Abortion- Right or Wrong

jim o doom

eveie wrote: »

i do believe that surplus embryos is the destroying a life.
i would also like to point out for the very last time that not one pro-life person on this has brough up religion in thier argument however the pro-choice people seem to have an issue and have brought it up a number of times. religion to alot of people is very important however it is not required in order to call yourself pro-life, in america maybe but not in ireland.(kizzy that is not directed at you)

Like cdfm said, the church issue makes it more difficult, because people like myself (very anti-relgion) use it as a way to mock the people who believe it should be part of the issue.. also the church does not want contraception to be used.. if no contraception is to be used, therefore the only option is abstinence and that ain't going to happen..

I suppose you were right about the hip thing, my arguments get mixed up in my head; that's how I feel about the unborn, but at the same time I am trying to point out to the pro life side that abortion isn't wrong every time.. personally I don't really think it's wrong at all, I'm sorry if that offends you, but I just don't.. that doesn't mean however, that I can't contribute to the argument that abortion isn't wrong in all cases..

distregarding how I feel about it, what if my girlfriend did get pregnant, and the hip was the only issue, something which has remained unsolvable now for over 2 years despite constant visit to the doc and surgery.. what should that person do?

jim o doom

eveie wrote: »

jim your confusing me on the one hand i thought you were ofr abortion no matter what the circumstance and now you say
"I can still see how it could be necessary in some situations, and thats why I think it shouldn't be totally illegal.. "

They way I feel about it; abortion is not wrong in pretty much any circunmstance, that's just how I feel -
but even if I thought it was wrong in most instances, that does not mean that it is wrong in all instances..
that's my stand point

seamus

Earthhorse wrote: »

You could argue that about pretty much anything people feel guilt about. If there weren't already some emotional attachment there, beyond societal influences, I doubt people could really be made to feel much mental anguish over something they regarded as nothing more than a bunch of cells and not a real person.

I'm not sure. Simply being emotive about an issue can often provoke emotional responses in another. That is, someone who regards it as nothing more than a ball of cells, is by definition likely to be emotionally detached from the situation and when discussing the issue is likely to be frank, cold and rational about it.

Someone who regards it as a life is likely to discuss it with more passion and emotiveness. Whether we like it or not, we naturally tend to favour arguments which are made passionately and emotionally above ones which are made without said passion and emotion. We tend to feel that a point of view must somehow carry more weight if the person making it seems to feel very very strongly about it.

I don't disagree that there are many women who will feel an emotional attachment to what's growing, without any external influences. But there are equally plenty of other women with no emotional attachment one way or another to it, who can be influenced and swayed into guilt. Not guilt so much because of what they believe, but because of what they've been convinced the community believes.

How many women feel no guilt about the act apart from what they think others will say about them?

eveie

ok jim i do not have answers for everything, also you are entitled to your opinion so you wont offend me i was merely using that to state a point.
if this did happen obviously you and your oh would choose to abort however in my opinion abortion is only right in the case where the mothers life is at risk, i presume there would be pain killers available that would reduce the discomfort etc but im not a doctor so i dont know

jim o doom

eveie wrote: »

ok jim i do not have answers for everything, also you are entitled to your opinion so you wont offend me i was merely using that to state a point.
if this did happen obviously you and your oh would choose to abort however in my opinion abortion is only right in the case where the mothers life is at risk, i presume there would be pain killers available that would reduce the discomfort etc but im not a doctor so i dont know

You see my OH is on pain killers all the time, and the painkillers are quite strong (difene being a morphine derivative - im no doc but I was in a motorcycle accident and I was on it after I finally got home) - and the painkillers don't dull the pain which is intense and wakes her every night..
If she got pregnant the pain would increase exponentially, as she can't even lie down without hurting herself - the painkillers she would need to be on to stop the usual pain plus the excess caused by a baby, would have to be heroin strength. Also long term use of painkillers is highly addictive & if she was on something very strong like oxycontin for instance, wouldn't that be very bad for the baby, as she would have to use it all the time? I know this is academic, because you are totally correct, we would abort..
do you think we would be wrong to do so in that specific situation?

I know this is an imagionary situation, like I've said a few times - abortion isn't wrong in every case..

kizzyr

eveie wrote: »

i do believe that surplus embryos is the destroying a life.
i would also like to point out for the very last time that not one pro-life person on this has brough up religion in thier argument however the pro-choice people seem to have an issue and have brought it up a number of times. religion to alot of people is very important however it is not required in order to call yourself pro-life, in america maybe but not in ireland.(kizzy that is not directed at you)

I appreciate your point of view. Each and everyone of us is entitled to at least that.
Re: the surplus embryos, I think a lot of good work can be done by using them for research. Indeed as a result of much of this kind of testing scientists have been able to identify and isolate the gene that causes Huntingtons Disease. In time they will be able to remove this gene and replace it with one that isn't a carrier of the disease. This will be a huge improvement in the lives of all those who may benefit from such treatment. In short I think it good that they embryos be used in this way rather than be either left frozen forever or simply thrown away.
Re: abortion itself. I think that there are times and situations women (and somtimes girls) find themselves in where abortion seems like the only possible solution to them. 14 year old girls who are abused and find themselves pregnant being one example, a woman who discovers that she is pregnant with a child that will be born with any number of severe mental and physical defects, so bad that the quality of life will be non existant for both mother (and the unborn aren't the only ones with rights in these situations) and child. If we add to this woman who is pregnant with this baby, an existing family of 4 other children. The family is barely keeping itself afloat financially and both parents have to work. If this pregnancy is brought to term it will have a hugely negative impact on the already existing 6 people. One parent will have to give up work to care full time for the new arrival, and I mean full time 24/7 in the way you don't have to with another baby. The mother and father discuss things and opt for a termination for the good of their family as it is. Are they really committing so great a wrong by doing this?
Essentially people who are anti abortion will always be so and that is their right. I think those who feel that they should have a choice, not abortion on demand, should also have the right to access this option without having to travel to another jurisdiction.

