Abortion- Right or Wrong

CDfm

carlybabe1 wrote: »

I dont even want to know I'll get booted off for bein off topic :eek: sorry mods

What - ya mean they wont kick ya off for being evasive and not responding to the points you made.

Your definition about dire circumstances lacked cohesion and spousal notification lacked accuracy.You then brought in domestic violence and subsequent miscarriage. These are exceptions and not the rule.

Will you at least concede that fathers could be attached emotionally and mourn their loss of an unborn baby or if you prefer group of cells in the case of miscarriage or stillbirth or premature birth.

carlybabe1

CDfm wrote: »

What - ya mean they wont kick ya off for being evasive and not responding to the points you made.

Your definition about dire circumstances lacked cohesion and spousal notification lacked accuracy.You then brought in domestic violence and subsequent miscarriage. These are exceptions and not the rule.

Will you at least concede that fathers could be attached emotionally and mourn their loss of an unborn baby or if you prefer group of cells in the case of miscarriage or stillbirth or premature birth.

Hey hey hey hang on, If you read my last post on the topic it will answer all your questions, and I never metioned domestic violence, i mentiond assault as in a mugging or attack, its happened you know, Heres a tip cdfm REEAADD SSSLLLOOOWWWWLLLLYYYYYYYYYY

eveie

mods i would appreicate if you would tell previous posters to stay on topic as i was told to do so in a different fourm dealing with this issue.
i find it sad and disturbing that so many people will try to condone abortion on the basis of financial issues. a childs worth is not and not not come down to money. its so hard for me not to get really angry over this subject there are very few things in life that i am certain about but i know that abortion is wrong. as a previous poster stated.....who is going to draw a line in the sand and say now....at 24 weeks and 2 days this being should be considered a baby, how stupid does that sound. doctors all over the world are trying to get the abortion limit pushed back as with medical advance it has been proven that a child at 22 weeks can survive.
also the argument of "well if youve never been in that position you dont have the right to have an opinion" ive never been to war but i know its wrong, ive never been raped but i know its wrong, ive never been murdered but i know it worng. how come everyone can accept these facts but when it comes to abortion people dont want to hear it. i have had personal experience with frineds who have aborted and friends who have had their babies,ive seen as many others have what they go through.
very few pregnancys are properly planned, but a child should not be a plan a child is a gift that many women never experience. to throw away something like this is the horrific. we have all been in the state of "unborn" we have all had the chance to live our lives to experience things to make mistakes to have freedom how can we throw something away that is so innocent and vunerable to our economics and financial positions and thik its perfectly ok.
just because a child might be born into poor conditions does not mean it has less of a right to life, we cannot pick and choose.
and yes abortion IS being used as a form of contraception, ive many friends who study in england and they were shocked with the amount of women that availed of free abortions on the nhs(alot of these friends would have considered themselves pro-choice but have since dramitically changed their opinion)
you know alot of women get on their high horse and say "how dare you judge me" "its my body il do what i want to do with it"
well im NOT judging you im merely telling you its wrong, and no its not your body the baby thats inside you has a unique set of DNA which makes its a seperate enitity from you, you do not have the right nor should you have the choice to pick when a xhild is born. many women have abortions and think they've done the right thing until they've have their first born and then they realise what they considered a clump of cells is now what their calling "their baby" its funny how people can pick and choose what to call a child so easily.
i am not perfect, i would not doubt for one minute that ifi fell pregnant tomorrow i would be terrified i know abortion would cross my mind but i know i wouldnt do it, i couldnt kill a child of mine

eveie

carlybabe
i do not knw where your getting your information from but seriously are you trying to tell me that if a women miscarrys at 16 weeks she is is forced to bring the child to full gestation????? thats impossible no 1 the child is dead, no.2 doing so would more then likely kill the mother, if a women miscarrys no matter the stage of pregnancy the child is removed it is extremly dangerous for the the child not be be remove and can and most often results in the death of the mother.
abortions happen regualry over 16 weeks again i would like to see where your getting this information from becuse its not true

CDfm

I have to agree with you on everything here eevie - i cant conceptualise this cut off point either and cant see how anyone can draw a line.

when i see arguments such like at 16 weeks a foetus looks like a goldfish - but its not a fish its a human not formed yet but still human and viable. the comparison is stupid.

I often feel when I hear pro-abortion arguments there is a lot of " we re so clever and your not" about the arguments. If I dont agree i get a label - religous, misogynist or stupid.

