Abortion whats your stance?

eveie

this is pretty much a continuation of "abortion right or wrong"
mods i not sure if you'l allow this thread, so just giving it a go. also it is obvious that opinions will be very varied so if everyone could be civil with no personal slander or abusive posts.

MrPudding

eveie wrote: »

this is pretty much a continuation of "abortion right or wrong"
mods i not sure if you'l allow this thread, so just giving it a go. also it is obvious that opinions will be very varied so if everyone could be civil with no personal slander or abusive posts.

In before the lock.

My stance is simple. I am pro choice. If you want to call that pro baby murdering then that is fine by me.

I would prefer if a woman did not need to have an abortion but I believe she should have the right to have one if she wishes, regardless of her reasons.

As for cut off point, I reckon around the time when the foetus could survive outside the womb seems reasonable. Beyond that I feel it should only be for medical reasons, where the mothers life is at risk, for example.

I personally believe that the woman's rights should take precedence over that of the foetus. For this reason I not really care whether it is human or not, whether it has a soul or any of the other arguments against. Whatever it is, it is inside the woman's body and if she wants to get rid of it then she should be entitled to do so.

MrP

eveie

mr P im hoping there wont be a lock as long as we all stay civil.
the problem with what youur saying is that every baby is different, a child of 20 wks could survive outside of the bidy whereas a child of 24 weeks may not.
your use of the word "foetus" isnt accurate when describing a being that can live outside the womb....."oh mary its a beautiful foetus"
can i ask why you do not care weather it is human or not? is that not just a cop out? to avoid considering it human so you can justify the abortion?

MrPudding

eveie wrote: »

mr P im hoping there wont be a lock as long as we all stay civil.

Here's hoping.

eveie wrote: »

the problem with what youur saying is that every baby is different, a child of 20 wks could survive outside of the bidy whereas a child of 24 weeks may not.

So make it 20 weeks then.

eveie wrote: »

your use of the word "foetus" isnt accurate when describing a being that can live outside the womb....."oh mary its a beautiful foetus"

Is it not a foetus when it is in the womb? Perhaps I am mistaken but that is what I thought, and given that we are talking about something that is still inside the womb I thought feotus was appropriate.

eveie wrote: »

can i ask why you do not care weather it is human or not? is that not just a cop out? to avoid considering it human so you can justify the abortion?

I don't care because I feel the mother's rights are more important. It is not a cop out. Quite the opposite in fact. Even if I believed it was human I would still consider the mother's rights to be of higher importance.

MrP

eveie

ok so how would you feel if it was your child the women was pregnant with would you still be of the opinion that its her choice?
your being quite flipent by saying "make it 20 weeks then" it isnt a straight cut as that, so prior to 20 weeks the unborn has no rights and is considered non-human? can you see how unfair that is?

Kinetic^

Abortions for all!!!!! Pro choice.

eveie

kinetic is there any reasoning behind your opinion?

MrPudding

eveie wrote: »

ok so how would you feel if it was your child the women was pregnant with would you still be of the opinion that its her choice?

That woudl depend on the circumstances. I can imagine that it would be possible I would not be happy, in some cases. But I can see that when making decisions about emotive subjects you have to be objective about it.

eveie wrote: »

your being quite flipent by saying "make it 20 weeks then" it isnt a straight cut as that, so prior to 20 weeks the unborn has no rights and is considered non-human? can you see how unfair that is?

I thought I made it quite clear. I don't care if it is human or not. As far as I am concerned the mother rights are more important. So what if it is unfair? There are many many things in life that are unfair. I don't think it says anywhere life has to be fair.

MrP

eveie

it sure doesnt but i think as humans we have an obligation to be fair to man kind in general.
i totally disagree with you that the mothers rights are more important, no one has the right over another person, be they1 or 100 yrs old.

MrPudding

eveie wrote: »

it sure doesnt but i think as humans we have an obligation to be fair to man kind in general.

You don't really though. Making a woman continue with a pregnancy when she doesn't want to is not fair on her, is it?

eveie wrote: »

i totally disagree with you that the mothers rights are more important, no one has the right over another person, be they1 or 100 yrs old.

Tell that to someone on death row.


MrP

Kinetic^

eveie wrote: »

kinetic is there any reasoning behind your opinion?