Zulu

jim o doom wrote: »

...because people like myself (very anti-relgion) use it as a way to mock the people

That just about says it all.
Wow, you're so cool man, can I be in your gang. :rolleyes: How old are you Jim, 5?

distregarding how I feel about it, what if my girlfriend did get pregnant, and the hip was the only issue, something which has remained unsolvable now for over 2 years despite constant visit to the doc and surgery.. what should that person do?

Well that depends doesn't it. Did she plan to get pregnant? Is she like the millions of other parents who want to have a child?

Nevyn

eveie wrote: »

can one of the mods please deal with jim, he is not contributing to this discussion, i have no problem reading pro-choice posts because at least their passionate about their beliefs.

Use the report post function.

Zulu

seamus wrote: »

I'll concede libido, I shouldn't have put it in.

But you can't possibly claim that anyone who has a child (and keeps it obviously) carries on just as they did before at the same levels of stress and sleep.

Of course I can, adoption.

I have yet to meet anyone who claims that having a child is a breeze. Sure, some people have it easier then other and some kids sleep most of the night, but universally parents get less rest and have more stress to deal with than non-parents.

Having an abortion is a stressful experience. Or so I'm lead to believe.
Look your whole point about guilt is a sham as well to be honest. The same can be said of paedophilia and statutory rape say, which in times and societies they had been perfectly acceptable. That doesn't make them right though, does it?

seamus

Zulu wrote: »

Of course I can, adoption.

They just click their fingers and the child comes out, I see.

Having an abortion is a stressful experience. Or so I'm lead to believe.
Look your whole point about guilt is a sham as well to be honest. The same can be said of paedophilia and statutory rape say, which in times and societies they had been perfectly acceptable. That doesn't make them right though, does it?

Yawn. Same tired irrelevant points. Paedophilia and statutory rape involve two very distinct, legally separate and clearly defined beings.

Abortion involves one clearly defined being with a parasitic organism of questionable status growing within it.

jim o doom

Zulu wrote: »

That just about says it all.
Wow, you're so cool man, can I be in your gang. :rolleyes: How old are you Jim, 5?

Well that depends doesn't it. Did she plan to get pregnant? Is she like the millions of other parents who want to have a child?

I'm 27 but I don't really see what that has to do with anything.
Yeah you can be in my gang but there will only be two of us and we don't agree on abortion so it could be uncomfortable..
And what do you mean by "that just says it all" - people who are pro-choice, a good chunk of the time are not religious, and find religion ridiculous - note - I didn't mock religion, I just said that people can and do. For instance in the states the anti-abortion/pro-life crowd are the Far right republican creationists.. Now I may find religion crazy, but I don't mock it overly, unless it's something I find completely insane like creationism - the reason we should leave religion out of it is because religious people have their belief, and non-religious don't - we can't use religion to argue something, when everyone isn't religious.

And to your question - seeing as I already stated - We use contraception, so in this imagionary case it would have had to have failed and we would not want the child (ike the millions of people using contraception who dont want children)- the rest of the story is in my previous post.

To be honest, I don't see why you called me five.. it;'s silly, whilst I am flippant about these issues, that's just my manner - I am trying to contribute to this thing here, but if you want to mock me and call me a child to support your own views, more power to ya buddy.

Earthhorse

jim o doom wrote: »

Well I am contributing because as little as I care about the unborn et al, I do care] about peoples right to choose whether or not they are going to have a child, I would have thought that was obvious

Well, no, it wasn't obvious. You were so busy reminding us every five seconds that you didn't care about the unborn, didn't care about the debate and didn't care about your fellow man that it was hard to see what, in fact, you did care about, other than your OH. Now, if you don't care about your fellow man how is it that you care about his right to choose?

jim o doom wrote: »

as to the lyric? I have no idea what you are talking about, I am primarily into heavy metal, and if something I said is a lyric it is a coincidence.. do you think I am trying to be "too cool for school?" and regardless, why do you need to use that to debase my opinion? are people who are trying to be cool worthless, and also their opinions?

Like yourself jim, I was merely being flip. Don't be surprised if your own flip attitude is responded to in kind.

jim o doom wrote: »

And I note you wonderfully picked the stupid reasons my OH & me gave towards having an abortion and completely ignored the fact that she has a major injury and a child would cause HUGE problems, because HELL that doesn't suit you in the slightest.

Well, if the reasons were stupid why'd you bother posting them? Also, I like the fact that you would like abortion legalised because, were your partner to fall pregnant, it wouldn't suit you in the slightest.

jim o doom wrote: »

I love how the pro life side choose small parts of arguments in an attempt to make a person look stupid and ignore whatever else because it doesn't suit what they think or feel.

Is your argument that abortion should be legalised because your partner has a serious hip injury? What part of your argument did I ignore exactly? Was that it?

jim o doom wrote: »

I don't really care what your opinion is either, I am just debating.. and think that allowing abortion is grand.

Ah sure, yeah, 'tis grand. A fine thing so it is.

jim o doom wrote: »

Also.. a lot not to care about in one morning? I don't care about that stuf 24/7 all of my life, I didn't just magically start not caring about them to look cool on boards.. and to infer that I did is ridiculous

I think you rather missed my point here jim which was that there is an awful lot of shit you didn't care about.

jim o doom wrote: »

Also murder, for instance of a young cousin, is illegal everywhere. people cannot go to England, to murder their young cousin, because it is illegal there, and everywhere else & there is no contention about murder, everyone knows that it's wrong. Abortion, being a contentious issue worldwide, is not illegal everywhere, and many people go from here to there, so that they can do what they feel needs to be done

jim, the point eveie made to you was a simple one. You stated:

jim o doom wrote:

who cares if life starts at conception, we have the power to end it if we want to.

So if the only criteria we need to kill something is having the power to do so then we should be allowed kill anyone. The current law is irrelevant in this regard. You either believe this is a valid criteria or you don't.

jim o doom wrote:

In relation to me not caring if she thinks it is a child and I dont.. is that not the issue at hand?