Great post from the heart.

carlybabe1

Only an idiot would think this is a point scoring debate, its not about whos "cleverer" than who, or anythin so petty, heres an argument from the heart
1)If you want to know where I base my argument eveie, why dont you do some research for yourself as no matter what i say, you are still going to say I'm wrong.
2)theres one vital difference between us, I'm pro-choice, which to me means I dont have the right to judge anyone who makes this choice and because all circumstances are so very different,
3)I dont believe that there should be a kiosk where you explain your circumstances and maybe you will be given permission not only to do something to your own body but somethin that will hugely impact on your life, and that of others around you as one anti abortionist pointed out. I dont believe I should have the right to tell anyone what they should do with ther life and/or thier body, If that was the case there would be a LLOTT less porn.
4)You on the other hand can sit on your self righteous chair and say "No way would I ever do that and because I have a hotline to morality I get to tell you that your a baaaad person for doing that, even if it ruins your mental health to have the baby, I get to make you feel bad cause I belong to the morality police, but dont make the mistake of thinkin that if I persuade you to have said baby that you will ever hear from me for support or help :mad::mad::mad::mad: who are you to say who is morally wrong and who isnt. As far as I remember it was the moral majority who instigated that gays be shunned/were evil/against natural law....And dont ell me its not the same...for me it boils down to the same thing, ignorant (by which i mean people who have NO experience of how a stuation would affect them) people thinking that they are moralistically better than others never having even thought of trying to put themselves in anothers shoes, but all too happy to brandish the whip. Sorry for the rant, but its no longer a debate, an im pissed off listenin to holier than thous, I reckon everyone has the right to choose and no-one can be harder on a person than that person themself.

Sorry mods if this is offensive, just peed off with the way this "debate " went down the swanny

CathyMoran

Speaking as someone who was almost faced with having to have an abortion I am far more open minded about abortion now and think that it should be allowed in limited circumstances (NOT financial). My case was that a life saving medical treatment would not have been allowed had I been pregnant (thus the need for an abortion), luckily I was not, but I would have gone abroad and got it done if I had been, much as I desperatly want a child now.

My husband is adopted and I am eternally greatful to his mum for not having an abortion, having an abortion just because you can not afford to bring up the child is not on for me, adoption is always an option. In terms of if someone was raped, I do not see how compounding one trauma with another (abortion) would help, as mentioned before, there is always adoption.

Another area I am unsure about is if the child was seriously ill - my mother is badly brain damaged and much as I love her I know that she has a very hard life, I dont think that I could put a child through that.

I should state that I would never judge anyone for having an abortion but I would not go with them to have it (unless for the above limited reasons).

carlybabe1

I keep hearing about the psychological damage that abortion does, according to this statement there would be THOUSANDS & THOUSANDS of psychologically damaged women walkin around among us contemplating suicide. I know women who have had abortions and while some needed counselling NONE of them fall into that category. And I think that if anything would compound a rape, it would be having your body hijacked for nine months to accomodate your rapists baby, forming mixed emotional attachments to it and then having to give it up, and living with that guilt the rest of your life..when something is gone, its gone

CDfm

CathyMoran wrote: »

Speaking as someone who was almost faced with having to have an abortion I am far more open minded about abortion now and think that it should be allowed in limited circumstances (NOT financial). My case was that a life saving medical treatment would not have been allowed had I been pregnant (thus the need for an abortion), luckily I was not, but I would have gone abroad and got it done if I had been, much as I desperatly want a child now.

My husband is adopted and I am eternally greatful to his mum for not having an abortion, having an abortion just because you can not afford to bring up the child is not on for me, adoption is always an option. In terms of if someone was raped, I do not see how compounding one trauma with another (abortion) would help, as mentioned before, there is always adoption.

Another area I am unsure about is if the child was seriously ill - my mother is badly brain damaged and much as I love her I know that she has a very hard life, I dont think that I could put a child through that.

I should state that I would never judge anyone for having an abortion but I would not go with them to have it (unless for the above limited reasons).

cathy - keep on truckin and I wish you well with treatment- when my kids were born i couldnt have imagined putting them before their mother and in my mind the mothers health takes priority. divorced now have 2 great kids but i still think the same. I applaud you and hubby for being so brave.

Zulu

carlybabe1 wrote: »

2)theres one vital difference between us, I'm pro-choice, which to me means I dont have the right to judge anyone who makes this choice and because all circumstances are so very different,

...so the vital difference is that you abdicate responsibility?

Sorry, I'm not being smart here but, "pro-choice" is a cop out.
I'm anti-abortion. I think it's wrong. Thus, my moral conscience and civic duty, is to vote against it.

If you are "pro-choice" you are really saying you are "pro-abortion" as you are giving people the right to abort. You are saying that as far as you are concerned you are happy with abortion, and happy to allow people in society to abort.

So why bother say "pro-choice". Why not say "pro-abortion"? As far as I can see, it's an attempt to hide the fact. And if it is an attempt to hide the fact - why try to hide it, unless there is, somewhere underneath all the liberal rhetoric, shame.

CDfm

Zulu wrote: »

...so the vital difference is that you abdicate responsibility?

