Abortion- Right or Wrong

JC 2K3

eveie wrote: »

becuase all humans have rights

I have to stop you there.

This isn't a scientific fact, all humans having rights is simply an ideology. I don't believe we have to grant these rights to the unborn.

Zulu

Malari wrote: »

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.

Perhaps you are right. But wheither or not it was a joint decision doesn't matter. When push comes to shove, the mother makes/has the choice. She can change her mind and the father has no choice.

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

Of course they won't. They haven't to date and it would be impossible to implement.

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.

You are though. Once you determine that a mother has more say due to the fact that she's supporting the unborn child, you lessen the fathers say.

Nevyn

What are these rights ?
Where are they listed ?
Who confers them ?

Zulu

Thaedydal wrote: »

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 own a house. I get to say what goes on in it. I also get to say what I don't want in it.

Can I kill the tenant I no longer want? It'd be a lot easier than waiting for the lease to expire.

Earthhorse

Malari wrote: »

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.

Actually, I said that, though Zulu thanked it so we can assume he agrees. Why do you think that's the only part of the decision that the woman should get to make on her own?

Malari wrote: »

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

To the best of my knowledge there are no laws in existence in any country where abortion is legalised that allow father's to have a say in whether the abortion takes place.

JC 2K3 wrote: »

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...

That's virtually impossible to prove without some written contract that the couple intended to have children together. Everything else presented will be essentially be hearsay.

JC 2K3 wrote: »

...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.

Knowing our court system (indeed, any western court system) you could probably delay until the due date to get the result you wanted. This also comes up against the same problem when it comes to hearsay.

JC 2K3 wrote: »

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

I think that if you think it through you'll find it wouldn't work at all.

Nevyn

Zulu wrote: »

I own a house. I get to say what goes on in it. I also get to say what I don't want in it.

Can I kill the tenant I no longer want? It'd be a lot easier than waiting for the lease to expire.

You can evict them.

all the stars

Zulu wrote: »

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

..or do these two people not count?


I

they do count.. however, i actually know of someone, who was in a long-term relationship, her O/H wanted kids. She felt she wasn't ready and didn't want to...
However, he kinda talked her around and after a while they planned for a baby toghether.

She was about 4/5 months expecting when he left and said he wanted nothing to do with them.

While of course, the mans' say is important, ultimatly he can fairly head off whenever he wants to become a weekend daddy (if even) ...
generally, the woman is left with baby ( well, not "left"- that sounds bad but i dont mean it in a bad way- just cant find the correct way to explain)

JC 2K3

Thaedydal wrote: »

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.

Thaedydal wrote: »

You can evict them.

It's comments like these that make me wonder what the abortion debate will be like if/when artificial, external wombs are created. Could a father claim that a mother has no right to kill his unborn child, but instead request that she have it extracted and placed into one of these accordingly?

AngryBadger

Thaedydal wrote: »

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.

I'm maybe missing something here, but I'm neither going to wake up with a zygote growing in my scrotum, or with a woman telling me she's pregnant with my child in any circumstance other than a planned one. I'm not alone in this, innumerable people/couples have managed to have children within the confines of a stable relationship, I simply don't understand why we talk about unplanned pregnancies as if they happen by magic, and how this somehow justifies abortion as a way to deal with that problem?

Publin

Thaedydal wrote: »

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.

Yes you have a womb and you own it, but do you alone "own" the baby growing inside in your opinion?

nacho libre

eveie wrote: »

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.

unfortunately some people will counter the unborn child(you in this case) was not a sentient being(a person) with a fulcrum of human experience. therefore you don't have rights, so your mother aborting you is justifiable to them. of course it does not stop them being hypocritical because they will draw a line in the sand to argue against killing a new born baby which going by their logic should be completely justifiable as a new born baby is not a "person" either therefore should no rights either.

also, you will notice that some people talk of possession rights in defence of their right to exclude men from the decision making process. yet another classic double standard.

Earthhorse

JC 2K3 wrote: »

Could a father claim that a mother has no right to kill his unborn child, but instead request that she have it extracted and placed into one of these accordingly?

I think so. I don't see why not unless the procedure were in some way dangerous to the woman. But, and not to discount the possibility entirely, we're pretty much dealing with science fiction here.

Zulu

Thaedydal wrote: »

You can evict them.

Did you miss my point?