Nope. Not caring what other people think has nothing to do with the issue at hand. Generally, in debates, it is helpful if you care what other people think.

jim o doom wrote:

Obviously you don't care that I think its just a bunch of cells, because if you did you wouldn't be belittling me for putting forth my view, but you did, so you don't care.. you must be too cool for school too! wow we should hang out

I don't care what you think because you've shown a flippant attitude (you admit this yourself, though I would go as far as saying callous attitude) toward other people's opinions on the thread. I haven't belittled you for putting forth your view at all, I have just extended you the same courtesy you've extended everyone else on this thread.

jim o doom wrote:

And of course we can't legislate, I was just trying to give an example of how the anguish of having a child and giving it up for adoption would be as painful mentally as having an abortion.. i wasnt saying anything other than that..

the pro-life side seem to think that having a child and if you don't want it, give it up for adoption, problem solved, its not that simple and I was trying to point that out as well, but of course my point was ignored]

Your point wasn't ignored. Indeed, I even acknowledged it as a good one. I then went on to make my own point.

By the way, I would never describe myself as pro-life, but as anti-abortion. Just for the record.

seamus

Earthhorse wrote: »

By the way, I would never describe myself as pro-life, but as anti-abortion. Just for the record.

Interesting. What's the difference?

Dragan

eveie wrote: »

can one of the mods please deal with jim, he is not contributing to this discussion, i have no problem reading pro-choice posts because at least their passionate about their beliefs.

Eveie,

you are well aware that if you have an issue with a post that you need to report it. I know this because i informed you in the Ladies Lounge.

Also, if you have any answers to the question i posed you that would be super.

eveie

dragon i love you
give me two mins till i have a read through your posts

Earthhorse

seamus wrote: »

I'm not sure. Simply being emotive about an issue can often provoke emotional responses in another.

True, but not to the point where they will experience severe emotional anguish as a result. I think that basically has to come from within or from someone very close to you, such as friends and family members, and they would have to be real shits about it too, to actually be not just unsupportive but openly critical and hurtful about the abortion.

So, whilst I don't doubt such instances exist, they are few and far between.

seamus wrote: »

How many women feel no guilt about the act apart from what they think others will say about them?

Hard to say given that women don't speak openly about these issues, even in countries where abortion is legal.

eveie

dragon i answered your question about me calling it muder to my friends who have opted for abortion in an earlier post.
the link i gave youis scientifitic factual evidence it is not contrived or interrepreted to in order to fit into certain beliefs

jim o doom

Earthhorse wrote: »

Well, no, it wasn't obvious. You were so busy reminding us every five seconds that you didn't care about the unborn, didn't care about the debate and didn't care about your fellow man that it was hard to see what, in fact, you did care about, other than your OH. Now, if you don't care about your fellow man how is it that you care about his right to choose?

I said in my original post that for the most part I don't care for my fellow man - that of course doensn't mean that I don't care for the people I know who act in a reasonable manner - should they not have a right to chose (u dont think so)

Earthhorse wrote: »

Like yourself jim, I was merely being flip. Don't be surprised if your own flip attitude is responded to in kind.

Thats fair enough and I don't really have a comeback - I am a flippant and occasionally callous person - but that's just how I am !

Earthhorse wrote: »

Is your argument that abortion should be legalised because your partner has a serious hip injury? What part of your argument did I ignore exactly? Was that it?

because despite the parts of my post which showed my obvious disinterest in the child - if a person who did not want a child, and would be in unbearable agony for the entirety of term on very strong painkillers which would obviously be going in to the child. why force that person to have a child, just ignore the stupid parts I was being flippant, sorry about that.

Earthhorse wrote: »

Ah sure, yeah, 'tis grand. A fine thing so it is.

You gave me a good laugh there, Irishness is humourous is it not..

Earthhorse wrote: »

I think you rather missed my point here jim which was that there is an awful lot of shit you didn't care about.

and what precisely is your point? I told everyone I didn't care about all that stuff, why bother putting it in twice? they are simply my views, do they offend you so thoroughly you gotta post them again?

Earthhorse wrote: »

jim, the point eveie made to you was a simple one. You stated:

So if the only criteria we need to kill something is having the power to do so then we should be allowed kill anyone. The current law is irrelevant in this regard. You either believe this is a valid criteria or you don't.

Of course the law is relevant as are peoples attitudes - nobody except a psychopath thinks killing a normal person is right. A lot of people think abortion is not wrong - and thus it is legal in many countries.
Just because it is "life" does not a person make. Cells are alive. It is a bunch of cells. which are alive. I dont care if those CELLS are ALIVE they are not a baby or a person.

Earthhorse wrote: »

Nope. Not caring what other people think has nothing to do with the issue at hand. Generally, in debates, it is helpful if you care what other people think.

And you yourself can see - no one on either side of thise argument nearly for the entire thread has conceded the other side is right because they all feel that they are right. regardless of the logic involved, eevie is never going to think its ok unless a mothers life is at stake, I am never going to care either way - everybody on both sides is entrenched in their views, this is just a debate/conversation, its not like anyone here is going to change their mind based on what is going around.

Earthhorse wrote: »

By the way, I would never describe myself as pro-life, but as anti-abortion. Just for the record

and? a name is just a name regardless, all your points remain the same that's just being pedantic.

Earthhorse

seamus wrote: »

Interesting. What's the difference?

Essentially, one of propaganda. Technically there may be little difference but the framing of the debate as pro-life or pro-choice is an attempt by either side to imply something nasty about the other; they are anti-life and anti-choice. But the issue isn't really life or choice. It's abortion, and the wholesale legalisation of it.

When we discuss other issues, divorce for instance, we have no problem simply saying for or against. We don't say pro-choice or pro-marriage. It's obvious, from context, that we are talking about pro-legalisation-of-divorce or anti-legalisation-of-divorce. When it comes to abortion there should be no difference. If you say you are pro-abortion I will take it as shorthand for pro-wholesale-legalisation-of-abortion not pro-getting-an-abortion-just-for-the-laugh.

Dragan

eveie wrote: »

dragon i answered your question about me calling it muder to my friends who have opted for abortion in an earlier post.
the link i gave youis scientifitic factual evidence it is not contrived or interrepreted to in order to fit into certain beliefs

Sorry Eveie,

I missed it in all the rush! The reason i asked was simply to test how strongly you believe that abortion is murder. So you have friends who have aborted, who in your eyes have comitted murder.

