Abortion- Right or Wrong

Malari · 02-09-2008 1:09pm

Zulu wrote: »

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?

Well, it's kind of taking the opposite view of the point I'm making. I was coming back to the point that women shouldn't be allowed abort because they got into that situation them selves and should just deal with it.

I think that doesn't solve the problem because in many cases now you have a pregnant woman, who doesn't want to be, is denied the choice of an abortion and may endanger the foetus in her because of a reckless attitude.

I'm not saying "kill the child if it's a poor parent". I'm saying forced continuation of pregnancy doesn't automatically a responsible parent make.

tallaght01 · 02-09-2008 1:09pm

But why 20 weeks? That's what I'm trying to get at. Why not 21 weeks.

is it because there has to be a cut off point,a nd we have to pick something out of the air? Or is there a reason behhind that number?

Some babies at 20 weeks will be as developed as a 21 weeker.

Malari · 02-09-2008 1:12pm

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.

Good point, but I wouldn't say I'm anti-life OR pro-life because I know what people take that to mean. I'm pro-people-being-given-the-option-to-have-abortions-if-they-so-choose. Snappy...

Zulu · 02-09-2008 1:14pm

Thaedydal wrote: »

Which I think is hypocritical.

...and our approach to drugs is hypocritical also!
But I disagree, our society is aware that some people will want to have abortions. However, our society has deemed that abortion is wrong and so it isn't permitted. Like all other crime, society recognises that it will happen regardless so it provides information to ensure each citizen can make an educated decision, even if they go ahead and make the wrong decision.

How is that hypocritical? It's an educated and balanced approach.

From a catholic point of view

...well whatever about a religious pov, I'm not interested in that. Thankfully are laws aren't created, and confirmed on the altar.

Malari · 02-09-2008 1:17pm

tallaght01 wrote: »

Some babies at 20 weeks will be as developed as a 21 weeker.

That's interesting, I didn't think of it that way before. But what would be the most common stage at which women find out they are pregnant? 3 weeks, 4 weeks? How long do you need to decide whether you want an abortion or not?

philologos · 02-09-2008 1:18pm

carlybabe1 wrote: »

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.

What about the right to life under the UN Declaration of Human Rights? Surely there are two sets of rights being discussed here, the rights of the mother, and the rights of the child.

Zulu · 02-09-2008 1:21pm

Malari wrote: »

I think that doesn't solve the problem because in many cases now you have a pregnant woman, who doesn't want to be, is denied the choice of an abortion and may endanger the foetus in her because of a reckless attitude.

so instead of permitting abortion offer free contraception and sex education. Just because people will have unwanted pregnancy, doesn't mean we should give them the right to kill the child.

I'm not saying "kill the child if it's a poor parent". I'm saying forced continuation of pregnancy doesn't automatically a responsible parent make.

Agreed it's not going to make someone responsible, but you are saying to let them kill the child because they are irresponsible, which to me is about the worst reason to let someone kill a human.

Malari wrote: »

Good point, but I wouldn't say I'm anti-life OR pro-life because I know what people take that to mean. I'm pro-people-being-given-the-option-to-have-abortions-if-they-so-choose. Snappy...

Hummm, PPBGTOTHAITSC, sounds terrible. I'm all for it!

tallaght01 · 02-09-2008 1:23pm

Malari wrote: »

That's interesting, I didn't think of it that way before. But what would be the most common stage at which women find out they are pregnant? 3 weeks, 4 weeks? How long do you need to decide whether you want an abortion or not?

I don't know statistically when the most common time is for a woman to find out she's pregnant. I also donn't know how long it would take to decide if you wanted an abortion, as it would never be an option for me personally.

But, even accepting that abortion will happen, I find it difficult to accept people's acceptable cut off points.

For, example, you can watch a baby wriggle at 8 weeks or thereabouts. It's not a good proxy measurement for "human-ness", but it makes the little person seem a whole lot more human.

Malari · 02-09-2008 1:25pm

Zulu wrote: »

so instead of permitting abortion offer free contraception and sex education. Just because people will have unwanted pregnancy, doesn't mean we should give them the right to kill the child.

Yes I'm all for that. But still, I was responding to a separate point that was made, not offering a solution, just pointing out the flaws.

jim o doom · 02-09-2008 1:35pm

Jakkass wrote: »

What about the right to life under the UN Declaration of Human Rights? Surely there are two sets of rights being discussed here, the rights of the mother, and the rights of the child.

Correct me if I am wrong here; but if the foetus (thats right foetus not baby) had a right to life un the UN declaration of Human Rights, wouldn't abortion therefore be illegal within the EU?

jim o doom · 02-09-2008 1:45pm

Zulu wrote: »

so instead of permitting abortion offer free contraception and sex education. Just because people will have unwanted pregnancy, doesn't mean we should give them the right to kill the child.