I can choose whatever I want, hence the pro choice statement. I thought that was clear!

philologos

I'm pro-life. I believe the child has rights to be afforded to it as well as to the mother. There is a right to live for all humanity. However I would recognise that there may be a need to abort in extreme medical emergencies where the mothers life is endangered. Basically my view is already supported in Irish law on the matter.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Pro-Abortion. Once it's done before the child has ability to feel pain I can only see a religious objection. If a God's against abortions is shown to exist I'll change my mind.

kizzyr

Pro choice. I think, save for circumstances where there is a threat to the life of the mother or significant foetal defects are discovered late into the pregnancy then the cut off should be 16 weeks.
Ultimately I do not see a foetus at 12 weeks as being a person, it is a developing clump of cells, cells with great potential yes but cells nonetheless. I think the woman who is an independent entity in her own right has rights that trump those of the foetus at this point.

CDfm

MrPudding wrote: »

You don't really though. Making a woman continue with a pregnancy when she doesn't want to is not fair on her, is it?

Tell that to someone on death row.


MrP

a question is with all the contraception options available including the morning after pill - why would someone need an abortion?Its a simple question - women dont just become pregnant? What would someone need an abortion other than no access to contraception?

given the inaccuracy of calculating the actual date of conception what cut off time would you choose and why?

also - Ireland has no death row. However the Foetus/child has done nothing so why terminate - just for convenience- please explain - if you have a moral stance you should elaborate.

rainbow kirby

Pro-choice, and I believe there should be a heavy focus on sex education and contraception to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies in the first place. The rights of a woman are more important than that of a ball of cells incapable of independent survival.

CDfm

rainbow kirby wrote: »

Pro-choice, and I believe there should be a heavy focus on sex education and contraception to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies in the first place. The rights of a woman are more important than that of a ball of cells incapable of independent survival.

what rights does a woman have that are superior to the rights of a child? By getting pregnant by definition she has diluted those rights and has a responsibility to her unborn child?

Does a woman have proprietory rights over an unborn/child foetus? Then in what circumstances should she be able to exercise these rights?

Does the father have rights?

Laphroaig52

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Pro-Abortion. Once it's done before the child has ability to feel pain I can only see a religious objection. If a God's against abortions is shown to exist I'll change my mind.

Why do you think it is acceptable to terminate a child's life as long as it doesn't feel pain? Could the same approach be applied to a child of,say, 5 years old?

Zombrex

My position can be summaries as follows -

• Human beings are special because of their brains and the personality/sentience/consciousness stored in them. A human that has this ability is considered a "being" rather than simply a life form.
  
• A human being already in existence should have expectation that his/her personhood will be respected as well as the right to continued existence.
  
• A foetus before it has developed a brain capable of generating personality/sentience/consciousness is not considered a living human being despite the fact that it is a living life form. The person does not yet exist.
  
• A human that has irreparably lost the brain capacity to form personality/sentience/consciousness is not considered a living human being, despite the fact that it is a living life form. The person has been lost.
  
• Abortion of a foetus before this ability has materialised is the killing of a living creature but not a person as no person yet exists.
  
• Termination of life support or assistance such as feeding, to a living human who has lost this ability is the killing of a living creature but not of a person as the person has ceased to exist.
  
• It is not unethical or immoral to prevent a as yet non-existent person from coming into existence.

Abortion is moral if it is carried out before the foetus has developed a brain capable of human personality and sentience. And no I don't know exactly when that happens, but that is irrelevant to the moral argument. It is an issue for the practicalities of adhering to the moral argument.

CDfm

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Pro-Abortion. Once it's done before the child has ability to feel pain I can only see a religious objection. If a God's against abortions is shown to exist I'll change my mind.

Please can you be more precise.

There is a margin or error in the dating of the development of a foetus - some people say 22 weeks or whatever. Give a stab at your cut off point? Give reasons if you can.

The objection is not merely religous - some non religous doctors and medical staff have problems with abortions on ethical grounds?So on ethical grounds you must have a view.

CDfm

nice to see ya posting wicknight

I never understand the biology terms but at what stage does a foetus/ unborn child have a life force other than a group of cells.

From a moral/etical point when does this need to be protected?

Zombrex

CDfm wrote: »

nice to see ya posting wicknight

I never understand the biology terms but at what stage does a foetus/ unborn child have a life force other than a group of cells.

From a moral/etical point when does this need to be protected?

I wouldn't call it a "life force", that sounds like something out of a children's cartoon :pac:

I would say personhood. When the lump of cells a person and when is it not.

To me the answer is obvious, when it has the ability to form human sentience/personality/conciousness (note, not the same as being conscious, ie not asleep or unconscious. a sleep people are still persons because there exists a person to wake up).