The reason you are against abortion is because you believe it is murder. I can respect that but i find it interesting that you associated and social with people you consider murders. That you have them in your home, these people who in your view have killed a child.

If i believe someone to have killed a child i would have nothing to do with them. When a friend of mine was convicted of murder that was it for me. I told him i would have no further part in his life, that he had killed an innocent and was no longer the person i thought he was. Then again i operate by a fairly strong honour system i guess.

Anyway, i just found it interesting i guess.

As for the studies, as i said, it was ALL interpretive. No evidence was given that showed clearly when a human life began, only that at the time of conception you have genetically individual material.

I'm not buying that is a human being, nor am i led to believe by the "evidence" shown on that link. I need something solid, something that proves beyond dount that the intangible part of us that makes us who we are, not just our organs and limbs and everything else, the "spirit" if you would is there.

It might suprise you, but i believe people are far more than complicated monkeys.:)

seamus

Earthhorse wrote: »

Essentially, one of propaganda. Technically there may be little difference but the framing of the debate as pro-life or pro-choice is an attempt by either side to imply something nasty about the other; they are anti-life and anti-choice. But the issue isn't really life or choice. It's abortion, and the wholesale legalisation of it.

I see what you're saying and I totally accept your ethical distancing from it.
Maybe it's just me, but I always saw the "pro-life" label as an effort to label the opposing side as "anti-life". With that, they came up with the "pro-choice" label, primarily because "pro-abortion" implies that you want everyone to get abortions, when many people on that side would prefer that people didn't get abortions, but accept that it's only the pregnant woman who can make that choice.

I can see how calling yourself "pro-choice" though labels the opposing side as, "anti-choice facist authoritarians". I never thought of that before

Earthhorse

jim o doom wrote: »

I said in my original post that for the most part I don't care for my fellow man - that of course doensn't mean that I don't care for the people I know who act in a reasonable manner - should they not have a right to chose (u dont think so).

The should not have a right to an abortion.

jim o doom wrote: »

because despite the parts of my post which showed my obvious disinterest in the child - if a person who did not want a child, and would be in unbearable agony for the entirety of term on very strong painkillers which would obviously be going in to the child. why force that person to have a child, just ignore the stupid parts I was being flippant, sorry about that.

It's a tough one alright. Whilst I am open to the idea that abortions should be allowed in cases where there is serious risk to somenone's long term mental and physical health I would have the same reservations that tallaght01 has about it being abused. On the whole I would have to say no in situations like this.

jim o doom wrote: »

and what precisely is your point? I told everyone I didn't care about all that stuff, why bother putting it in twice? they are simply my views, do they offend you so thoroughly you gotta post them again?

I wouldn't say they offend me as such but I do find it confusing how often you tell us you don't care and continue to post. I was just highlighting that.

jim o doom wrote: »

Of course the law is relevant as are peoples attitudes - nobody except a psychopath thinks killing a normal person is right. A lot of people think abortion is not wrong - and thus it is legal in many countries.
Just because it is "life" does not a person make. Cells are alive. It is a bunch of cells. which are alive. I dont care if those CELLS are ALIVE they are not a baby or a person.

You asked a simple question; who cares if life begins at conception, we have the power to kill it. By the same criteria are we not allowed to kill anything which have the power to kill?

If not, is this really any valid criteria on which to abort?

jim o doom wrote: »

And you yourself can see - no one on either side of thise argument nearly for the entire thread has conceded the other side is right because they all feel that they are right.

Yes, but most of them still seem to care about what other people think or not point it out every other post! No one's going to change they're mind; great. Why keep mentioning to them that you don't care what they think? It just comes across as rude.

jim o doom wrote: »

and? a name is just a name regardless, all your points remain the same that's just being pedantic.

I disagree that it is mere pedantry. No other legaislation vs. criminalisation debate is carred out in these terms. Not guns, not drugs, not prostitution. The pro-choice/pro-life dichotomy is a bullshit attempt by both sides to muddy the issue.

eveie

good point dragon. well one of the girls i am no longer friends with other her decision but theres more to and its not for me to go into. as for the other friend well im human i realise people make mistakes, i told her out straight that i thought it was wrong but a women in crisis needs supposrt, i gave her support after the abortion i was there for her, she is one of the many women who feels huge regret but regardless of that she is my friend she has been there for me through thick and thin and i wanted to be there for her. funnily enough i dont think everything is black and white even though the majority of you on here will think i do. and thats why it bugged the b'jasus out of me when people kept saying taht i was dishing women who choose to abort, i have never and will nevr do that. we are all humans we all make mistakes.
dragon when you mention the spirit do you mean something like a soul? could you explain further? im a bit slow today:(
sometimes we act like complicated monkeys, well i know i do

jim o doom

Earthhorse wrote: »

The should not have a right to an abortion.

yeah i know u think that because I did put the wee brackets in

Earthhorse wrote: »

It's a tough one alright. Whilst I am open to the idea that abortions should be allowed in cases where there is serious risk to somenone's long term mental and physical health I would have the same reservations that tallaght01 has about it being abused. On the whole I would have to say no in situations like this.

So because some people could abuse a system that other people need, it should be illegal? that's like saying there should be no social welfare because of social welfare fraud. If someone really was in serious pain & the situation I outlined - what then? and ignore that it could be abused.. I'm talking about real situations which do occur - why should the people in those situations be forced to carry to term?

Earthhorse wrote: »

I wouldn't say they offend me as such but I do find it confusing how often you tell us you don't care and continue to post. I was just highlighting that.

thats fair enough - I continue to converse with yez because despite the things I don't care about, I do like debating stuff and talking online - is that so hard to understand?

Earthhorse wrote: »

You asked a simple question; who cares if life begins at conception, we have the power to kill it. By the same criteria are we not allowed to kill anything which have the power to kill?