Sorry, I'm not being smart here but, "pro-choice" is a cop out.
I'm anti-abortion. I think it's wrong. Thus, my moral conscience and civic duty, is to vote against it.

If you are "pro-choice" you are really saying you are "pro-abortion" as you are giving people the right to abort. You are saying that as far as you are concerned you are happy with abortion, and happy to allow people in society to abort.

So why bother say "pro-choice". Why not say "pro-abortion"? As far as I can see, it's an attempt to hide the fact. And if it is an attempt to hide the fact - why try to hide it, unless there is, somewhere underneath all the liberal rhetoric, shame.

carlybabe1 - gotta agree with zulu here

when i raised roe vs wade - the most impotant US case on abortion ever and you didnt know what it was. but if you were up to speed on your reading would know and here is a wikipedia link to help you

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade

when I see the phrase pro- choice what I hear is pro- abortion on demand for women no matter what. So fess up is that what you are for?

What else are you for assisted suicide ? Do you have a view on the death penalty?

carlybabe1

2)theres one vital difference between us, I'm pro-choice, which to me means I dont have the right to judge anyone who makes this choice and because all circumstances are so very different,
3)I dont believe that there should be a kiosk where you explain your circumstances and maybe you will be given permission not only to do something to your own body but somethin that will hugely impact on your life, and that of others around you as one anti abortionist pointed out. I dont believe I should have the right to tell anyone what they should do with ther life and/or thier body, If that was the case there would be a LLOTT less porn.

I believe I've already explained it, this is what pro choice is to me.. And I dont need to "fess up" :rolleyes: to any thing.. I believe that people have the right to choose what to do with thier body, and no busy body hand wringer should have the right to deny them permission. oh and CDfm if you get up to date with your reading you'll find out that the reason she changed her mind was because the pregnancy was so far along and the baby was fully developed.. Toodles

Zulu

Firstly, it's bad etiquette to post in big print - it's tantamount to shouting down someone else.

carlybabe1 wrote: »

I believe I've already explained it, this is what pro choice is to me..

Indeed, it's giving someone the right to choose. So you are allowing abortion. So you are pro-abortion.

I believe that people have the right to choose what to do with thier body,

...but you don't agree that this extends to class 1 narcotics I suppose? Why not?

and no busy body hand wringer should have the right to deny them permission.

It's pretty pathetic you need to resort to petty insults. I'm not a busy body. I'm not a hand wringer. I understand my civic duty, and I understand my responsibility as a citizen of this state. I have an opinion and a moral conscience. My opinion and conscience encourages me to vote against abortion. My opinion and conscience tells me it's wrong, so why would I vote to allow people to do wrong things? Just so I can consider myself liberal? So people won't label me a busy body?? or a hand wringer???

No, I'm sorry, but I have the moral fortitude to stand by what I believe is right and what is wrong. To me it's simple: killing human life is wrong.

Now, you can dress it up anyway you like. The "pro-choice" lobby can convince themselves and all around them whatever they like, but I ask you: what do pro-choice people just not come out and say they are pro-abortion? What's so terrible about it?

carlybabe1

Sigh, I put it in big print because you missed it the first time, and the second so ill put it as clearly as i can, and I would have no problem saying that I am pro abortion, but its more than that, and thats what you're refusing to see
1) I am pro choice, as in I would advocate the rghts of ANYBODY to do what THEY want with THIER body, and not be prevented from doing so because somebody else thinks its morally wrong.....IN OTHER WORDS IF YOU THINK ITS MORALLY WRONG THEN THATS OK, DONT DO IT YOURSELF,AND BRING YOUR CHILDREN UP ACCORDINGLY TOO, BUT AND HERES THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PROCHOICE AND PRO ABORTION, I DONT BELIEVE THAT YOU OR ANYBODY ELSE HAS THE RIGHT TO PREVENT A PERSON TAKING ACTION WITH THIER OWN BODY NOW MATTER HOW WRONG YOU THINK IT IS. Now do you see the difference.


And as far as Im concerned, anyone who thinks its ok to do that is a busy body and a hand wringer and dresses it up as doing thier moral and civic duty.....Thats my stand on it and Im not looking to change anyones mind, but I dont see why I should have defend my opinions.

CDfm

carlybabe1 wrote: »

Sigh, I put it in big print because you missed it the first time, and the second so ill put it as clearly as i can, and I would have no problem saying that I am pro abortion, but its more than that, and thats what you're refusing to see
1) I am pro choice, as in I would advocate the rghts of ANYBODY to do what THEY want with THIER body, and not be prevented from doing so because somebody else thinks its morally wrong.....IN OTHER WORDS IF YOU THINK ITS MORALLY WRONG THEN THATS OK, DONT DO IT YOURSELF,AND BRING YOUR CHILDREN UP ACCORDINGLY TOO, BUT AND HERES THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PROCHOICE AND PRO ABORTION, I DONT BELIEVE THAT YOU OR ANYBODY ELSE HAS THE RIGHT TO PREVENT A PERSON TAKING ACTION WITH THIER OWN BODY NOW MATTER HOW WRONG YOU THINK IT IS. Now do you see the difference.