Just because you own something doesn't entitle you to kill what's in it. According to my moral compass, that is wrong. However there are plenty of people who would disagree with me, if you are content with their moral direction.

Nevyn

JC 2K3 wrote: »

It's comments like these that make me wonder what the abortion debate will be like if/when artificial, external wombs are created. Could a father claim that a mother has no right to kill his unborn child, but instead request that she have it extracted and placed into one of these accordingly?

Well why have we not seen men asking women to continue the pregnancy until the baby is 'viable' which by modren standards is what now 26 weeks and then have it re moved and put in long term, invasive, expensive care in a Natal Intensive Care Unit ?

How likely are drs and hospital to agree to such proceedures ?

JC 2K3

nacho libre wrote: »

they will draw a line in the sand to argue against killing a new born baby which going by their logic should be completely justifiable as a new born baby is not a "person" either therfore should no rights either.

You draw a line at conception. Why doesn't a sperm have rights? It's simply one step behind in the development process.

JC 2K3

Thaedydal wrote: »

Well why have we not seen men asking women to continue the pregnancy until the baby is 'viable' which by modren standards is what now 26 weeks and then have it re moved and put in long term, invasive, expensive care in a Natal Intensive Care Unit ?

Forgive my cynicism, but because they aren't imaginative enough?

Thaedydal wrote: »

How likely are drs and hospital to agree to such proceedures ?

Well, if the price is high enough.....

Earthhorse wrote: »

I think so. I don't see why not unless the procedure were in some way dangerous to the woman. But, and not to discount the possibility entirely, we're pretty much dealing with science fiction here.

Pretty much, and we shouldn't stay on this tangent for too long, but they've had some degree of success creating artifical wombs:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/feb/10/medicalscience.research
Granted that was 6 years ago and they could have either found there are massive obstacles to overcome or made great progress in the area since then.

Zulu

Thaedydal wrote: »

Well why have we not seen men asking women to continue the pregnancy until the baby is 'viable' which by modren standards is what now 26 weeks and then have it re moved and put in long term, invasive, expensive care in a Natal Intensive Care Unit ?

How likely are drs and hospital to agree to such proceedures ?

Find a mother who'd agree!
This is a rather pointless avenue to explore.

seamus

Zulu wrote: »

Just because you own something doesn't entitle you to kill what's in it. According to my moral compass, that is wrong. However there are plenty of people who would disagree with me, if you are content with their moral direction.

Your disagreement just falls back to the old, "Is it a human which deserves rights?" argument.

If you have a cow staying in your house that you no longer want, is it OK to kill it? Legally, yes.

So instead of using straw man arguments, why not start with that one - Is an unborn child a human?

Whatever your answer, it leads to two more questions:

1. Why?
2. Can you prove it?

Re: Men & Women, it's a thorny one. We attempt to apply equality to all parties in the argument, when clearly all parties in the argument are not equal.

The issue of property then arises. Well, the woman's body belong to her. So does her womb. What about the unborn child? Does it belong to her? If not, then at what point in the gestation process does it cease to belong to her? The zygote attaches to the cell wall and effectively becomes "part" of the womb for a period. So at what point after that do we distinguish between the mother and the child as two completely separate organisms.

If you would argue that the child is partially owned by both the mother and father at conception, then how do you deal with the situation where one wishes to dispose of their "asset"?

When you look at the argument, it always boils down to the base question of "Is it a being which has rights?".

Malari

Earthhorse wrote: »

Actually, I said that, though Zulu thanked it so we can assume he agrees. Why do you think that's the only part of the decision that the woman should get to make on her own?

Oh sorry, I just pressed the quote button!

But I think you misunderstand me. I don't think it should come to it that it is a decision a woman makes on her own. I don't think any woman, when she gets to reproductive age, should be unclear as to what she does in that situation.

Yes, there is a lot of teenage, uneducated sex, one-night stands without proper protection, etc, but in a relationship where a couple is having sex on a regular basis I think part of the responsibility lies in discussing "what would happen if..." so that the decision is not solely with the woman.

Earthhorse

JC 2K3 wrote: »

Forgive my cynicism, but because they aren't imaginative enough?

Or it could be because, y'know, intensive care is called intensive care for a reason. No hospital would agree to such a procedure without good medical reasons.

JC 2K3 wrote: »

Well, if the price is high enough.....