Agreed it's not going to make someone responsible, but you are saying to let them kill the child because they are irresponsible, which to me is about the worst reason to let someone kill a human.

Hummm, PPBGTOTHAITSC, sounds terrible. I'm all for it!

Firstly, it's not a child; it's an unborn foetus, which will become a child when it is born. Calling it a child is a tactic used by the pro-life people to try and make it seem even more horrible. And as far as I am concerned, unwanted pregnancy is a perfectly good reason to "kill the child" - up to the cut-off point that modern medicince has provided us.

In relation to the post about giving "irresponsible" people the right to "kill a human" being a bad reason; Is it honestly better for a person who doesn't want the child, will probably drink heavily and smoke whilst pregnant and damage the unborn baby to what ever degree (something I am sure we have all seen outside various maternity hospitals), mistreat the child when it is born because it is unwanted and have it running wild in the streets?

The way I see it, the abortion is the better option, and if that person doesn't want to have to go through all that and have an even worse lifestyle than previously go ahead. Then again I am pro-choice even if the people chosing abortions are rich and happy; as long as the abortion is performed up to the point medicine dictates.

tallaght01 · 02-09-2008 1:50pm

jim o doom wrote: »

Correct me if I am wrong here; but if the foetus (thats right foetus not baby) had a right to life un the UN declaration of Human Rights, wouldn't abortion therefore be illegal within the EU?

Well, each country has to adopt the convention in it's own right. the UN doesn't have any direct authority over EU contries. Hence we all have different abortion laws.

Whether or not abortion contravenes that decleration has been the subject of a lot of debate over the years.

Article 2 says:

"Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status."

The underlined bit is the part that's always bothered me, though I'm no lawyer. Does it mean that, regardless of you birth status, you're entitled to the right to life? I don't know.

I think it's fair to say, though, that whatever we interpret from that declaration, it wasn't designed or worded to address the abortion debate.

Neither did the UN convention ont he rights of the child.

tallaght01 · 02-09-2008 1:53pm

jim o doom wrote: »

Firstly, it's not a child; it's an unborn foetus, which will become a child when it is born. .

So, a 23 weeker who's lying in an incubator in a neonatal unit is a child. But he's not if he's still in the womb?

Why does his/her place of residence affect his status like that?

I'm not saying your wrong, I'm just curious as to your logic.

CDfm · 02-09-2008 1:54pm

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.

Two people engaging in concentual sex is not forced pregnancy.Sex causes pregnancy.

Its an inconvenient or unplanned pregnancy but forced it is not..

tallaght01 · 02-09-2008 1:57pm

CDfm wrote: »

Two people engaging in concentual sex is not forced pregnancy.Sex causes pregnancy.

Its an inconvenient or unplanned pregnancy but forced it is not..

I think the point that Malari is making is that taking the pregnancy to full term isn't neccesarily going to benefit the child, as some parents can really abuse their bodies while they're pregnant.

I don't agree with the point, though. Parents do all kinds of crazy **** while they're pregnant, and their kids are, by and large, OK. It's once they go home the trouble starts!

Malari · 02-09-2008 2:07pm

tallaght01 wrote: »

I think the point that Malari is making is that taking the pregnancy to full term isn't neccesarily going to benefit the child, as some parents can really abuse their bodies while they're pregnant.

I don't agree with the point, though. Parents do all kinds of crazy **** while they're pregnant, and their kids are, by and large, OK. It's once they go home the trouble starts!

Yes, that's the point I was trying to make. And when a woman is pregnant and you deny her an abortion then you ARE forcing a pregnancy on her.

tallaght01 · 02-09-2008 2:12pm

Malari wrote: »

Yes, that's the point I was trying to make. And when a woman is pregnant and you deny her an abortion then you ARE forcing a pregnancy on her.

No, you're not forcing the pregnancy on her. You're denying her an abortion.

In my opinion anyway. Though I'm sure we could get bogged down with the semantics.

Like, should we let a woman terminate her pregnancy in any way she feels fit? By not doing that are we forcing pregnancy on her?

Let's not take the responsibility for the pregnancy away from those who were actually responsible for it.

Zulu · 02-09-2008 2:18pm

jim o doom wrote: »

Firstly, it's not a child; it's an unborn foetus, which will become a child when it is born.

I'm interested to know where you pulled that defination from. According to dictionary.com a child is:

a person between birth and full growth; a boy or girl: books for children.
a son or daughter
a baby or infant.
a human fetus.
a descendant

I call the child, because that's exactly what it is. If you feel the need to distance yourself from human life because it makes you uncomfortable, that's your prerogative, but it's no tactic. It is what it is. Denying what it is, is a tactic however.