And as far as Im concerned, anyone who thinks its ok to do that is a busy body and a hand wringer and dresses it up as doing thier moral and civic duty.....Thats my stand on it and Im not looking to change anyones mind, but I dont see why I should have defend my opinions.

Almost there - you are just pro- abortion and you see nothing wrong with it and in your world it would be available without restriction.

You are quite forward thinking so I wonder in what circumstances would you make it compulsory.

Zulu

carlybabe1 wrote: »

Sigh, I put it in big print because you missed it the first time

No I didn't.

1) I am pro choice, as in I would advocate the rghts of ANYBODY to do what THEY want with THIER body, and not be prevented from doing so because somebody else thinks its morally wrong

So would you extend that logic to class 1 narcotics?
If not, why not - it's their body.

.....IN OTHER WORDS IF YOU THINK ITS MORALLY WRONG THEN THATS OK, DONT DO IT YOURSELF,AND BRING YOUR CHILDREN UP ACCORDINGLY TOO,

This is where your argument falls apart. Take incest for example, say my sister and I believe it's ok, why should it be illegal? I mean, others believe it's wrong - but shouldn't they just not do it? Why do we make it illegal?

BUT AND HERES THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PROCHOICE AND PRO ABORTION, I DONT BELIEVE THAT YOU OR ANYBODY ELSE HAS THE RIGHT TO PREVENT A PERSON TAKING ACTION WITH THIER OWN BODY NOW MATTER HOW WRONG YOU THINK IT IS.

Again, do you extend that logic to incest? Why do we have a right to tell an incestuous couple what to do with their bodies?

Now do you see the difference.

I see your point, I just don't agree. I believe that as a citizen I have a responsibility to the society I'm a member of; a civic duty to stand up for what I believe is right and wrong.

And as far as Im concerned, anyone who thinks its ok to do that is a busy body and a hand wringer and dresses it up as doing thier moral and civic duty...

Again, why are you resorting to petty insults. Clearly you have no respect for other peoples opinions, and sadly that says more about you that anyone else.

Thats my stand on it and Im not looking to change anyone’s mind, but I dont see why I should have defend my opinions.

:rolleyes: Oh for crying out loud! This is supposed to be a debate/discussion in the humanities forum. That's exactly why you have to defend your opinions.

If you don't what to participate, don't.

CDfm

carlybabe1 wrote: »

2)theres one vital difference between us, I'm pro-choice, which to me means I dont have the right to judge anyone who makes this choice and because all circumstances are so very different,
3)I dont believe that there should be a kiosk where you explain your circumstances and maybe you will be given permission not only to do something to your own body but somethin that will hugely impact on your life, and that of others around you as one anti abortionist pointed out. I dont believe I should have the right to tell anyone what they should do with ther life and/or thier body, If that was the case there would be a LLOTT less porn.

I believe I've already explained it, this is what pro choice is to me.. And I dont need to "fess up" :rolleyes: to any thing.. I believe that people have the right to choose what to do with thier body, and no busy body hand wringer should have the right to deny them permission. oh and CDfm if you get up to date with your reading you'll find out that the reason she changed her mind was because the pregnancy was so far along and the baby was fully developed.. Toodles

Carlybabe1 you werent aware of Roe vs Wade until I posted a link. You are selective in what you use -you forgot to mention that Norma McCorvey was appalled at the application of the case(she was Roe)- she was sick of people coming up to her and thanking her for the right to have 5 or 6 abortions or whatever.

She is also on record as saying she was duped by her lawyers and says she would never have taken the case if she had known people would use abortion as a form of birth control. Not only has she distanced herself from the case she subsequently took a case McCorvey vs Hill to have it overturned.

If you are citing someones stance you should cite it in its entirety.


I havent read any of this stuff in years and Im not an authority I was just pointing you to the basic reading material on which your arguments are based to get down to the fundamentals of what you advocate and you still are not being straight about it.

BTW - thought the gay angle was a hoot - scrapping the end of the barrell a bit arent you - cant see the relevance here - why would a gay person need an abortion? lol

Bottle_of_Smoke

eveie wrote: »

as a previous poster stated.....who is going to draw a line in the sand and say now....at 24 weeks and 2 days this being should be considered a baby, how stupid does that sound. doctors all over the world are trying to get the abortion limit pushed back as with medical advance it has been proven that a child at 22 weeks can survive.

Well how about you decide at which point it's humane. Say, when the nervous system develops it becomes inhumane as the child will potentially feel pain. According to Wikipedia this is between 18-27weeks.