Now that is cynical.

JC 2K3 wrote: »

Pretty much, and we shouldn't stay on this tangent for too long, but they've had some degree of success creating artifical wombs:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/feb/10/medicalscience.research
Granted that was 6 years ago and they could have either found there are massive obstacles to overcome or made great progress in the area since then.

I agree we shouldn't stay on it too long. Until these wombs are viable for the development of a foetus till birth it's nothing more than an interesting thought experiment.

seamus wrote: »

Your disagreement just falls back to the old, "Is it a human?" argument.

That old chestnut, eh?

*sighs*

Every debate about abortion ultimately boils down to that.

seamus wrote: »

Whatever your answer, it leads to two more questions:

1. Why?
2. Can you prove it?

And the answers to those questions lead to more questions which brings you right up to the point where Zulu was arguing about killing his tenants.

Zulu

seamus wrote: »

Your disagreement just falls back to the old, "Is it a human which deserves rights?" argument.

Absolutely!

If you have a cow staying in your house that you no longer want, is it OK to kill it? Legally, yes.

We are talking about humans not cows.

So instead of using straw man arguments, why not start with that one - Is an unborn child a human?

Yes.

Whatever your answer, it leads to two more questions:
1. Why?

Because it's not a cow.

2. Can you prove it?

No, but I can't disprove it, so I give it the benefit of doubt.

"Is it a being which has rights?".

IMO, Yes.

Question: Does it currently have rights?

tallaght01

It's such a difficult question, but I think abortion would definitely be the wrong decision for me.

I struggle with it on a number of levels.

I don't see why abortion is an easier process than adoption.

I can't get past the idea that it's essentially "putting down" a baby.

I struggle with the idea that this aborted foetus will someday be an adult with kids and grandkids etc, and that whole extended family is essentially wiped out.

I can't accept that the mother "owns" the unborn child. Sure, it depends on her for survival. But newborn babies do too, and you're not allowed to kill them because you don't want them.


But it's not as simple as that. It's a quagmire or emotion and fear and guilt, and people who are often too young and too unsupported to make these decisions properly.

Having said that, I've yet to hear any really really convincing arguments for abortion. Paradoxically, though, I'd be in favour of legalising it in Ireland. I think it's going to happen one way or the other, so these poor women shouldn't have a lonely overseas journey added to their misery.

seamus

Zulu wrote: »

We are talking about humans not cows.

You said:
"Just because you own something doesn't entitle you to kill what's in it."

I disproved that statement. My point being that you strip away all of the comparisons and fluff and you're just left with the one question.

Nothing else matters, there are no other considerations. Having the discussion is largely pointless because it's a philosophical one. Everyone draws a line where they think the unborn ends and the human begins, and then struggle to justify it beyond, "That's my opinion".

Question: Does it currently have rights?

Under Irish law, yes.

tallaght01

seamus wrote: »

You said:
"Just because you own something doesn't entitle you to kill what's in it."

I disproved that statement. My point being that you strip away all of the comparisons and fluff and you're just left with the one question.

.

Unless I misread it, your logic is flawed there. Zulu said that owning something doesn't give you the right to kill it. You argued by counter example, which isn't valid.

To disprove what he said, you'd have to be certain that he couldn't provide an example of something that you can own, and can't kill.

eveie

the reason abortion is legal in this country is because we give the unborn child rights.
a number of scientist have agreed that from the moment of conception a human is created. by saying its not human and following that logic then a baby is less human than a toddles, a toddles is less human then a teenager a teenerage is less human then an adult and so on.
i will give the links and or information from where the above is agreed in a while.
no body can completely justify the taking of a life,abortion is considered ok, because the unbron doesnt have a say.
the argument that alot of children are born into poverty is a very weak argument, are we going to go around killing al the children that live in poverty are they lives any less worthy then our own???
we were all unborn at one stage and we will al die but for someone to determine if we are born or not is a power abuse, the unborn has the right to life as much as a 2 yr old.
if you have a child techincally they are still living off your bidy they depend on you for nurshiment etc so shouls we allow the killing of children up to the age where they can feed themselves.
life is not a choice

seamus

It's a side point here, but he argued that you're not entitled to kill anything which occupies something which you own. I provided an example where you would be entitled to kill something which was occupying your property.