The key component is the brain. The brain is what makes humans special, it what gives us the ability to be self-aware and to have conscious thought.

The easiest way to think about this is a person on life support who has a perfectly functioning body in ever single respect except their brain is destroyed beyond repair. Most people would say the person is gone, they are "dead", despite the fact that the life form is continuing to live and the rest of the body is for all intensive purposes fine.

A person is their brain and their brain is the person.

Until the foetus has developed a brain the person does not yet exist. They no more exist than they do when it is just a sperm and an egg about to join. A life form exists, but simply being a life form has never been considered important, simply being alive has never been considered important. It is what the life form is, not that it is alive, that is important.

CDfm

are you dissin futerama :pac:

Anyway get your point- great descriptions.

On your example of a brain dead body. If you have someone who is brain dead there are tests to establish that and can quantify brain activity- are these reliable in like the way we hear of people waking up from comas? On from that is there a point in time or stage of development where the unborn life form attains personhood and are there reliable criteria to determine that?

How would you quantify this? Is it a stage in physical development or is it a point in time ie the horrible number of weeks or is it the central nervous system or something else.

The reason I am asking is to understand it myself - so that I can look at it from an "ethical" issue rather than a" religous/ catholic" one. Is abortion ethical in the context of your post and is there a time line/stage of development when it becomes unethical.

In my mind if someone is "Im pro-choice and its cos Im anti-religion" thats a cop out well Daah you must have some ethical conciderations to base your decisions on then matey - so what tell me?


The other issue I see as relevant is posts about sex education/reliability of contraception. Though its beyond your post. Lets call it wreckless sex ( a bit of in line alliteration). This is more personal moral stuff. But do you think there is a point where abortion should not be available for normal pregnancies? That is two conscenting adults and healthy unborn life form?

tallaght01

Wicknight wrote: »

The key component is the brain. The brain is what makes humans special, it what gives us the ability to be self-aware and to have conscious thought.

The easiest way to think about this is a person on life support who has a perfectly functioning body in ever single respect except their brain is destroyed beyond repair. Most people would say the person is gone, they are "dead", despite the fact that the life form is continuing to live and the rest of the body is for all intensive purposes fine.

A person is their brain and their brain is the person.

Until the foetus has developed a brain the person does not yet exist. They no more exist than they do when it is just a sperm and an egg about to join. A life form exists, but simply being a life form has never been considered important, simply being alive has never been considered important. It is what the life form is, not that it is alive, that is important.

The problems here, wicknight, as we've said before, is that there's brain development at about 6 weeks gestation. And then the brain isn't fuly developed until childhood.

So, where do we draw the line with regard to when the brain is developed enough to become a human being?

CDfm

Yes but does this brain give it a will to live.

Not being crude but some miscarriages are like a heavy discharge and get flushed down the toilet. The miscarriage can be emotional but I have to say its like a bloody blob that the body rejects.

So are all early pregnancies bloody blobs that can be ethically gotten rid off?

kizzyr

CDfm wrote: »

are you dissin futerama :pac:

Anyway get your point- great descriptions.

On your example of a brain dead body. If you have someone who is brain dead there are tests to establish that and can quantify brain activity- are these reliable in like the way we hear of people waking up from comas? On from that is there a point in time or stage of development where the unborn life form attains personhood and are there reliable criteria to determine that?

How would you quantify this? Is it a stage in physical development or is it a point in time ie the horrible number of weeks or is it the central nervous system or something else.

The reason I am asking is to understand it myself - so that I can look at it from an "ethical" issue rather than a" religous/ catholic" one. Is abortion ethical in the context of your post and is there a time line/stage of development when it becomes unethical.

In my mind if someone is "Im pro-choice and its cos Im anti-religion" thats a cop out well Daah you must have some ethical conciderations to base your decisions on then matey - so what tell me?


The other issue I see as relevant is posts about sex education/reliability of contraception. Though its beyond your post. Lets call it wreckless sex ( a bit of in line alliteration). This is more personal moral stuff. But do you think there is a point where abortion should not be available for normal pregnancies? That is two conscenting adults and healthy unborn life form?

Brain dead is dead you don't come back from that. Essentially someone who is brain dead is a corpse being ventilated by machines. Being in a coma is different to being brain dead.
Contraception doesn't work all of the time even when someone uses it properly.

boobookitty

I'm pro choice.