So to allow for unusual advancement set the limit at 15 weeks.

That's just one way of doing it & I'd see it as a perfectly reasonable line to draw. Unless you believe in a soul I don't see why you'd object. If you do believe in a soul then I'd suggest you provide proof for same before you start telling women what to do with their bodies.

Zulu

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

If you do believe in a soul then I'd suggest you provide proof for same before you start telling women what to do with their bodies.

(Although I understand this is a total straw-man...) Why should they? Religious belief is is protected my our own constitution and most others. To vote based on religious belief is completely acceptable in our society.

But then this thread is about Abortion, not religion, so perhaps another thread should be started if you wish to go down that road?

I for one amn't religious, so I'd prefer to keep this thread on topic.

CDfm

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Well how about you decide at which point it's humane. Say, when the nervous system develops it becomes inhumane as the child will potentially feel pain. According to Wikipedia this is between 18-27weeks.

So to allow for unusual advancement set the limit at 15 weeks.

That's just one way of doing it & I'd see it as a perfectly reasonable line to draw. Unless you believe in a soul I don't see why you'd object. If you do believe in a soul then I'd suggest you provide proof for same before you start telling women what to do with their bodies.

I dont think its possible to draw such a line - the point is you believe in life or you dont.

your definition is the central nervous system others are when consciousness or personal awareness develops or when a baby/being is capable of independent survival outside the womb

you get the same problem with comas and permanent vegetative state - you have no way of knowing with certainty about the quality of life or when a person can wake up.

That said I am not unsympathetic to the issue -its part of modern life - Im a divorced dad and was once asked by a gf who do you love more them or me. The kids won. Her needs vs their dependance. So children are life changing.

It has also affected my work choices - I could live and work abroad - would love to - but....

I could take the kids on full time no probs .....but the court system and constitution put women first and I accept that. Thems the breaks.

So by all means people can make the decision to be child free and there are loads of contraceptive devices out there to allow people to make free love as much as they like, have multiple partners and join swingers clubs. No probs there from me with any of that.

The problem for me is someone gets pregnant and says I want my old life back and suddenly decides or Iwant it all and I cant have it so its someone elses fault.They still want it all and have been too lazy or irresponsible to use any of the opportunities of contraception available including the morning after pill - which Im not against well BOO HOO.

You still have adoption but I hear the bleeding heart brigade say its emotionally traumatic or I will loose my career/promotion or my figure or whatever or we loose our relationship because the father doesnt want to be a dad.He will leave me cause he doesnt want kids ( well you picked a real Mr Wonderful there babe!). The thing is we dont kill our work colleagues if we get passed over for promotion.

So by my thinking given all the opportunities not to get pregnant you want someone like me to change my mind and give you the right to kill a child no chance. Its a matter of conscience and my conscience says no (special circumstances for the safety of the health of the mum accepted)

So Im a guy and telling you what to do with your body. No Im not - you have already decided that all by yourself. Im just a bystander.Its the baby Im talking about not you. You are a grown up but we protect children cause they need protection.

LIke the death penalty if you get it wrong there is no going back. Its against my conscience.Take a plane to England if you want just dont expect any sympathy from me or me to agree with your decision.

Zulu

Yup, what he said!
Don't expect me to vote against my conscence to applease your convience.

Taking responsibility for the choices you make, is what defines you as an adult. The decisions you choose define you as a person.

(That isn't meant to be a slight against anybody; it applies to all on both sides of the debate)

Zombrex

CDfm wrote: »

They still want it all and have been too lazy or irresponsible to use any of the opportunities of contraception available including the morning after pill - which Im not against well BOO HOO.

I really don't like this argument that we should force women to have kids as some way of making them grow up or take responsibility. The people you are describing seem like the worst people to be giving the care of another human being to. Using children as a way of teaching people a lesson seems pretty bad.

Won't someone think of the children! :pac:

Dragan

CDfm wrote: »

I have to agree with you on everything here eevie - i cant conceptualise this cut off point either and cant see how anyone can draw a line.

Pretty easily to be honest.

I guess i would be labeled as "pro-choice" though.

CDfm

Wicknight -nobodies forcing or coercing anybody here to have children.This is a free and open discussion.

Im just saying that there are loads of options other than abortion in normal circumstances where the health of a woman is not at risk.

Thats unless you believe that women are too immature too handle such responsibility. Thats not the real world women are and to say otherwise is patronising. What are you suggesting that abortion is available if a woman gets intentionally pregnant and changes her mind ?

Not being sarcastic BTW just trying to inject some realism here and would like to know your views.

CDfm

Dragan wrote: »

Pretty easily to be honest.

I guess i would be labeled as "pro-choice" though.

I wouldnt let you off that easily - pro-abortion maybe

LovelyHurling

I am pro-abortion in situations where it is the woman's choice. I agree that pro-choice is a silly term designed to cover up the simple fact that sometimes, women get pregnant and they want to get rid of the foetus/ child.