JC 2K3

tallaght01 wrote: »

I struggle with the idea that this aborted foetus will someday be an adult with kids and grandkids etc, and that whole extended family is essentially wiped out.

But any combination of any sperm and ovum from any man or woman in the world is a potential extended family that is being denied existence if they are not fused.

Now no one has a problem with killing a sperm or ovum, but just because they go one step further in the development process, why is it wrong to kill them/it? Singularity is sort of arbitrary.

eveie

sperm of ovum by itslef is not going to create a child, thats like saying every time a women goes through a cycle she is killing a potential life, when the combine they have created a life, as individual cells they cannot create life

trowelled

I've never quite known where I stand on abortion. When younger I was always against it but as I get older I find myself expressing more of an open mind on the issue!

Everyone is talking about so-called accidental pregnancies due to irresponsible sex and so on. It surprises me that noone has brought up the the idea as to whether a woman who has become pregnant as a result of rape/sexual abuse from a family member etc. Is abortion totally wrong in these incidents. I know someone's gonna say but it's not the baby's fault. I just don't think abortion is wrong in all incidents.

eveie

trowlled
ok very valid question
1: less then 1% of all abortions carried out re due ti incest or rape, theat howver does not mean thats its not important.
2: lets just say im after being rapped, i go to my g.p who tells me that fir the pain a hurt to go away i should get my abdomen removed, i know what id do id probably report him for being crazy.
rape is a terrible terrible violation of a women, but abortion is yet again a violation of her body, the pian of being rapped will not go away if she has an abortion, she will need professional help
the rape issue is always brought up, but considering it onlty accounts for under 1% of all abortions why are the real reason not talked about. very few women become pregnant through rape because th ebody goes into shock and actualyu prevent pregnancy occuring, although im not in any way saying it doesnt happen

JC 2K3

eveie wrote: »

sperm of ovum by itslef is not going to create a child

Neither is a zygote/embryo/foetus without a womb.

eveie

apologies for my spelling i know its terrible

JC 2K3

eveie wrote: »

abortion is yet again a violation of her body

It's not a violation if it's consensual.

eveie

so your saying because of the place of residencie the unborn child should be aborted?

JC 2K3

eveie wrote: »

so your saying because of the place of residencie the unborn child should be aborted?

That's essentially the crux of the whole abortion debate. Well done.

eveie

it is a violation of a womens body, inserting instruments to cut up the unborn, possible rupturing the uterus, leaving the women infertile

eveie

jc2k3 how about tyring not to be so patronising, i have debated the abortion issue for many years,

trowelled

eveie wrote: »

trowlled
ok very valid question
1: less then 1% of all abortions carried out re due ti incest or rape, theat howver does not mean thats its not important.
2: lets just say im after being rapped, i go to my g.p who tells me that fir the pain a hurt to go away i should get my abdomen removed, i know what id do id probably report him for being crazy.
rape is a terrible terrible violation of a women, but abortion is yet again a violation of her body, the pian of being rapped will not go away if she has an abortion, she will need professional help
the rape issue is always brought up, but considering it onlty accounts for under 1% of all abortions why are the real reason not talked about. very few women become pregnant through rape because th ebody goes into shock and actualyu prevent pregnancy occuring, although im not in any way saying it doesnt happen

It does not matter what the percentages are. My point was that abortion can not be considered wrong in all incidents even if it is just 1%.

I never said that abortion would take the pain of being raped away. What if the woman does not want to bring a rapist's child into the world. I know it's not the child's fault but who knows what way the woman would view that child. Of course there are women who choose to bring the child into the world and will love it unconditionally. However, not everyone thinks the same and not every woman is strong enough to go through with it. I'm not sure I would be. It goes without saying that she will need professional help

If a woman chooses to abort her child she may not view it as a violation of her body as you put it. She does not choose to be raped and so you cannot see the 'violation' as being in anyway comparable.

Nevyn

Legal surgical abortions do not leave a woman infetile, non legal unsafe abortions do.

So you can add that myth to the pile about cancer ect.