And as far as I am concerned, unwanted pregnancy is a perfectly good reason to "kill the child" - up to the cut-off point that modern medicince has provided us.

So as modern medicine advances you constantly change the law? Say you create an artificial womb, will "it"(sic) become a child then???

In relation to the post about giving "irresponsible" people the right to "kill a human" being a bad reason; Is it honestly better for a person who doesn't want the child, will probably drink heavily and smoke whilst pregnant and damage the unborn baby to what ever degree (something I am sure we have all seen outside various maternity hospitals), mistreat the child when it is born because it is unwanted and have it running wild in the streets?

Yes. Because not everyone raises children as you described. I fear that your own prejudices.

Malari · 02-09-2008 2:27pm

tallaght01 wrote: »

No, you're not forcing the pregnancy on her. You're denying her an abortion.

In my opinion anyway. Though I'm sure we could get bogged down with the semantics.

Like, should we let a woman terminate her pregnancy in any way she feels fit? By not doing that are we forcing pregnancy on her?

Let's not take the responsibility for the pregnancy away from those who were actually responsible for it.

Well, yes, semantics, as you say. If she doesn't get an abortion, she has to have a pregnancy, there's no in-between. As far as I'm concerned that's forcing a pregnancy.

tallaght01 · 02-09-2008 2:32pm

Malari wrote: »

Well, yes, semantics, as you say. If she doesn't get an abortion, she has to have a pregnancy, there's no in-between. As far as I'm concerned that's forcing a pregnancy.

Well, I just look at it like if you put on a sweater, and I don't let you take it off. I still didn't force the sweater onto you. You put it on yourself.

But even if we were arguing about the morality of 2 crimes:

1) "forcing" a pregnancy on someone who got pregnant through consensual sex

or

2) Killing a baby in the womb

I'd still regard option 1 as being the least bad option, in the majority of cases.

philologos · 02-09-2008 2:53pm

jim o doom wrote: »

Correct me if I am wrong here; but if the foetus (thats right foetus not baby) had a right to life un the UN declaration of Human Rights, wouldn't abortion therefore be illegal within the EU?

I'd disagree with you. At 24 weeks children are often born prematurely, if that is the case surely that is a living human being just as much as we are, yet even at this stage children are being aborted and denied the right to life.

I personally don't subscribe to the nitpicking that goes on to try and delegitimize a human foetus as a developing human being. Yes, it is less developed than we are, however none the less it remains a developing human being.

Personally I'm pleased with our current legal status on abortion in Ireland, if that was extended to the rest of Europe that would be a bonus for the people resident in those countries.

Malari · 02-09-2008 3:06pm

tallaght01 wrote: »

Well, I just look at it like if you put on a sweater, and I don't let you take it off. I still didn't force the sweater onto you. You put it on yourself.

But even if we were arguing about the morality of 2 crimes:

1) "forcing" a pregnancy on someone who got pregnant through consensual sex

or

2) Killing a baby in the womb

I'd still regard option 1 as being the least bad option, in the majority of cases.

Well, I don't see it the same way. And you're sweater analogy is a little flawed. Maybe if you said I go and buy my size sweater in the shop and it doesn't fit, but you don't allow me to take it back....I knew there was a risk it might not fit, but I'm still stuck with a sweater I don't want. People who are having consensual, protected sex don't want to be pregnant.

jim o doom · 02-09-2008 3:06pm

tallaght01 wrote: »

So, a 23 weeker who's lying in an incubator in a neonatal unit is a child. But he's not if he's still in the womb?

Why does his/her place of residence affect his status like that?

I'm not saying your wrong, I'm just curious as to your logic.

correct me if I'm wrong but would 23 weeks not be after the time allowable for an abortion to be performed?
I am happy enough with modern medicines cut-off point for when an abortion is allowable.
And yes a child that has been born and is alive is a child, in the womb it isn't really.. up to a point in it's development where after that point abortion can not be legally performed.. I realise that at that point it hasn't been born and is still "unborn" but like I said I'm more or less happy with the medical view on it

philologos · 02-09-2008 3:12pm

jim o doom wrote: »

correct me if I'm wrong but would 23 weeks not be after the time allowable for an abortion to be performed?

UK is 24 weeks.

tallaght01 · 02-09-2008 3:13pm

jim o doom wrote: »

correct me if I'm wrong but would 23 weeks not be after the time allowable for an abortion to be performed?
I am happy enough with modern medicines cut-off point for when an abortion is allowable.
And yes a child that has been born and is alive is a child, in the womb it isn't really.. up to a point in it's development where after that point abortion can not be legally performed.. I realise that at that point it hasn't been born and is still "unborn" but like I said I'm more or less happy with the medical view on it

The law in the UK is up to 24 weeks, as far as I know. Unless it's changed since I moved tot he other side of the world.

