man's investment in reproduction is over at conception, whereas a woman needs to invest a lot more through pregnancy. So it's not exactly the same.

It's nice the way a fathers role can so easily be downgraded to suit an argument. Does that logic also apply when supporting a single mother?
"Well, I didn't really invest as much as you in the pregnancy, so I'm only going to pay you 15% maintainence!" :rolleyes:

Zombrex

Zulu wrote: »

Abortion as family planning is wrong.

Why? Because I think it's wrong to kill another person, for the sake of convenience.

Whats the right reason to kill another person?

Earthhorse

Malari wrote: »

Yes, this is true in some circumstances. But a man's investment in reproduction is over at conception, whereas a woman needs to invest a lot more through pregnancy. So it's not exactly the same.

Not exactly the same but still worth considering. We cannot make it otherwise unfortunately; right now, we're stuck with what biology gave us.

Publin wrote: »

For me, abortion is wrong. I do however, believe it will be legalised here, probably within a decade or two, and certainly within my lifetime.

I agree, abortion will more than likely be legalised in this country in the next few decades.

JC 2K3

Earthhorse wrote: »

On the other hand legalising abortion takes the choice of whether to keep and raise a child entirely out of the man's hands.

No it doesn't. Abortion laws based on the "it's the woman's choice" line of thinking does. There's no reason, however, that laws could not be brought in that are protective of the father's rights.

eveie

"The death of an unborn, unwanted child is of no consequence to society."
"So therefore, the one situation where I would advocate the killing of a human being would be if it were unborn, as I don't see any inherent need to grant it any rights." this is what you stated jc2k3 so in other words only born children have rights? what i asked was does a child who is 3 minutes away from being born have rights?

Earthhorse

Wicknight wrote: »

Whats the right reason to kill another person?

Self defense?

JC 2K3 wrote: »

No it doesn't. Abortion laws based on the "it's the woman's choice" line of thinking does. There's no reason, however, that laws could not be brought in that are protective of the father's rights.

How would such a law work?

JC 2K3

eveie wrote: »

"The death of an unborn, unwanted child is of no consequence to society."
"So therefore, the one situation where I would advocate the killing of a human being would be if it were unborn, as I don't see any inherent need to grant it any rights." this is what you stated jc2k3 so in other words only born children have rights?

In my opinion, yes.

eveie wrote: »

what i asked was does a child who is 3 minutes away from being born have rights?

In my opinion, no.

Publin

JC 2K3 wrote: »

No it doesn't. Abortion laws based on the "it's the woman's choice" line of thinking does. There's no reason, however, that laws could not be brought in that are protective of the father's rights.

So if the woman goes for the abortion and tells the medical staff that "oh well, I'm not sure who the father is", even though she knows and hasn't consulted him?... I think it'd be just about impossible to have a law like that which would work in practice. Nice in theory though.

AngryBadger

JC 2K3 wrote: »

No it doesn't. Abortion laws based on the "it's the woman's choice" line of thinking does. There's no reason, however, that laws could not be brought in that are protective of the father's rights.

I'm not really interested in this side of the debate, however there's no such thing as an abortion law that doesn't function along the lines of "It's the womans choice". Like it or not possession is nine tenths of the law, and since it's the womans body, no man is ever going to get an equal say in what happens to the foetus/embryo/baby she's carrying.

Malari

Zulu wrote: »

Its true in all circumstances. Unless you care to believe that the immaculate conception is a more commonly occurring phenomenon.
It's nice the way a fathers role can so easily be downgraded to suit an argument. Does that logic also apply when supporting a single mother?
"Well, I didn't really invest as much as you in the pregnancy, so I'm only going to pay you 15% maintainence!" :rolleyes:

OK, well you said, "On the other hand legalising abortion takes the choice of whether to keep and raise a child entirely out of the man's hands." and I think this is only in the case where it is not a decision of the couple, just the woman on her own.

And as one poster adds above, this is not to say fathers will not be granted protection laws too.

As for investment, I am talking about the biological reproductive process. It's an often used term in biology to describe parental involvement. I am not commenting on the father's input in a child.

Wibbs

Zulu wrote: »

It's nice the way a fathers role can so easily be downgraded to suit an argument. Does that logic also apply when supporting a single mother?
"Well, I didn't really invest as much as you in the pregnancy, so I'm only going to pay you 15% maintainence!" :rolleyes:

Not too far wrong. Yes the woman goes through the pregnancy and it is her body, but it all too often seems like it's a convenient thing to hang mens rights or lack of them on the debate. We could extend this the other way, if a woman has more to lose by carrying a baby and it's entirely her choice whether to carry to full term then why do we say for example that contraception should be equally shared?

Nevyn

Believe it or not that is one of the many range of choices included in a person being pro choice.

AngryBadger wrote: »

What about the choice to not get pregnant? Not having a dig at you incidentally gcgirl, you just happened to say "pro-choice" which made for a handy quote

eveie

ok jc2k3 so basically what your saying is that i child 3 minutes away frombeingborn isnt human? so being born makes us human? becuase all humans have rights so by saying a child has no rights when its 3 miunutes away from being bron is saing its not human?
imagine some day your wife/partner is in labour and something goes wrong, now your wife/partner will be fine but the babies life is a risk what would you do if the surgeon stopped what he was doing and he said game over, sure its not a human yet

AngryBadger

Thaedydal wrote: »

Believe it or not that is one of the many range of choices included in a person being pro choice.

Point taken.

I just usually find that when people proclaim themselves as "pro-choice" they really mean "I'm pro-choice about abortion and that's it".

JC 2K3

Earthhorse wrote: »

How would such a law work?

Well there are essentially two situations where a father could have his rights infringed/be exploited - if he doesn't want the child yet the mother refuses to have an abortion and he's forced to pay child support or if he wants the child and the mother wants an abortion.

I think in the first scenario, if in court it could be proven that the father and mother never agreed that they wanted children together, then he should not have to pay anything, and in the second scenario, if the same could be disproven then the abortion could be vetoed, perhaps with custody of the child going straight to the father after birth.

I haven't thought it through, but it's just an example as to how something like that might work.

Nevyn

AngryBadger wrote: »

I'm not really interested in this side of the debate, however there's no such thing as an abortion law that doesn't function along the lines of "It's the womans choice". Like it or not possession is nine tenths of the law, and since it's the womans body, no man is ever going to get an equal say in what happens to the foetus/embryo/baby she's carrying.

Yes possession is 9/10s and women posses a womb men don't.

It's mine I own it, I get to say what goes in it, I also get to say what I do not want in it.
I certainly would not go around telling men what do to with their testicles.