But when a woman engages in sex without contraception despite having clear knowledge of the outcome (pregnancy), the ole' "Oh, it will never happen to me." I kind of think she should keep it.

However, if she becomes pregnant due to some form of abuse (rape etc) then I feel she should be allowed to have an abortion.


Also, if a mother does a test and finds out the child will be handicapped/have some sort of disease, what should happen?

CDfm

kizzyr wrote: »

Brain dead is dead you don't come back from that. Essentially someone who is brain dead is a corpse being ventilated by machines. Being in a coma is different to being brain dead.
Contraception doesn't work all of the time even when someone uses it properly.

fair enough; but do you ethical conciderations a line ya wouldnt crossor is it wayhay ya can have an abortion any time?

CDfm

fair point boobookitty - anyone know if rape victims get offered the morning after pill? I dont know?

just curious here - but lived in england and you could pop into your GP surgery or A & E for the morning after pill no cost? How readily available is it available in Ireland and is it cost prohibitive for teenagers say? WEll I dont know!

So if there is a sex education/ contraception availability issue here whats the score these days and how can it be improved?

kizzyr

CDfm wrote: »

fair enough; but do you ethical conciderations a line ya wouldnt crossor is it wayhay ya can have an abortion any time?

I'm not 100% sure I understand your sentence. I don't agree with abortion at any time. However, I do think that a woman should have the choice to access a termination in her own country up to 16 weeks. It is rare that someone wouldn't realise that they were pregnant by this time and have had time to give consideration to their situation.
After the 16 weeks if severe foetal abnormalities were detected then I do think that the woman should again have the choice to continue or terminate.

CDfm wrote: »

fair point boobookitty - anyone know if rape victims get offered the morning after pill? I dont know?

just curious here - but lived in england and you could pop into your GP surgery or A & E for the morning after pill no cost? How readily available is it available in Ireland and is it cost prohibitive for teenagers say? WEll I dont know!

The MAP is available only on prescription here in Ireland and so that necessitates a visit to your GP or Well Woman Clinic and so that alone costs €50/50. Then there is the cost of the MAP itself. Also it doesn't work for all women all of the time. I think forcing a woman who has been raped to continue with a pregnancy she doesn't want is compounding the act and tragedy of what has first happened to her by the act of rape.

Zombrex

tallaght01 wrote: »

The problems here, wicknight, as we've said before, is that there's brain development at about 6 weeks gestation. And then the brain isn't fuly developed until childhood.

So, where do we draw the line with regard to when the brain is developed enough to become a human being?

That certain is a problem, but as I said it is a problem for the practicalities of implementing the moral argument, not the moral argument itself.

I think too often people pick a practical point, such as conception, not because there is any moral justification for that point, but simply because it is easy for humans to pick.

With my moral argument it is a lot harder to pick a specific point to say abortions before but not after this point. But, I feel at least, that there is much stronger moral argument behind it.

No one said ethics was going to be easy :pac:

CDfm

kizzyr - I am not 100% I understand my point either !!!

I am pro-life with a small p l - I am not a member of any group - I think abortion should not be available in Ireland as in most countries it has become a "right" where the rules get bent out of shape for votes.(Visions of Tony Blair in Parliment looking like a TV evangelist when proposing changes)

I am unsure on the ethical issues cos if it was my daughter.............

News to me though how expensive things are that way. Fairly shocked that the morning after pill is not readily available to say the unwaged and I include school kids ,students, unemployed in that. ( mental note talk to daughter and GP)

Zombrex

CDfm wrote: »

On your example of a brain dead body. If you have someone who is brain dead there are tests to establish that and can quantify brain activity- are these reliable in like the way we hear of people waking up from comas?

I've no idea, but as Kizzyr said there is a difference between being brain dead and being in a coma. I've told my family that I do not want to be "unplugged" if I end up in a coma because people in coma's can have brain activity and as you say wake up.

CDfm wrote: »

On from that is there a point in time or stage of development where the unborn life form attains personhood and are there reliable criteria to determine that?

I imagine that there is a point but it is debately if we have reliable criteria to determine that.

I tend to take the play it safe approach. I'm not sure that the 6 weeks that someone else mentioned is accurate in turns of a functioning brain, but I would be strongly against later term abortions.

What it is easy to determine is that a zygote or embryo does not even have a brain and as such is not under any circumstances, a person. Personhood does not begin at conception.

CDfm wrote: »

How would you quantify this? Is it a stage in physical development or is it a point in time ie the horrible number of weeks or is it the central nervous system or something else.