If not, is this really any valid criteria on which to abort?

yeah but clearly I didnt put enough informtion into my post - so I reiterate now; just because it is alive does not make it a human. it is cells, which are alive - the fact that these cells are alive does not bother me and I see no problem exterminating them, because they are cells and not a person or baby, ok? so why not exterminate those ALIVE cells? answer this question, not the one which i left import parts out of.. I mean I thought you would realise I dont believe its a baby from my other posts as plent of the other pro-choice people.
and with your point on power? not for people because we already know thats wrong - and as for the environment and animals, we all kill them regularily.

Earthhorse wrote: »

Yes, but most of them still seem to care about what other people think or not point it out every other post! No one's going to change they're mind; great. Why keep mentioning to them that you don't care what they think? It just comes across as rude.

Sorry for being rude, I just tend to be blunt and a lot of times i dont properly word my arguments or repeat things - thats because I am seriously fallible.

Earthhorse wrote: »

I disagree that it is mere pedantry. No other legaislation vs. criminalisation debate is carred out in these terms. Not guns, not drugs, not prostitution. The pro-choice/pro-life dichotomy is a bullshit attempt by both sides to muddy the issue.

well in my mind the terms used mean the same thing.. i understand and think that you probably are right that it is a tactic to muddy the waters, but we already talked about it in this thread many pages earlier and to bring it up again seems pedantic.. but I could be wrong & if anti-abortion is how u wish to call it, it's well within your rights.

Dragan

eveie wrote: »

good point dragon. well one of the girls i am no longer friends with other her decision but theres more to and its not for me to go into. as for the other friend well im human i realise people make mistakes, i told her out straight that i thought it was wrong but a women in crisis needs supposrt, i gave her support after the abortion i was there for her, she is one of the many women who feels huge regret but regardless of that she is my friend she has been there for me through thick and thin and i wanted to be there for her. funnily enough i dont think everything is black and white even though the majority of you on here will think i do. and thats why it bugged the b'jasus out of me when people kept saying taht i was dishing women who choose to abort, i have never and will nevr do that. we are all humans we all make mistakes.
dragon when you mention the spirit do you mean something like a soul? could you explain further? im a bit slow today:(
sometimes we act like complicated monkeys, well i know i do

Cheers Eveie, thanks for clarify your points around that.

As for the "spirit","soul" whatever it may be,i basically see that as the difference between us and animals. It may all be coincidence, maybe we ARE all just complicated monkeys but i like to think there is something within us that extends beyond the simplicities of the physical.

That is what i need proven to me to say that anything is a human being to be honest. Like i said, for me their is a difference between genetically individual material and a "being", for me anyways.

I also appreciated that thought and cognitive functions need to be supported by certains organs and systems within the body and before those things exist i find it hard to believe that a real "being" exists.

Nevyn

As for the spirit or souls invovled, who it to say it is not part of those souls on the wheel of life to be aborted or to be the women choosing to abort and if that is something those souls have to go through who am I to meddle or condem.

Dragan

Thaedydal wrote: »

As for the spirit or souls invovled, who it to say it is not part of those souls on the wheel of life to be aborted or to be the women choosing to abort and if that is something those souls have to go through who am I to meddle or condem.

I made a similar point about DNA cloning in school, that is a viable sample of Jesus Christs DNA could be lifted from the Shroud of Turin and he could be cloned that it could be the actual method through which he meant to have the second coming.

Result : 1 week suspension.

Awesome.

Earthhorse

jim o doom wrote: »

So because some people could abuse a system that other people need, it should be illegal?

Not sure that other people need it, so much as they want it. But yes we should take abuse of a system into account when deciding whether to legalise it.

jim o doom wrote: »

If someone really was in serious pain & the situation I outlined - what then? and ignore that it could be abused.. I'm talking about real situations which do occur - why should the people in those situations be forced to carry to term?

Okay, ignoring abuse for a minute the basic question being asked here is; is nine months of agony worth a human life (remember I essentially regard the foetus as alive)? My answer is that the life is more valuable. That probably isn't enough for you but that is the way I see it.

jim o doom wrote: »

thats fair enough - I continue to converse with yez because despite the things I don't care about, I do like debating stuff and talking online - is that so hard to understand?

Not when you explain it, no.

jim o doom wrote: »

yeah but clearly I didnt put enough informtion into my post - so I reiterate now; just because it is alive does not make it a human. it is cells, which are alive - the fact that these cells are alive does not bother me and I see no problem exterminating them, because they are cells and not a person or baby, ok? so why not exterminate those ALIVE cells? answer this question, not the one which i left import parts out of.. I mean I thought you would realise I dont believe its a baby from my other posts as plent of the other pro-choice people.

Everything you talk about here is separate to the original point you made, regardless of whether you included full information or not. Including extra information changes the point. Suffice it to say we disagree on whether it is a human life worth protecting - you don't see it as human yet, I essentially do. Little point in going over this again.

jim o doom wrote: »

well in my mind the terms used mean the same thing.. i understand and think that you probably are right that it is a tactic to muddy the waters, but we already talked about it in this thread many pages earlier and to bring it up again seems pedantic.. but I could be wrong & if anti-abortion is how u wish to call it, it's well within your rights.

Well I was being labelled as pro-life so I brought it up again.

Dragan

Earthhorse wrote: »

Not sure that other people need it, so much as they want it. But yes we should take abuse of a system into account when deciding whether to legalise it.

BIG mistake there. All systems are abused by someone, somewhere and no system is flawless.

Looking we won't be retrospectively looking at things and deciding whether we should make them illegal or not.:)

jim o doom

Thaedydal wrote: »

As for the spirit or souls invovled, who it to say it is not part of those souls on the wheel of life to be aborted or to be the women choosing to abort and if that is something those souls have to go through who am I to meddle or condem.

I'm not saying either you or dragan are wrong here at all - we could well have spirits etc - but I tend to prefer to argue outside of that realm because it's far too unquantifiable to base an argument on.
plus two people arguing - one who believes in the spirit and one who does not, are going to have serious problems because they don't have a common ground on the issue.
I'd like to think there is some sort of spirit or spark in us too - but I don't really believe there is (but I am a bit of a cynic - but Im optimistic; hope for the best, expect the worst! )

Earthhorse

Thaedydal wrote: »

As for the spirit or souls invovled, who it to say it is not part of those souls on the wheel of life to be aborted or to be the women choosing to abort and if that is something those souls have to go through who am I to meddle or condem.