As long as the abortion is carried out in a humane way, without adverse health effects to the mother, and as long as the father has given his full consent, I have no problems with somebody choosing abortion. There are enough unwanted kids in this world without bringing any more into it over a quetionable "morality". Morality like that doesn't help anyone or anything.

Dragan

CDfm wrote: »

I wouldnt let you off that easily - pro-abortion maybe

Nope, if i wanted everyone to have abortions then i would be pro-abortion.

If i wanted everyone to have the choice then i would be...........

JC 2K3

nacho libre wrote: »

A zygote has the potential to develop one. A sperm does not.

Yes it does, all it needs is an ovum. What's the big deal about singularity?

nacho libre wrote: »

Based on your views in this thread, granting human rights at birth is not a clearly discernible point, it's just a arbitrary position you take in order to support your position that aborting up until the child pops out is acceptable. I think it is a contradiction to propose suddenly conferring rights at birth because the baby is not a 'person', therefore like the unborn child, you justify aborting, it has no human "value", so it should be ok to cease the existence of the new born baby if it's a burden for the mother.

It is discernible:
-Physically, the baby comes out of the womb, starts breathing for the first time etc.
-Before this point, the baby cannot be adopted.
-Before this point, the mother is burdened with carrying the baby.

nacho libre wrote: »

I believe we give protection to the unborn, by giving it the benefit of the doubt, because as your argument demonstrates no one can clearly provide a line in the sand as to when the developing child should be afforded human rights.

The benefit of the doubt regarding what? Going back to the sperm argument, why is conception and singularity so important in the affording of human rights?

CDfm

Dragan wrote: »

Nope, if i wanted everyone to have abortions then i would be pro-abortion.

If i wanted everyone to have the choice then i would be...........

You have the whiff of a jesuit education about you or at least are good friends with one.

CDfm

JC 2K3 wrote: »

Yes it does, all it needs is an ovum. What's the big deal about singularity?


It is discernible:
-Physically, the baby comes out of the womb, starts breathing for the first time etc.
-Before this point, the baby cannot be adopted.
-Before this point, the mother is burdened with carrying the baby.


The benefit of the doubt regarding what? Going back to the sperm argument, why is conception and singularity so important in the affording of human rights?

Whow there Dr Dawkins. Sit a spell. Dat post is somethan this simple country boys havin trouble understandin.

Does singularity mean before conception? Sperms and ovums type.

The rest looks like legal definitions. Like Peterson in California going on death row for double murder.

Then its a bit out of my league.

Dragan

CDfm wrote: »

You have the whiff of a jesuit education about you or at least are good friends with one.

I wouldn't overestimate my abilities to learn too much about people over an internet forum via a few lines of text if i were you.

Do you have any actual point to make, or was i a bold boy because i gave you an honest opinion?

Shame on me.

CDfm

Very bold .....but honest and I dont agree with the term pro-choice its like calling the death penalty and execution a victim closure experience.

Itsmakes it seem kind of picnicy huggs and love and a happy meal but its more a drive-by than a drive-in at McDonalds.

Zombrex

CDfm wrote: »

Wicknight -nobodies forcing or coercing anybody here to have children.This is a free and open discussion.

Indeed. I didn't actually mean that you, CDfm, were going to physically force a woman to have an child.

Your position is that abortion is wrong. Your argument seems to be that women who are stupid enough to get pregnant should suffer the consequences of being stupid, as that might make them grow up.

I don't like that idea, it seems to be sacrificial the future child simply to prove something the mother. I would have thought that an irresponsible, immature woman is the last person to be raising a child.

CDfm wrote: »

Im just saying that there are loads of options other than abortion in normal circumstances where the health of a woman is not at risk.

Well there is adoption. But that is an option that still creates a child. And it doesn't really teach the mother any responsibility beyond making them go through with the pregnancy.

CDfm wrote: »

Thats unless you believe that women are too immature too handle such responsibility.

I think some clearly are, certainly. As apparently you do.

I don't think 16, 17, 18 year olds should be having children simply to prove a point about how they should have used a condom. I think having an abortion does anyway. And if having an abortion doesn't make them grow up a little and take future responsibility for contraception I certain don't think having a child would.

CDfm wrote: »

What are you suggesting that abortion is available if a woman gets intentionally pregnant and changes her mind ?

I think that early term abortions (I'm against late term abortions) should be available for anyone who wants one, for what ever reason. Ultimately the reason is up to the person. If abortion is fine (it isn't killing a human being) then the reason doesn't matter. If it isn't fine (it is killing a human being) then there is no good reason (beyond maybe saving the life of the mother)

Saying that a person who is lazy or immature or ignorant shouldn't get an abortion because its not a good enough reason is just silly, because do you really want a lazy immature ignorant person having the baby instead?