It is a stage in development rather than a fixed time. If for legal reasons a common time needs to be given it should be a time when no foetus would ever have the brain capable of such development. Again I don't know when that is.

CDfm wrote: »

In my mind if someone is "Im pro-choice and its cos Im anti-religion" thats a cop out well Daah you must have some ethical conciderations to base your decisions on then matey - so what tell me?

The ethical consideration is whether or not the foetus possess the physical characteristics that make humans valuable. That is basically it. I hate these arguments about whether the mother was raped, or whether the parents can give the child a good life, or the idea that you have to have a really good reason to abort otherwise it is just a form of contraception. I see them all as largely irrelevant.

The only argument like that I see as having any merit is the argument that if the woman's life is endanger it is better to terminate the foetus than the woman.

I have also wrestled with the issue of the womans right to bodily privacy, but I think parental responsibility largely over rides this right. But that is a tricky issue that probably warrant further discussion (ie can a mother refuse to give blood to save her 5 year old?)

CDfm wrote: »

But do you think there is a point where abortion should not be available for normal pregnancies? That is two conscenting adults and healthy unborn life form?

No. I think the idea that we should force "sexually wreckless" people to have kids as some form of punishment or act to make them grow up, is counter-intuitive. They are probably the last people you want raising kids.

I think children should be given clear detailed sexual education in schools, devoid of the type of abstinance pushing hysteria we find in Ireland and America. They should be taught the facts as they would about photosynthsis or the Nazi invasion of Poland. The idea we need to tip toe around the issue lest we encourage teens to have sex is silly and insulting to the children.

kizzyr

Wicknight wrote: »

I've no idea, but as Kizzyr said there is a difference between being brain dead and being in a coma. I've told my family that I do not want to be "unplugged" if I end up in a coma because people in coma's can have brain activity and as you say wake up.


I imagine that there is a point but it is debately if we have reliable criteria to determine that.

I tend to take the play it safe approach. I'm not sure that the 6 weeks that someone else mentioned is accurate in turns of a functioning brain, but I would be strongly against later term abortions.

What it is easy to determine is that a zygote or embryo does not even have a brain and as such is not under any circumstances, a person. Personhood does not begin at conception.


It is a stage in development rather than a fixed time. If for legal reasons a common time needs to be given it should be a time when no foetus would ever have the brain capable of such development. Again I don't know when that is.



The ethical consideration is whether or not the foetus possess the physical characteristics that make humans valuable. That is basically it. I hate these arguments about whether the mother was raped, or whether the parents can give the child a good life, or the idea that you have to have a really good reason to abort otherwise it is just a form of contraception. I see them all as largely irrelevant.

The only argument like that I see as having any merit is the argument that if the woman's life is endanger it is better to terminate the foetus than the woman.

I have also wrestled with the issue of the womans right to bodily privacy, but I think parental responsibility largely over rides this right. But that is a tricky issue that probably warrant further discussion (ie can a mother refuse to give blood to save her 5 year old?)



No. I think the idea that we should force "sexually wreckless" people to have kids as some form of punishment or act to make them grow up, is counter-intuitive. They are probably the last people you want raising kids.

I think children should be given clear detailed sexual education in schools, devoid of the type of abstinance pushing hysteria we find in Ireland and America. They should be taught the facts as they would about photosynthsis or the Nazi invasion of Poland. The idea we need to tip toe around the issue lest we encourage teens to have sex is silly and insulting to the children.

There is a huge amount of tests that doctors do before they declare someone brain dead.Its not a decision made lightly. When someone is declared brain dead but appear to still be breathing the machines are to all intents and purposes ventilating a corpse.
Re: personhood, there are even some philosophers (Aristotle) that think/thought a child is not a person until they are at least 6 years old. Granted in today's world there are few people who would agree with this point of view but I said it to show that there is no universal agreement on when a being becomes a human person.
There are enough reckless people having many children in this world as it is without forcing them to continue with a pregnancy the don't want. Forcing someone to have a child because they didn't use contraception properly is beyond ridiculous.
Again I agree 100% with you that the manner in which children are educated (or not) about their bodies and sexuality needs a serious revamp. In the parenting forum I read about a woman who was willing to teach her son about his body parts but not a girls because "ya know I don't want him knowing about stuff like that". Nice responsible parenting. Knowing about your body and what it does and how it works is something that everyone should know. Learning how your body works is hardly going to turn kids into sex crazed monsters.
Sex is a great and wonderful thing, it should be done responsibly to prevent the spread of STI's some of which can be fatal. However, it is natural and normal and is something that people should be able to discuss without reverting to their early teens.