Who is to say that it is not your place to meddle or condemn? Maybe that is your part to play on the wheel of life.

Dragan wrote: »

BIG mistake there. All systems are abused by someone, somewhere and no system is flawless.

I didn't say that if a system was open to abuse it should be abandoned; I said we should consider abuse of any system when framing our legislation. Big difference.

jim o doom

Earthhorse wrote: »

Not sure that other people need it, so much as they want it. But yes we should take abuse of a system into account when deciding whether to legalise it..

That's a fair point & I agree more people definitely want it than need it, but that does not mean it isn't necessary some of the time.

Earthhorse wrote: »

Okay, ignoring abuse for a minute the basic question being asked here is; is nine months of agony worth a human life (remember I essentially regard the foetus as alive)? My answer is that the life is more valuable. That probably isn't enough for you but that is the way I see it.

alright thats fair enough too - that's your view and I'm not going to argue against it, I was just trying to see if you were completely very anti-abortion type, or if you thought it was ok in any case..

Earthhorse wrote: »

Not when you explain it, no.

Well after my earlier flippancies I have definitely tried to be more logical and less flippant because I annoyed people - but if ya don'y see that I like talking online I don't know what to do

Earthhorse wrote: »

Everything you talk about here is separate to the original point you made, regardless of whether you included full information or not. Including extra information changes the point. Suffice it to say we disagree on whether it is a human life worth protecting - you don't see it as human yet, I essentially do. Little point in going over this again.

well I thought including the extra info was vital - my claim of "who care's if "it" is alive" obviously would have made it seem like I thought it was an actual baby and its termination didnt bother me, as opposed to a group of cells becoming a child - u feel its a child right from the point of conception I wont bother going over it again, we just have different views and I wasnt sure if you had me correctly, but u ultimately did..

Earthhorse wrote: »

Well I was being labelled as pro-life so I brought it up again.

I did not intentionally label you - I have continuously called it either pro life or pro choice which is generally each sides preferred term - despite being pro choice i didnt call it anti abortion or whatever, I just stuck to the same two terms, earlier in this post is the first time I use the term anti-abortion because you prefer it. I didnt intentially label you as anything to get a rise it was just the terms I was using all the time.

jim o doom

Earthhorse wrote: »

Who is to say that it is not your place to meddle or condemn? Maybe that is your part to play on the wheel of life.
.

yeah but by that logic the pro-choice people could argue its my place to allow abortion for people who need it - its a double bladed sword

Earthhorse wrote: »

I didn't say that if a system was open to abuse it should be abandoned; I said we should consider abuse of any system when framing our legislation. Big difference.

Also here - when we consider abuse of a system when legislating, we would be considering how to prevent the abuse when designing the system & for when the system is in place. we would not generally be refusing the system which is needed because it could be abused.
I know you don't think abortion is necessary so it's moot to you that the system could be abused were it in place - just pointing out a flaw in the logic..

Overature

i think people should try things before they make up there mind about things. somebodys whos had it knows what is like.

Nevyn

http://myabortion.tumblr.com/

tbh

Dragan wrote: »

I work with statistics to make my bread and butter. You either make them up or they are right.

It's advisable to check sources very well with these things tbh.

out of interest, have you read freakonomics?

carlybabe1

Earthhorse wrote: »

Not sure that other people need it, so much as they want it.

A bit confused here, on the one hand you say it has a hugely negative psychological impact on women who have had it, I dont think any women has an abortion cause they want one, but because they feel like they need one

Okay, ignoring abuse for a minute the basic question being asked here is; is nine months of agony worth a human life (remember I essentially regard the foetus as alive)? My answer is that the life is more valuable. That probably isn't enough for you but that is the way I see it.

Thats fair enough, but I doubt any woman who has had an abortion would agree, and while there might be guilt, I think it would be interesting to know haw many of these women would turn back the clock and keep it. none of the women I know, and that in fact can add to the guilt ironically

Including extra information changes the point.

So would I be right to conclude from this that you think abortion is viable in certain extenuating circumstances?

Well I was being labelled as pro-life so I brought it up again.

I still dont get the difference, not really, and Im not being sarcastic, can you explain

Earthhorse

jim o doom wrote: »

I did not intentionally label you - I have continuously called it either pro life or pro choice which is generally each sides preferred term - despite being pro choice i didnt call it anti abortion or whatever, I just stuck to the same two terms, earlier in this post is the first time I use the term anti-abortion because you prefer it. I didnt intentially label you as anything to get a rise it was just the terms I was using all the time.

Yeah, I don't doubt you weren't intentionally labelling me anything but when you start making arguments about "pro life" people doing this and that I feel it is fair enough to distance myself from what people think of when they hear that term. I accept the debate will continue to be carried out using those terms but I register my objection.

jim o doom wrote: »

yeah but by that logic the pro-choice people could argue its my place to allow abortion for people who need it - its a double bladed sword

Hmmm, yes, I believe that was the point I was making.

jim o doom wrote: »

Also here - when we consider abuse of a system when legislating, we would be considering how to prevent the abuse when designing the system & for when the system is in place. we would not generally be refusing the system which is needed because it could be abused.
I know you don't think abortion is necessary so it's moot to you that the system could be abused were it in place - just pointing out a flaw in the logic.