Zombrex

LovelyHurling wrote: »

I am pro-abortion in situations where it is the woman's choice. I agree that pro-choice is a silly term designed to cover up the simple fact that sometimes, women get pregnant and they want to get rid of the foetus/ child.

Well "pro-choice" was picked as a term because ultimately it is support for the woman (or couple) to choose what they want to do, they can decide to have an abortion but it is ok to decide not to have an abortion either, or feel that abortion is wrong for them.

where as "pro-abortion" sounds like everyone should get abortions :pac:

Abortions for everyone!
Booo!!
Abortions for none!
Booo!!
Abortions for some, miniature American flags for others!
Wooohooo!

LovelyHurling

I'm not sure what it is supposed to mean that this term was "picked". I just think it's a silly term that doesn't adequately describe what I am in favour of. Pro-choice could mean being in favour of women deciding to stick knitting needles up there, or women alone having a choice. At best this term is vague and impotent.

What I'm in favour of, on the other hand, is abortion under certain circumstances - ie when it is a clear and firm decision that both parties, potential mother and potential father, come to and is carried out safely in a clinical setting.

We can't tiptoe around the fact that as it happens, there's really nothing wrong with this procedure, it doesn't needed to be wrapped up in cotton wool.

Zombrex

LovelyHurling wrote: »

I'm not sure what it is supposed to mean that this term was "picked".

It was picked by "pro-abortion" (as you would call them) campaigners. Such a term is known as political framing. It is a term designed to sound good and to cast opposition in a negative light. To be against "pro-choice" is to be anti-choice (boo! bad!). The "pro-life" campaign do the same thing, to be against them is to be anti-life (boo! bad!)

To be "pro-abortion" or "anti-abortion" just doesn't have the same kick to it :pac:

LovelyHurling wrote: »

What I'm in favour of, on the other hand, is abortion under certain circumstances - ie when it is a clear and firm decision that both parties, potential mother and potential father, come to and is carried out safely in a clinical setting.

Well the pro-choice campaign would argue that that is pro-choice?

You support the right for parents to choose to abort their unborn foetus if they decide to, though you also support their right not to?

The term anti-abortion makes more sense that pro-abortion. To be anti-abortion means that no one should have an abortion. But "pro-abortion" kinda implies that everyone should have an abortion, which isn't what the pro-choice campaign want to project.

Dragan

CDfm wrote: »

Very bold .....but honest and I dont agree with the term pro-choice its like calling the death penalty and execution a victim closure experience.

Itsmakes it seem kind of picnicy huggs and love and a happy meal but its more a drive-by than a drive-in at McDonalds.

Cool, call me whatever you want, either way i feel that early stage abortions should be an option in this country.

Malari

Dragan wrote: »

Cool, call me whatever you want, either way i feel that early stage abortions should be an option in this country.

Yeah, to be honest I use the term "pro-choice" because that it what is in common usage and it is recognisable when you are talking to someone - they know what side you are on.

If you want to call me pro-abortion that's fine, but for me, pro-choice describes more than just abortion; it also means a choice to get infomration about ALL the options available to a woman before and after she becomes pregnant.

Malari

Wicknight wrote: »

Indeed. I didn't actually mean that you, CDfm, were going to physically force a woman to have an child.

Your position is that abortion is wrong. Your argument seems to be that women who are stupid enough to get pregnant should suffer the consequences of being stupid, as that might make them grow up.

I don't like that idea, it seems to be sacrificial the future child simply to prove something the mother. I would have thought that an irresponsible, immature woman is the last person to be raising a child.


Well there is adoption. But that is an option that still creates a child. And it doesn't really teach the mother any responsibility beyond making them go through with the pregnancy.

Not only might a woman who became unintentionally pregnant make a poor mother, but it's also inane to expect her to carry a pregnancy to term whilst abstaining from drinking, smoking, and carry out all the normal checks if she doesn't want the baby.

CDfm

Wicknight wrote: »

Indeed. I didn't actually mean that you, CDfm, were going to physically force a woman to have an child.

Your position is that abortion is wrong. Your argument seems to be that women who are stupid enough to get pregnant should suffer the consequences of being stupid, as that might make them grow up.

I don't like that idea, it seems to be sacrificial the future child simply to prove something the mother. I would have thought that an irresponsible, immature woman is the last person to be raising a child.


Well there is adoption. But that is an option that still creates a child. And it doesn't really teach the mother any responsibility beyond making them go through with the pregnancy.


I think some clearly are, certainly. As apparently you do.

I don't think 16, 17, 18 year olds should be having children simply to prove a point about how they should have used a condom. I think having an abortion does anyway. And if having an abortion doesn't make them grow up a little and take future responsibility for contraception I certain don't think having a child would.