CDfm

Thanks Wicknight for being so articulate;) Italics are quotes from Wicknight

I imagine that there is a point but it is debately if we have reliable criteria to determine that.

I tend to take the play it safe approach. I'm not sure that the 6 weeks that someone else mentioned is accurate in turns of a functioning brain, but I would be strongly against later term abortions.

What it is easy to determine is that a zygote or embryo does not even have a brain and as such is not under any circumstances, a person. Personhood does not begin at conception.


It is a stage in development rather than a fixed time. If for legal reasons a common time needs to be given it should be a time when no foetus would ever have the brain capable of such development. Again I don't know when that is.

So it comes down to legal and ethical conciderations - therein lies the problem?

I am not putting this lightly but I think if a person has a religous point they should state it in ethical terms if they can or simply say the catholic church teaching is. Get to specifics as a side issue but for now no-one wants to loose a good thread


The ethical consideration is whether or not the foetus possess the physical characteristics that make humans valuable. That is basically it. I hate these arguments about whether the mother was raped, or whether the parents can give the child a good life, or the idea that you have to have a really good reason to abort otherwise it is just a form of contraception. I see them all as largely irrelevant.

But arent these arguments normally put forward by people arguing the pro- life aghenda and are the exception and not the rule?

A good idea for rape theorists is to state yer point

The only argument like that I see as having any merit is the argument that if the woman's life is endanger it is better to terminate the foetus than the woman.

I agree with you here. The mother comes first and shouldnt be endangered. Isnt this Irish law? But does it happen?

I have also wrestled with the issue of the womans right to bodily privacy, but I think parental responsibility largely over rides this right. But that is a tricky issue that probably warrant further discussion (ie can a mother refuse to give blood to save her 5 year old?)

Thats a tricky one and I casnt understand the logic from a religous view point? Thats a Jehovah witness stance and hospitals and courts have developed a mechanism to deal with it.My view is living child its got its own right to life and you have no right to endanger that? Then the only knowledge I got on JWs I got from South Park.



No. I think the idea that we should force "sexually wreckless" people to have kids as some form of punishment or act to make them grow up, is counter-intuitive. They are probably the last people you want raising kids.

other mechanisms to deal with that.Does that cross the line into eugenics - the nazis social engineering via a sterilisation program.

Also - mentally handicapped people can have happy lives. I worked with the mentally handicapped as a student and that is an ethical issue also. Do we abort those who we dont consider normal? Thats like drowning an unwanted puppy

I think children should be given clear detailed sexual education in schools, devoid of the type of abstinance pushing hysteria we find in Ireland and America. They should be taught the facts as they would about photosynthsis or the Nazi invasion of Poland. The idea we need to tip toe around the issue lest we encourage teens to have sex is silly and insulting to the children.[/quote]


Point taken - I too think the sexual education programs in schools are silly. In fact they are so mindnumbingly silly in Ireland that a few years back there was a pilot programme called exploring masculinities to be run in schools. Focusing on homosexuality, males as abusers and that sort of thing. S secretive was it that the Department of Education would not give the course notes to parents. Under Irish Constitutional law the parents are the primary educators of children. On the TV show Questions and Answers a member of the audience said this to Willie O'Dea who replied something like - no problem I will have my secretary give you my copy.

So we have a major sex ed problem too

kizzyr

CDfm wrote: »

Thanks Wicknight for being so articulate;)

I imagine that there is a point but it is debately if we have reliable criteria to determine that.

I tend to take the play it safe approach. I'm not sure that the 6 weeks that someone else mentioned is accurate in turns of a functioning brain, but I would be strongly against later term abortions.

What it is easy to determine is that a zygote or embryo does not even have a brain and as such is not under any circumstances, a person. Personhood does not begin at conception.


It is a stage in development rather than a fixed time. If for legal reasons a common time needs to be given it should be a time when no foetus would ever have the brain capable of such development. Again I don't know when that is.

So it comes down to legal and ethical conciderations - therein lies the problem?

I am not putting this lightly but I think if a person has a religous point they should state it in ethical terms if they can or simply say the catholic church teaching is. Get to specifics as a side issue but for now no-one wants to loose a good thread


The ethical consideration is whether or not the foetus possess the physical characteristics that make humans valuable. That is basically it. I hate these arguments about whether the mother was raped, or whether the parents can give the child a good life, or the idea that you have to have a really good reason to abort otherwise it is just a form of contraception. I see them all as largely irrelevant.