It's not really a flaw in the logic though. We have to consider whether it's possible to put in place a system which supports what we actually want to achive. Let's say we decided that in cases like the one you outlined for yourself and your partner earlier that abortion was okay. And let's say we discovered that the system was so open to abuse that it would effectively mean legalising all abortions because people could just claim to be in unbearable pain. We then might decide not to go ahead with legalising this because we believe we'd be doing more harm than good.

carlybabe1, I don't know how you're doing it but you somehow manage to quote people within quotes every time! If you want to quote a post just hit the Quote button at the end of it. No need to wrap it in further quote tags if that's what you're doing. It will just make the thread more readable is all.

carlybabe1 wrote: »

A bit confused here, on the one hand you say it has a hugely negative psychological impact on women who have had it, I dont think any women has an abortion cause they want one, but because they feel like they need one

I don't contend that it does have a hugely negative impact on every woman who has it, the same way I don't think giving up a child for adoption has a hugely negative impact on all those who do that. Obviously, no woman wants to have an abortion and we can safely assume that any woman who does have one didn't want to be pregnant in the first place. My point about them wanting rather than needing abortions was that where there is no threat to their own life or serious long term health they don't need to have an abortion. They may very well want one but they don't need it.

carlybabe1 wrote: »

Thats fair enough, but I doubt any woman who has had an abortion would agree, and while there might be guilt, I think it would be interesting to know haw many of these women would turn back the clock and keep it. none of the women I know, and that in fact can add to the guilt ironically

But what does it matter whether women who've had an abortion agree with me? I'm sure many family of murder victims would like to see the death penalty introduced but I won't support that either. I can't filter all my opinions through other peoples, I have my own, for my own reasons.

I don't really understand what you are saying can add to the guilt. Turning back the clock and keeping it? You can't do that.

carlybabe1 wrote: »

So would I be right to conclude from this that you think abortion is viable in certain extenuating circumstances?

In cases where the mother's life or serious long term health is at risk or where we know the baby will be stillborn. I've already said as much on this thread.

carlybabe1 wrote: »

I still dont get the difference, not really, and Im not being sarcastic, can you explain

I don't know that I can any more clearly than I already have on this thread. It's an objection to a label that tries to cover up what we're really talking about and insinuate something mean about the opposition. It's a tactic more concerned with winning a debate than trying to express what we believe to be true. Pro-life. Pro-choice. Total load of bollocks.

CDfm

I cant get this how people can say abortion is not psychologically damaging I know 2 women very well that have been there. But one of them is hugely affected still years later.

I am hugely sympathetic to women who have had miscarriages and I suppose thats not so much behind closed doors but some women really grieve,

Carlybabe can you give me your 2 cents on this- Im talking issues not statistics

carlybabe1

Yay, finally figured out this quote thingy b***ox :)

My point about them wanting rather than needing abortions was that where there is no threat to their own life or serious long term health they don't need to have an abortion. They may very well want one but they don't need it.
[/QUOTE

I think this is the problem, as far as I am aware (open to correction on this) abortion is legal in this country for women whose life would be seriously threatened/cause unlimited psoychological/emotional damage. (I'll try post links :eek:) But heres my point, obviously the women who avail of this service feel like they need it, not that they want it.

But what does it matter whether women who've had an abortion agree with me? I'm sure many family of murder victims would like to see the death penalty introduced but I won't support that either. I can't filter all my opinions through other peoples, I have my own, for my own reasons.

I don't really understand what you are saying can add to the guilt. Turning back the clock and keeping it? You can't do that.

in previous threads you've posted that abortion has a damaging psychological effect, the point Im making is that not all women who have had an abortion would agree woth you, and if you dont see how that matters then dont speak for women who have had abortions by making statements like that and using it to bolster your arguments. And the guilt Im talking about is this, they wouldnt turn back the clock in a heartbeat, for any money, and knowing that can make them feel guilty....make them feel that they should at least feel some remorse. Im not saying all women feel this, undoubtably a lot a crucified with guilt, so please dont quote me out of context.

carlybabe1

CDfm wrote: »

I cant get this how people can say abortion is not psychologically damaging I know 2 women very well that have been there. But one of them is hugely affected still years later.

I am hugely sympathetic to women who have had miscarriages and I suppose thats not so much behind closed doors but some women really grieve,

Carlybabe can you give me your 2 cents on this- Im talking issues not statistics

Honestly, heres my 2 cents, I really believe that if a woman/ couple comes to the conclusion that an abortion is the only way forward for them, then thats with good reason. I dont believe that anyone should be able to prevent them from doing this, I do believe with all my heart that no-one that has confronted that situation has done so flippantly or without thinking long and hard about it, and I for one dont agree with people who are trying to portray this stereotype, for want of a better word. The difference between women who have a miscarriage is that ultimately, they want the baby. Women who have abortions clearly dont... Sorry if i havent answered your question, perhaps Im unclear on what you're asking

CDfm

carlybabe1 wrote: »

Honestly, heres my 2 cents, I really believe that if a woman/ couple comes to the conclusion that an abortion is the only way forward for them, then thats with good reason. I dont believe that anyone should be able to prevent them from doing this, I do believe with all my heart that no-one that has confronted that situation has done so flippantly or without thinking long and hard about it, and I for one dont agree with people who are trying to portray this stereotype, for want of a better word. The difference between women who have a miscarriage is that ultimately, they want the baby. Women who have abortions clearly dont... Sorry if i havent answered your question, perhaps Im unclear on what you're asking

I know one woman very well (or I used to) who is so psychologically damaged by her abortion that she is regularily hospitalised. Given the abortion is 13 years back she has steadily declined - her career is gone -she drinks too much has bad relationships. Ive known her for 25 years but would never have predicted that for her. Maybe thats why I dont like this dismissed with statistics.

CDfm

but I am a bit of a cynic - but Im optimistic; hope for the best, expect the worst! )

[/quote]

be a bit more optimistic and less cynical Sunny Jim

carlybabe1

CDfm wrote: »

I know one woman very well (or I used to) who is so psychologically damaged by her abortion that she is regularily hospitalised. Given the abortion is 13 years back she has steadily declined - her career is gone -she drinks too much has bad relationships. Ive known her for 25 years but would never have predicted that for her. Maybe thats why I dont like this dismissed with statistics.

cant say I blame you there, thats awfull for her, god love her. I do know women who have had abortions, and yes there are times when they would tell me that they feel melancholy and think what if, but when I ask them would they still do it if they knew then what they know now and the answer is always no. Although they might feel sad sometimes they know they done the right thing for themselves at that time.