I think that early term abortions (I'm against late term abortions) should be available for anyone who wants one, for what ever reason. Ultimately the reason is up to the person. If abortion is fine (it isn't killing a human being) then the reason doesn't matter. If it isn't fine (it is killing a human being) then there is no good reason (beyond maybe saving the life of the mother)

Saying that a person who is lazy or immature or ignorant shouldn't get an abortion because its not a good enough reason is just silly, because do you really want a lazy immature ignorant person having the baby instead?

Wicknight - yer being flippant.

Course I dont think women are stupid - thats patronising and wrong and I have never said that- if thats your opinion it doesnt bother me.

I have no religous or educational message here sorry to disapoint.

Early or late abortions all boil down to one thing. When you see foetus I see baby - thats where we differ and abortion is baby killing.

Baby killing is not new - the baby farmers of the 19th Century took in babies to rear them or have them adopted for money.Then killed the baby and pocketed the dosh. So baby killing is not new -it has a fine historical tradition. In India baby girls are killed or aborted.

The murderer Christie used to target women to kill by saying he could do abortions.

My point is that abortion is not contraception. If you are sexually active -get real - its like the employee getting caught embezzling killing the accountant who discovers the fraud. WE dont do that beacause its disproportionate and wrong.

If a woman gets pregnant well I would hope she is ready or in a good relationship but its not the babies fault and killing the baby is disproportionate. Convenient to the putative parents maybe - but still killing.

I believe that stoning women in the middle east for adultery is wrong - but at least they wait until the baby is born or weaned.

What Im saying there are loads of contraceptive options available up to and including the morning after pill and loads of ways of having sex that wont result in pregnancy.

The term pro-choice and the way you use it is pro baby killing so you can do what you want just dont kill any babies OK.

Zulu

Malari wrote: »

Not only might a woman who became unintentionally pregnant make a poor mother, but it's also inane to expect her to carry a pregnancy to term whilst abstaining from drinking, smoking, and carry out all the normal checks if she doesn't want the baby.

So, your argument is: because someone will probably be a bad parent: kill the child?

Did I read that correctly??

Malari

Zulu wrote: »

So, your argument is: because someone will probably be a bad parent: kill the child?

Did I read that correctly??

No, you didn't. But I think forced pregnancy could potentially already endanger the foetus which you want to keep alive because the person carrying it never wanted to be pregnant in the first place.

Nevyn

Wicknight wrote: »

Well the pro-choice campaign would argue that that is pro-choice?

You support the right for parents to choose to abort their unborn foetus if they decide to, though you also support their right not to?

Yes.

Dragan

CDfm wrote: »

I have no religous or educational message here sorry to disapoint.

Funny, you were quick enough to pressume things about my own education.

I always wondered why people mention issues they later deem to be moot.

CDfm

I was talking about me not having any aghenda- anyway am new to boards and thought a moderator was like a guru or a spirit guide - you know like the fox in the Simpsons or the grandfather in Soupy Norman:rolleyes:

tallaght01

So, we've talked about when a fetus becomes a human being. Obviously, it's very difficult to get any kind of consensus on that issue.

I've held 23 (rarely) and 24 week (more often) babies. They have most of the bits they need to look liek a human. And they did a week or 2 before they were born, too.

So, I'm curious to know how LATE we should offer abortions at?

Anyone got any strong opinions on this part of the argument?

Zulu

Malari wrote: »

No, you didn't. But I think forced pregnancy could potentially already endanger the foetus which you want to keep alive because the person carrying it never wanted to be pregnant in the first place.

I'm sorry but I'm failing to see the difference. You are saying that it's ok to abort because the parent (mother) "could potentially endanger" the child. Correct?
So if someone is a poor parent (ie: will smoke/drink/take drugs while pregnant), it's ok to kill the child (abort the foetus). No?

Nevyn

tallaght01 wrote: »

So, I'm curious to know how LATE we should offer abortions at?

Anyone got any strong opinions on this part of the argument?

Personally 20 weeks should be the cut off, and only after that if there is sever deformity such as lack of brain development or lack of kidney development.

Zulu

Malari wrote: »

If you want to call me pro-abortion that's fine, but for me, pro-choice describes more than just abortion; it also means a choice to get infomration about ALL the options available to a woman before and after she becomes pregnant.

By the by, you can be anti-abortion, but still be for all the information being given to women. It's not like anti-abortion = no information.
Currently our society provides information, just not abortions.

Nevyn

Zulu wrote: »

By the by, you can be anti-abortion, but still be for all the information being given to women. It's not like anti-abortion = no information.
Currently our society provides information, just not abortions.

Which I think is hypocritical.

From a catholic point of view anyone who had a complete abortion is automatically excommunicated but also are those who assist in that happening.

So all those who voted for the right to information in that refenda if they were catholic they were automatically excommunicated.