IF you go do your dr and say you were raped you will be examined and the emgerency contraceptive pill will be prescribed to you.

eveie

trowelled what about the option of adoption? and if you have read my post properly you would have see n that i did not dispute that it was a very valid question regaerdless of the % im not trying to fob it off

brucer24!

its a hard subject to take sides on,but i find that lately i have an open mind towards it,its the individuals choice so i feel we should respect their decision. quick question : do people feel that taking the morning after pill is also essentially abortion?my friends and i have debated on this.

eveie

thedydal seriously are you trying to say that no women has ended up infertile form a legal abortion? becuase that is NOT true

Nevyn

eveie seriously are you trying to say that lots of women have ended up infertile form legal abortion ? because that is NOT true.

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/abortion/AN00633

Abortion: Does it affect subsequent pregnancies?

Answer

There is much evidence that abortion is very safe in regard to its possible impact on future pregnancies. Research has shown that both abortion by medication (medical abortion) and abortion by surgery (surgical abortion) very rarely result in infertility or complications in subsequent pregnancies.

You may as well say women who have abortions go on to be killed by lightening.

trowelled

eveie wrote: »

trowelled what about the option of adoption? and if you have read my post properly you would have see n that i did not dispute that it was a very valid question regaerdless of the % im not trying to fob it off

I did read your post and it was the fact that you reiterated the 1% thing at the end that got me. You may not have been trying to fob it off but you seem to have missed my point. I'm saying that I do not believe abortion is wrong in all incidents and that's just the way I see it.

Adoption isn't for everyone. It may be the case that they don't want to have to endure the pain of carrying the child for 9 months either. As I said every woman is different! Each to their own.

Abortion i wrong if it's used as a means of after contraception but I think if someone has a valid reason for abortion then they should have the right to do it and should not be jjudged for it

eveie

"During a medical abortion, a woman takes oral medications — mifepristone (formerly known as RU-486) and misoprostol — during her first trimester to abort the fetus." quote from link you gave me no it doesnt go on to increase the risk of future problem regarding infertility........its funny it doesnt mention here the 18 women who died as a direct consquence of this drug.
and it does state that it is possible
a friend who has been left infertile from an abortion, ironic isnt it

Nevyn

eveie wrote: »

a friend who has been left infertile from an abortion, ironic isnt it

I know of 9 women who weren't.

More women die in child birth then are rendered infertile from legal medical/surgical abortion proceedures.

eveie

see this is the problem with that
abortion was first legalised in england in cases where the child would be born with serious defects, now abortion is been carried out of perfectly formed unborn children
also if we bring a law in here stating that any women who falls pregnant through incest or rape should be allowed th echoise to abort will only bring women out of the wood work claming they were raped and thst a big enough problem as it stands.

eveie

how many women die form abortion every yr?
Ireland is the safest countr in the world to have a baby, that research was carried out by the u.n, i know of one women who has died as a direct consquence of child birth, but im wondering could you provide me with numbers from abortion?
also i know that women who have died as a consquence of abortion very rarely get that put on their death cert, its either, infected utures, blood poising, heamoriging

Piste

Zulu wrote: »

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

..or do these two people not count?

What choice? Why should the father get a choice? He has donated one cell, not even a proper sell, a crappy haploid cell, and the mother has donated one cell. Every subsequent cell in the foetus's body comes from nutrients in the woman's body. So I don't think the father should have any say.

Before someone brings it up I also don't think a man should have to pay child support if he never sees his kids and never wanted kids.

Publin wrote: »

Yes you have a womb and you own it, but do you alone "own" the baby growing inside in your opinion?

I suppose you'd "own" it as much as a tapeworm in your intestine. I think a woman should be able to remov her her services as an involuntary incubator, and if that results in the death of the foetus then I don't really care.

I don't see a foetus's life as being particularly "special" if it not valued. I don't believe that life has intrinsic value, value is bestowed on it by other people and by the living person themself. A foetus does not value its own life nor does anyone else, so it's not wrong to kill it.

Nevyn

eveie wrote: »

how many women die form abortion every yr?
Ireland is the safest countr in the world to have a baby, that research was carried out by the u.n, i know of one women who has died as a direct consquence of child birth, but im wondering could you provide me with numbers from abortion?

Legal abortion ?
You know full well due to it's taboo nature many women do not give their real names and address and so can be followed up on.
If legal abortion was killing women and rendering them infertile then the meidcal profession and the legal profession would know about it.

eveie wrote: »

also i know that women who have died as a consquence of abortion very rarely get that put on their death cert, its either, infected utures, blood poising, heamoriging

The same is usually stated on the death certs of those who die due to complications arising from child birth.