But arent these arguments normally put forward by people arguing the pro- life aghenda and are the exception and not the rule?

A good idea for rape theorists is to state yer point

The only argument like that I see as having any merit is the argument that if the woman's life is endanger it is better to terminate the foetus than the woman.

I agree with you here. The mother comes first and shouldnt be endangered. Isnt this Irish law? But does it happen?

I have also wrestled with the issue of the womans right to bodily privacy, but I think parental responsibility largely over rides this right. But that is a tricky issue that probably warrant further discussion (ie can a mother refuse to give blood to save her 5 year old?)

Thats a tricky one and I casnt understand the logic from a religous view point? Thats a Jehovah witness stance and hospitals and courts have developed a mechanism to deal with it.My view is living child its got its own right to life and you have no right to endanger that? Then the only knowledge I got on JWs I got from South Park.



No. I think the idea that we should force "sexually wreckless" people to have kids as some form of punishment or act to make them grow up, is counter-intuitive. They are probably the last people you want raising kids.

I know but assuming society has other mechanisms to deal with that.Does that cross the line into eugenics - the nazis social engineering via a sterilisation program.

Also - mentally handicapped people can have happy lives. I worked with the mentally handicapped as a student and that is an ethical issue also. Do we abort those who we dont consider normal? Thats like drowning an unwanted puppy

I think children should be given clear detailed sexual education in schools, devoid of the type of abstinance pushing hysteria we find in Ireland and America. They should be taught the facts as they would about photosynthsis or the Nazi invasion of Poland. The idea we need to tip toe around the issue lest we encourage teens to have sex is silly and insulting to the children.

Point taken - I too think the sexual education programs in schools are silly. In fact they are so mindnumbingly silly in Ireland that a few years back there was a pilot programme called exploring masculinities to be run in schools. Focusing on homosexuality, males as abusers and that sort of thing. S secretive was it that the Department of Education would not give the course notes to parents. Under Irish Constitutional law the parents are the primary educators of children. On the TV show Questions and Answers a member of the audience said this to Willie O'Dea who replied something like - no problem I will have my secretary give you my copy.

So we have a major sex ed problem too[/QUOTE]

That can hardly be news to you though can it?

tallaght01

Wicknight wrote: »

That certain is a problem, but as I said it is a problem for the practicalities of implementing the moral argument, not the moral argument itself.

While I see your point, wicknight, we have to realise that the moral argument informs the practicalities. So, unfortunately we need something more tangible than the rather esoteric concept of "Being".

CDfm wrote: »

. I'm not sure that the 6 weeks that someone else mentioned is accurate in turns of a functioning brain, but I would be strongly against later term abortions.

:

I certainly never mentioned a functioning brain at 6 weeks. I said you have brain development at 6 weeks. The other point I'm making is that a newborn doesn't have a fully functional brain. They have a pretty immature brain. So if we're using brain development as the benchmark, then that raises the issue about late abortions...should they be legal, as their brain isn't fully functional. At what point is the brain functional enough to give you rights?

shoelaceface

dont agree with it... if you dont want to get pregnant.. take better precautions when playing bedroom sports like the egg and spoon race

philologos

Wicknight wrote: »

Abortion is moral if it is carried out before the foetus has developed a brain capable of human personality and sentience. And no I don't know exactly when that happens, but that is irrelevant to the moral argument. It is an issue for the practicalities of adhering to the moral argument.

Before this point, you go on about it not being human life due to it being not a formed brain. I honestly don't get this, this just sounds like a get-out clause to wish away the fact that a foetus is a developing human life form, just like you or I. We can keep twisting around the situation to suit ourselves for as long as we want but we can't change what is true or false. That's just my view on it anyway.

It's a stage in growth. You say that abortion is moral if it is carried out before the foetus has developed a brain capable of human personality, but that just sounds the same to me as "Abortion is moral if it is carried out before the child is able to ride a bike", they are both stages in development and growth, that doesn't excuse the killing of a child which has rights afforded to it (or should have) under the UN Declaration of Human Rights.

It's a sad state of affairs. I was watching a report of how they deal with the disabled in China, and they have compulsory abortions for women who are thought to bring a child into the world with a deformity. They advertise this as "improving the quality of the population", sounds Nazi like doesn't it? The fact that people treat human life like this, should be sickening to people, not something that should be welcomed unless in very extreme circumstances.