Earthhorse

carlybabe1 wrote: »

I think this is the problem, as far as I am aware (open to correction on this) abortion is legal in this country for women whose life would be seriously threatened/cause unlimited psoychological/emotional damage. (I'll try post links :eek:) But heres my point, obviously the women who avail of this service feel like they need it, not that they want it.

Yes, I would agree with you on that in this country. If we look at the UK situation though where their abortion laws are more liberal and what tallaght01 posted earlier it seems to be a lot easier to get an abortion and I'd find it hard to believe all those who did actually needed one.

carlybabe1 wrote: »

in previous threads you've posted that abortion has a damaging psychological effect,

In previous threads? Are you sure you aren't getting me mixed up with someone else? This is the only thread on abortion I've significantly contributed to.

carlybabe1 wrote: »

the point Im making is that not all women who have had an abortion would agree woth you, and if you dont see how that matters then dont speak for women who have had abortions by making statements like that and using it to bolster your arguments.

Sorry, but I'm not speaking for women who have had abortions; they are speaking for themselves. If they tell us that an abortion has caused them grief or hurt or trauma I'm entitled to refer to that. And all I suggested earlier in the thread was that having abortions can cause women a lot of emotional pain and that were we to legalise it it would be important to encourage them to talk openly about it. Do you really disagree with that?

carlybabe1 wrote: »

And the guilt Im talking about is this, they wouldnt turn back the clock in a heartbeat, for any money, and knowing that can make them feel guilty....make them feel that they should at least feel some remorse. Im not saying all women feel this, undoubtably a lot a crucified with guilt, so please dont quote me out of context.

Yes, so even women who are confident that they have made the right decision with regard to having an abortion can feel upset about it. It's a tough decision to make, I agree. I didn't quote you out of context by the way. I explicitly said I didn't understand the point you were making and made a stab at interpreting it, nothing more.

Zulu

Overature wrote: »

i think people should try things before they make up there mind about things. somebodys whos had it knows what is like.

Have you taught that one through?

Should I try arsenic/murder/anthrax/rape/bleach/theft/joy riding/... before I decide that it's bad?

eveie

dragon are you saying that this "soul" or "spirit" doesnt exist until the child is born? that just because it is outside of the womb that suddenly the child has this "soul" or "spirit" because as you obviuosly know a child can be born 3 months premature and so on, so is this only created when the child is born? also what about children who are born with serious mental disibilities? many of them do not have the capacity of thought does that make them not worthy of the tag "human"? ive seen a very very premanture baby who didnt survive, but i know the child was human, i know it had that soul or spirit or what ever you wish to call it. imagine if i turned round to this childs parents and tapped them on the back and said "ah dont worry sure its really not human"

eveie

carlybabe i still havent figured out the quote thing....bloody annoying

carlybabe1

Yes, I would agree with you on that in this country. If we look at the UK situation though where their abortion laws are more liberal and what tallaght01 posted earlier it seems to be a lot easier to get an abortion and I'd find it hard to believe all those who did actually needed one.

I do get your point, but I dont think you're quite getting mine, If you asked any woman that had an abortion, they wouldn't tell you "I wanted one" they would tell you that they needed one, as far as they would be concerned thier reason for having an abortion was just as valid as anyone elses. If they didnt think that then chances are they wouldnt go through with it.

In previous threads? Are you sure you aren't getting me mixed up with someone else? This is the only thread on abortion I've significantly contributed to.

Sorry I mmeant to say in previous posts

Sorry, but I'm not speaking for women who have had abortions; they are speaking for themselves. If they tell us that an abortion has caused them grief or hurt or trauma I'm entitled to refer to that. And all I suggested earlier in the thread was that having abortions can cause women a lot of emotional pain and that were we to legalise it it would be important to encourage them to talk openly about it. Do you really disagree with that?

Absolutely not, I do think that it should be discussed more openly, but I also think that the reason its not is because women are made to feel ashamed of it, and as a result this can cause trauma

Yes, so even women who are confident that they have made the right decision with regard to having an abortion can feel upset about it. It's a tough decision to make, I agree. I didn't quote you out of context by the way. I explicitly said I didn't understand the point you were making and made a stab at interpreting it, nothing more.

Yes they do, and what I was tryin to explain is that part of that upset comes from being made to feel ashamed,and being made to feel that they ought to feel guilty. (This is by no means a dig at you) Often when leaving the clinics they are faced with maniacs waving banners of babies in thier faces and being called names, when already they are emotionally vulnerable. This can have more of an effect than the procedure itself

Dragan

eveie wrote: »

dragon are you saying that this "soul" or "spirit" doesnt exist until the child is born? that just because it is outside of the womb that suddenly the child has this "soul" or "spirit" because as you obviuosly know a child can be born 3 months premature and so on, so is this only created when the child is born? also what about children who are born with serious mental disibilities? many of them do not have the capacity of thought does that make them not worthy of the tag "human"? ive seen a very very premanture baby who didnt survive, but i know the child was human, i know it had that soul or spirit or what ever you wish to call it. imagine if i turned round to this childs parents and tapped them on the back and said "ah dont worry sure its really not human"

Now that my dear is what we call taking things out of context. I simply said the for me the definition of a "being" is a complicated one, and i would not attempt to comment on the noncorporal simply because someone physical body or mental aptitude may be disabled in some way.

As i said, a small clump of sells, or even a large clump of cells that lack the basics required to carry out the markers of being a unique "individual" such as thought, feeling, emotion etc.....I do not consider that to be a life, or a being, or an intelligence or a child....whatever way you choose to describe it.

Thats two different threads you have ran to the disabled people argument when it wasn't even mentioned as a point.

As i said, i would not seek to offer advice on when the "spiritual" comes into it, if i could answer that question i would be a lucky man. I do however feel that the physical and the spiritual go hand in hand, the human body has establised systems that carry out thought, that feel pain or pleasure.

These things make someone human to me. The mentally disabled still think, still feel. I don't see what point you are making.

I find your line that many of them do not have the capacity for thought to be insulting. Having worked with mentally disabled children in the past i can assure you they are in every way as human as the rest of us.