Zulu · 02-09-2008 3:14pm

jim o doom wrote: »

And yes a child that has been born and is alive is a child, in the womb it isn't really

....isn't really - according to you.

According to me, and the dictionary, it is. So bully for you.

jim o doom · 02-09-2008 3:20pm

Zulu wrote: »

I'm interested to know where you pulled that defination from. According to dictionary.com a child is:
a person between birth and full growth; a boy or girl: books for children.

a son or daughter

a baby or infant.

a human fetus.

a descendant

It's all good and well to use a dictionary quote, but all the dictionary does is give us what people use a word to describe. You describe foetus as child, I do not. Enough people describe foetus as child, it goes into the dictionary.. I don't regard it as a child, and even if I did I would still be pro-choice. I think there's enough people around damaging the world as it is

Zulu wrote: »

I call the child, because that's exactly what it is. If you feel the need to distance yourself from human life because it makes you uncomfortable, that's your prerogative, but it's no tactic. It is what it is. Denying what it is, is a tactic however.

So as modern medicine advances you constantly change the law? Say you create an artificial womb, will "it"(sic) become a child then???

You call the child a child, because that is what your idea of a child is, not mine. Trying to claim the moral upper hand because the dictionary says you are correct, and you feel you are correct may make you feel better about being on the "right side". This whole thread is obviously how people feel about the issue, and the pro-life side love to throw down solid things like dictionary meanings. But that doesn't ultimately matter as both sides are generally pretty entrenched in how they feel about the issue, regardless of facts presented.
To throw out something ridiculous like "what if there was an artificial womb" is totally pointless, we could spend all day going "what if?"
"what if god came down and said, your'e all just animals, kill all the babies you want.." ... well gee then it would be like.. totally fine.. but that hasnt happened and is unlikely, so it's a pointless argument to throw out.

Zulu wrote: »

Yes. Because not everyone raises children as you described. I fear that your own prejudices.

And at what point did I say that everyone raises children as I described?
I described a minority of mothers who I physically see using my actual eyes (not some strange magical prejudiced third eye in my mind) out side maternity hospitals smoking & drinking from cans of beer. Or on the street or in the pub for that matter.. if you have never seen these things, then you must never leave your house..
What I was trying to get accross was that if these mothers care so little for their "unborn child" and weren't going to raise them properly and didn't want them, why force them to have children?
Of course you didn't want to see the logic in the argument so you decided that I was prejudiced against all people who want children.
"all women drink and smoke and hate children they must all be aborted"
what kind of lunatic do you think I am?

tallaght01 · 02-09-2008 3:47pm

So, what's the link between abortion and mums who booze/take drugs?

Should they have forced abortions? Or should we take them as having a mental illness which should disallow them from making such an important call?

What are these women doing in this thread?

I'm lost :P

jim o doom · 02-09-2008 3:47pm

Zulu wrote: »

....isn't really - according to you.

According to me, and the dictionary, it is. So bully for you.

According to your views and the dictionary which is a compilation of the mass definition of words, including slang; bully for me.
Obviously there are plenty of people who don't view it as a child, hence abortion is legal in other countries, and we can give women information here if they want to go to other countries, but the dictionary doesn't carry things like "fetus - not a baby - some people feel that before a certain stage it isn't really a baby".
Well done.. the issue is resolved by you and your mighty all encompassing book of "definitions".. abortion is WRONG - the dictionary says a fetus really is a child! we are going to hell!

Zulu · 02-09-2008 3:48pm

jim o doom wrote: »

[/LIST]It's all good and well to use a dictionary quote, but all the dictionary does is give us what people use a word to describe.

The dictionary gives us the meaning of the word. You attempted to suggest that I was using the word inappropriately as a tactic to argue my point. I'm just, clearly proving that that particular point of yours in horseshit. I'm just pointing out that I am using the word correctly for what it describes.

You describe foetus as child, I do not.

I describe a child as a child, and I provided the english dictionary reference to back that definition up. If you want to claim that my definition is incorrect, feel free to provide evidence to back up your incorrect assertion.

Enough people describe foetus as child, it goes into the dictionary..

Very good! So what you are saying is: if a word actually means something in language, then it gets into the dictionary. You are clutching at straws.

You call the child a child, because that is what your idea of a child is, not mine.

Yes, mine, and the authors of the English dictionary, which is the actual meaning of the word. Just because you don't believe it doesn't make you right. It in fact makes you wrong. But of course you can challenge this assertion by providing proof, like I did.

"what if god came down and said, your'e all just animals, kill all the babies you want.." ... well gee then it would be like.. totally fine.. but that hasnt happened and is unlikely, so it's a pointless argument to throw out.

While my morality is heavily influenced by christianity (I acknowledge that growing up in ireland and having christian parents will have had an effect) it's not dictated to by god. I in fact believe I am an animal, but I also believe it's wrong to steal or kill.

And at what point did I say that everyone raises children as I described?
I described a minority of mothers who I physically see using my actual eyes (not some strange magical prejudiced third eye in my mind) out side maternity hospitals smoking & drinking from cans of beer. Or on the street or in the pub for that matter.. if you have never seen these things, then you must never leave your house..

I never said they didn't exist. We don't create law for the minority, we create it for the majority. Ruling a society by the minority is incredibly foolish and short sighted.

What I was trying to get accross was that if these mothers care so little for their "unborn child" and weren't going to raise them properly and didn't want them, why force them to have children?

I know what you are trying to get across, but it's a ridiculous position. You shouldn't compromise your moral conscience to suit a minority.

jim o doom · 02-09-2008 3:54pm

tallaght01 wrote: »

So, what's the link between abortion and mums who booze/take drugs?

Should they have forced abortions? Or should we take them as having a mental illness which should disallow them from making such an important call?

What are these women doing in this thread?

I'm lost :P

It's fairly obvious; the pro-life/anti-abortion crowd love to throw out the whole "ABORTION IS WRONG in every instance"
I never stated they should be forced to have an abortion, I stated they should not be forced to have a child, if they did not want it.
Clearly a woman who drinks and smokes during pregnancy is not only an unfit mother, but also unfit as a living incubator which could simply dispense the child to the adoption services upon birth.. as the baby could well be damaged by the mothers actions during pregnancy.
explain clearly why this woman should be forced to have a child and be disallowed an abortion?
and don't give me the whole "it's a baby" thing because I've heard that thrown against so many reasonable arguments thus far that it's becoming pointless to argue our side of the story..

Zulu · 02-09-2008 3:56pm

jim o doom wrote: »

Well done.. the issue is resolved by you and your mighty all encompassing book of "definitions".. abortion is WRONG - the dictionary says a fetus really is a child! we are going to hell!

No Jim, I'm merely pointing out how wrong your point about using the word "child" incorrectly was used as a tactic. And I provided evidence to back that up.
You subsequent posting are inane drivel really. I never mentioned anything about anyone going to hell.

I'll tell you what, when you want to re-engage with the adults in a rational conversation, do so. And try to provide some sliver of credence to your points.

tallaght01 · 02-09-2008 3:57pm

jim o doom wrote: »

It's fairly obvious; the pro-life/anti-abortion crowd love to throw out the whole "ABORTION IS WRONG in every instance"
I never stated they should be forced to have an abortion, I stated they should not be forced to have a child, if they did not want it.
Clearly a woman who drinks and smokes during pregnancy is not only an unfit mother, but also unfit as a living incubator which could simply dispense the child to the adoption services upon birth.. as the baby could well be damaged by the mothers actions during pregnancy.
explain clearly why this woman should be forced to have a child and be disallowed an abortion?
and don't give me the whole "it's a baby" thing because I've heard that thrown against so many reasonable arguments thus far that it's becoming pointless to argue our side of the story..

But the vast majority of babies born to, say, junkies, don't have any structural abnormalities. They very often withdraw from the drug for a few days, which is horrific to watch. But most of them come to no long term harm.

jim o doom · 02-09-2008 4:10pm

Zulu wrote: »

The dictionary gives us the meaning of the word. You attempted to suggest that I was using the word inappropriately as a tactic to argue my point. I'm just, clearly proving that that particular point of yours in horseshit. I'm just pointing out that I am using the word correctly for what it describes.
I describe a child as a child, and I provided the english dictionary reference to back that definition up. If you want to claim that my definition is incorrect, feel free to provide evidence to back up your incorrect assertion.

Very good! So what you are saying is: if a word actually means something in language, then it gets into the dictionary. You are clutching at straws.

Yes, mine, and the authors of the English dictionary, which is the actual meaning of the word. Just because you don't believe it doesn't make you right. It in fact makes you wrong. But of course you can challenge this assertion by providing proof, like I did.

Right so are you telling me that slang word, in use by relatively small numbers of the population, doesn't make it in to the dictionary?
the meaning of a word or definition of a word does not make you right nevertheless. The people who are for pro-choice generally feel that up to a point a fetus is not a child... a simple dictionary definition does not make you correct, sir

If only it did, this whole debate would be simple, but it is not.. and calling my argument bulls/t is fairly childish really to be blunt..

Zulu wrote: »

I never said they didn't exist. We don't create law for the minority, we create it for the majority. Ruling a society by the minority is incredibly foolish and short sighted.

I never stated that you said "the don't exist" (although I may have implied it) - I implied it, because you took me to task for bring these individuals up, stating that not everyone is like these people..
And we don't rule for the minority, we legislate to allow for them to do their thing as well.. laws are not so black and white (as they are always open to challenge) that a minority is left out. Thats why there are laws protecting minorites, social or otherwise.

Zulu wrote: »

I know what you are trying to get across, but it's not a ridiculous position. You shouldn't compromise your moral conscience to suit a minority.

compromise my moral concience? I don't really care if the unborn really is a child, and I don't care if people are aborting for a really damn good reason like a rape baby (rare I know) or because having a child right now doesn't suit them, because I don't really care about the unborn, so I wouldn't be violating any moral compass, I am just trying to put forth reasonable arguments why abortion is not totally wrong in all cases.
me I don't are, abort for what ever reason u want.

jim o doom · 02-09-2008 4:13pm

Zulu wrote: »

No Jim, I'm merely pointing out how wrong your point about using the word "child" incorrectly was used as a tactic. And I provided evidence to back that up.
You subsequent posting are inane drivel really. I never mentioned anything about anyone going to hell.

I'll tell you what, when you want to re-engage with the adults in a rational conversation, do so. And try to provide some sliver of credence to your points.

Using the world "CHILD" or "Unborn BABY" is a tactic, regardless of what definition the dictionary provides.. it is used by the pro-lifers to try and emote within those who are on the fence that it is a baby being killed.
I don't feel it is a baby, but thats fine the dictionary says I am wrong, regardless it still is a tactic, and it may be being used unconsiously by the person in question, because thats how they feel about it, but regardless a tactic it remains.

whoa adults in the conversation.. nice.

jim o doom · 02-09-2008 4:15pm

tallaght01 wrote: »

But the vast majority of babies born to, say, junkies, don't have any structural abnormalities. They very often withdraw from the drug for a few days, which is horrific to watch. But most of them come to no long term harm.

I never mentioned junkies.. just women who sit outside hospitals drinking and smoking... my girlfriend has a lot of health problems because her mother acted in such a fashion (obviously im not saying she should have been aborted here) its just first hand info that it does affect the child.
What im trying to say is why should a woman, who will not give up the child when born and quite possibly bring it up as an unwanted child in a broken home, and easily cause health problems for the child through substance abuse (not heroin or coke simple things like booze and smoke)..
if that woman wanted an abortion, why stop her?

Dragan · 02-09-2008 4:17pm

CDfm wrote: »

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:

In that case i suggest you familiarise yourself with boards a bit more.

tallaght01 · 02-09-2008 4:20pm

jim o doom wrote: »

I never mentioned junkies.. just women who sit outside hospitals drinking and smoking... my girlfriend has a lot of health problems because her mother acted in such a fashion (obviously im not saying she should have been aborted here) its just first hand info that it does affect the child.
What im trying to say is why should a woman, who will not give up the child when born and quite possibly bring it up as an unwanted child in a broken home, and easily cause health problems for the child through substance abuse (not heroin or coke simple things like booze and smoke)..
if that woman wanted an abortion, why stop her?

Most women who drink and smoke during pregnancy don't have babies with any particular structural abnormality either. Though many do.

The adoption issue is, however, available to them of they really didn't want the baby. That's where I'm not sure where a group of women who abuse their bodies during pregnancy really come into the equation. They either want the baby or they don't. If the do, they won't get an abortion anyway. If they don't want it, they can put it up for adoption. This subgroup of women should have little effect ont he overall point of this debate.

jim o doom · 02-09-2008 4:31pm

tallaght01 wrote: »

Most women who drink and smoke during pregnancy don't have babies with any particular structural abnormality either. Though many do.

The adoption issue is, however, available to them of they really didn't want the baby. That's where I'm not sure where a group of women who abuse their bodies during pregnancy really come into the equation. They either want the baby or they don't. If the do, they won't get an abortion anyway. If they don't want it, they can put it up for adoption. This subgroup of women should have little effect ont he overall point of this debate.

That's a fair enough point.. I'm still pro-choice though

I was just trying to give examples of where abortion might not be totally wrong.. anyway I'm clearly not swaying anybody here with my crappy arguments, so I'll leave yez be

Way I feel about it, abortion should be pretty much allowed for any reason as long as it's up to whatever point medicine has for a cut-off.. there's no real point in continuing the argument for me, because I am not going to change my view, and I would be utterly amazed if any of the pro-life people did.. pretty interesting thread though, sure gets the emotions going!

Malari · 02-09-2008 4:38pm

jim o doom wrote: »

Using the world "CHILD" or "Unborn BABY" is a tactic, regardless of what definition the dictionary provides.. it is used by the pro-lifers to try and emote within those who are on the fence that it is a baby being killed.
I don't feel it is a baby, but thats fine the dictionary says I am wrong, regardless it still is a tactic, and it may be being used unconsiously by the person in question, because thats how they feel about it, but regardless a tactic it remains.

whoa adults in the conversation.. nice.

It depends on the dictionary as well, doesn't it? Mine says: "a boy or girl from the time of birth until he or she is an adult"

Also foetus in the dictionary says: "a young human being or animal before birth, after the organs have started to develop"

tallaght01 · 02-09-2008 4:56pm

Malari wrote: »

It depends on the dictionary as well, doesn't it? Mine says: "a boy or girl from the time of birth until he or she is an adult"

Also foetus in the dictionary says: "a young human being or animal before birth, after the organs have started to develop"

I think that's an important point.

No-one should claim that a dictionary manufacturer has the answers to a question that has stumped experts in the field for so long.

But Zulu was accused of using an inappropriate term. he was just showing that some dictionary makers use the same definition. So, it really wasn't an outrageous statement for him to call the unborn child a child.

But one of the main sticking points in the whole abortion argument is when does a child become a child.

Which is why I'd again like to invite anyone to offer up their thoughts on what's an acceptable cut off point for abortions, in terms of gestational age.

Dragan · 02-09-2008 5:20pm

tallaght01 wrote: »

Which is why I'd again like to invite anyone to offer up their thoughts on what's an acceptable cut off point for abortions, in terms of gestational age.

Personally i would say before the development of the CNS, which is about the 12 to 15 week mark i believe?

tallaght01 · 02-09-2008 5:28pm

Dragan wrote: »

Personally i would say before the development of the CNS, which is about the 12 to 15 week mark i believe?

Well, they develop brain tissue anytime from about week 4, and the CNS isn't even fully developed at birth. This is partially where that line of reasoning has fallen down in the past.

Not that I have any better suggestion, though!

carlybabe1 · 02-09-2008 7:23pm

Heres an idea, what about a cut off point of 24 wks, as there is a 4 in 10 chance that the fetus can survive outside the womb in intensive care..... No takers? this is no longer a debate about abortion, its become a venue for pro-life ers to bash pro choicers, and yeah yeah yeah zulu, phrase it what way you like, you lost all sense of reason when you posted the baby killer post! Heres the way the law lies in regards to a woman having a miscarriage at the hands of an assault, the perp will only be done for assault because " the feotus needs an independent existence to qualify as a person under common law". Abortion has been going on for centuries, whether it was a mixture of herbs given to induce a miscarriage, or a filthy back alley, at least in this day and age there are proper facilities to accomodate women. As for women who drink/smoke/ take drugs, how can you say that it little or no affect on the feotus??? thats rediculous, for **** sake, we wouldnt be told not to if it had no affect...What about premature babies that have to be weaned off smack in intensive care, that cant stop cryin because they are goin through withdrawls that thier adult parents couldnt stick or they wouldnt be born addicted.... not to mention Feotal Alcohol Syndrome.... and although there is tissue developed, the CNS isnt developed enough to transmit signals.

Heres what I REALLY think, in the words of a famous friend " NO UTERUS, NO OPINION" :p:p:p:p:p
Put that in your smoke and pipe it

JC 2K3 · 02-09-2008 7:28pm

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?

Anytime before birth, for the reasons I've outlined earlier in the thread.

Now sometimes the thought of it makes me shudder, and I don't find it extremely easy to look at pictures.

However, it's not about feelings of unease, it's about rationally deciding upon a philosophical and ethical framework that's workable.

tallaght01 wrote: »

So, a 23 weeker who's lying in an incubator in a neonatal unit is a child. But he's not if he's still in the womb?

Why does his/her place of residence affect his status like that?

Presumably, if it's in the incubator, the parents want it.

Jakkass wrote: »

I personally don't subscribe to the nitpicking that goes on to try and delegitimize a human foetus as a developing human being. Yes, it is less developed than we are, however none the less it remains a developing human being.

So why is it ok to kill sperm or ova?

Now you might just dismiss such an argument as nitpicking, but it's simply your belief that life starts at conception. That's your world view.

I like to think that of all the sperm and ova that exist in the world, you can pick any pair and call it a potential human being. I don't see it as being of any great consequence if they happen to merge, they're just one step further along the development process and if I were to oppose killing a zygote I couldn't legitimise killing a sperm or ova, and since sperm and ova die naturally in their millions, such a position would be preposterous.

So then I'm left in the position where I could choose some point in its development, but that's far too arbitrary for me, which is why I've decided that it's about something more metaphysical and philosophical than a physical stage of development, and hence birth makes the most sense to me.

CDfm · 02-09-2008 7:32pm

I take Malawis point .

But like some of the terms and semantics used made it difficult for me to follow.Forced to me it implies rape.

On pregnancy on some of the posts I am surprised that people are leaving sexual intercourse out of the equation.Babies just dont come from kissing!

If you put a ram in a field with sheep at the right time you get lambs.Farmers do this all the time.No doubt that you need a ram and a sheep to get a lamb. Thats where lambs come from.

When a man and woman have sex the woman can get pregnant.

What do people need T-shirts with a Government warning saying "This penis may contain sperm and when in inserted in a vagina may cause pregnancy"?
or Little Miss Pregnant T-Shirts showing an unhappy ovum.

Im a dad and had that chat with my teenage daughter and told her straight out that as part of life etc that a boys job and mission is to get into her pants. That boys will lie and cheat swear eternal love and tell all their friends if they get lucky. I have a son too and he knows where the condoms are.Thats reality.

I do not mean to be condescending but babies do not just happen. Im not against a healthy sex life. But thats where babies come from if contraception is not used and to me abortion is not a form of contraception.

CDfm · 02-09-2008 7:45pm

Hi Carlybabe1 - nice to see you back hope yor famous friend wasnt the Biting Beaver:D

Earthhorse · 02-09-2008 7:59pm

carlybabe1 wrote: »

Heres an idea, what about a cut off point of 24 wks, as there is a 4 in 10 chance that the fetus can survive outside the womb in intensive care..... No takers?

Why 4 in 10?

carlybabe1 wrote: »

this is no longer a debate about abortion, its become a venue for pro-life ers to bash pro choicers

What a total load of crap. Most posts on this thread have been completely reasonable. If you don't like a vigorous debate then Humanities is not the place for you.

carlybabe1 wrote: »

As for women who drink/smoke/ take drugs, how can you say that it little or no affect on the feotus??? thats rediculous, for **** sake, we wouldnt be told not to if it had no affect...

Nobody said it had little or no effect on the feotus.

carlybabe1 wrote: »

What about premature babies that have to be weaned off smack in intensive care, that cant stop cryin because they are goin through withdrawls that thier adult parents couldnt stick or they wouldnt be born addicted.... not to mention Feotal Alcohol Syndrome....

What about them? You think their lives aren't worthwhile?

carlybabe1 wrote: »

and although there is tissue developed, the CNS isnt developed enough to transmit signals.

That wasn't Dragan's criteria as far as we can tell from his post.

JC 2K3 wrote: »

However, it's not about feelings of unease, it's about rationally deciding upon a philosophical and ethical framework that's workable.

Other cut off points are decided upon in the same way. Really, I don't think your suggestion of abortion until birth is actually workable. I think even most pro-choicers would have problems with it.

JC 2K3 wrote: »

Presumably, if it's in the incubator, the parents want it.

That's avoiding the question frankly. It doesn't matter why the baby is in the incubator, what matters is that it is there. This leads us to the question as to why its life is valuable outside the womb and not inside when the same amount of development has taken place or the same time period has elapsed.

JC 2K3 wrote: »

I don't see it as being of any great consequence if they happen to merge, they're just one step further along the development process and if I were to oppose killing a zygote I couldn't legitimise killing a sperm or ova, and since sperm and ova die naturally in their millions, such a position would be preposterous.

To die naturally and to be killed are not the same thing.

JC 2K3 wrote: »

So then I'm left in the position where I could choose some point in its development, but that's far too arbitrary for me, which is why I've decided that it's about something more metaphysical and philosophical than a physical stage of development, and hence birth makes the most sense to me.

The point you've picked is really just as arbitrary as everyone elses, you've just given a different weighting to different criteria. Most people recognise that this debate isn't just about a physical stage of development; the problem has always been coming up with a defintion of what it is to be a human being, and thus a point at which we can identify that you have become one, that is satisfactory to all parties.

philologos · 02-09-2008 9:10pm

JC 2K3 wrote: »

1) Now sometimes the thought of it makes me shudder, and I don't find it extremely easy to look at pictures.

2) Presumably, if it's in the incubator, the parents want it.

3) So why is it ok to kill sperm or ova?

1) If it makes you shudder, the sheer principle of it should make you shudder as well surely? It's either entirely repulsive or it's not in my view anyway.

2) So wanting something to live or not is at the behest of people? It's a right to live and has been internationally accepted as a right since 1948. I don't think that right is subject to want.

3) Sperm and ova are not fused to make a zygote. They are not a human being, and they cannot ever form to be a human being on their own. That's the key difference.

Bottle_of_Smoke · 02-09-2008 9:20pm

Jakkass wrote: »

1)

3) Sperm and ova are not fused to make a zygote. They are not a human being, and they cannot ever form to be a human being on their own. That's the key difference.

Zygote can't feel pain, zygote can't think, unless you believe in a soul that's meaningless.

Abortion- Right or Wrong

Comments