CDfm

tallaght01 - one off the quotes you use from me is wicknigts my broadbnd went down -= sorry

CDfm

kizzyr wrote: »

Point taken - I too think the sexual education programs in schools are silly. In fact they are so mindnumbingly silly in Ireland that a few years back there was a pilot programme called exploring masculinities to be run in schools. Focusing on homosexuality, males as abusers and that sort of thing. S secretive was it that the Department of Education would not give the course notes to parents. Under Irish Constitutional law the parents are the primary educators of children. On the TV show Questions and Answers a member of the audience said this to Willie O'Dea who replied something like - no problem I will have my secretary give you my copy.

So we have a major sex ed problem too

That can hardly be news to you though can it?[/quote]

No its not Kizzyr I am just laying down a point that sex happens irrespective of any religous or moral considerations.

So if someone looks at it from a point of view that both outside marriage, contraception and abortions are all sins then its unlikely that they can contribute anything to a debate other than shoot down other proposals. I am just saying if someone has those beliefs the are unlikely to accept any proposal

On the other hand from an ethical point of view they view abortion as being worse - then they have a moral obligation to support proposals that can reduce it. Dont you think?

CDfm

Kizzyr - I have to disagree with you about reckless people. They will always be there. No one is forcing them to be reckless. IF I am driving and I see a red light or a 3 year old on a bike I stop. If someone doesnt take precautions am I responsible. I am not.Thats not forced pregnancy that is just reality.

I am willing to hear you out on how the rules currently prohibit them in accessing those other options?

carlybabe1

CDfm wrote: »

a question is with all the contraception options available including the morning after pill - why would someone need an abortion?Its a simple question - women dont just become pregnant?

Contraception isnt infallible,like people...and like it or not accidents happen.

What would someone need an abortion other than no access to contraception

In the case of rape, either by a "stranger" or by a violent husband/partner

given the inaccuracy of calculating the actual date of conception what cut off time would you choose and why?

Its not entirely innacurate, and a doctor can guage to within about a week, and thats a doctor in a womens clinic, doesn't have to be your own. But I reckon that cut off should be 16 weeks, although there is a cns developing, its not until much later that it can send signals to and from the brain, pain or others

also - Ireland has no death row. However the Foetus/child has done nothing so why terminate - just for convenience- please explain - if you have a moral stance you should elaborate

That depends on how you qualify convenience...a remote control is a convenience, as is an indoor toilet, it makes a small but significant alteration is your life which is pleasant. A baby certainly doesn't make a small alteration, it alters your life, and it certainly wouldnt be a positive one if the baby was unwanted. As for adoption/fostering, leaving the abuse scandals/red tape/ years of waiting aside, why should a woman be forced to have her own body hijacked for nine months and go through a rollercoaster that is pregnancy. Any woman will tell you that pregnancy is damn hard, even ones who really wanted a baby.
It also begs the question, if we cannot/are not permitted to make decisions about our own bodies (never mind our life), then where are our rights gone???

carlybabe1

CDfm wrote: »

just curious here - but lived in england and you could pop into your GP surgery or A & E for the morning after pill no cost? How readily available is it available in Ireland and is it cost prohibitive for teenagers say? WEll I dont know!

Yep its readily available, if the condom bursts, or if you have a tummy bug while on the pill you just pop to your doc and he'll prescribe it. Not sure about price, but I think its free in well womens clinic, (im open to correction on that) But, some people are of the opinion that that is abortion too, despite the fact that implantation hasnt yet occured, fertilisation has only occured, and the morning after pill is only effective up to 72 hrs after sex and it doesnt always work.

CDfm

carlybabe1 wrote: »

Yep its readily available, if the condom bursts, or if you have a tummy bug while on the pill you just pop to your doc and he'll prescribe it. Not sure about price, but I think its free in well womens clinic, (im open to correction on that) But, some people are of the opinion that that is abortion too, despite the fact that implantation hasnt yet occured, fertilisation has only occured, and the morning after pill is only effective up to 72 hrs after sex and it doesnt always work.

I am the father of a teenage daughter and I dont know and you are a pro-choice supporter and you dont know for sure.

So a doctors appointment is say 55 yoyos and a perscription is say 20 yoyos - A & E - around the same- thats a lot of dosh for a teenager!!!

Also its fine in Dublin but if you were in someplace like Carlow what would you do? No well womens clinic there? Where I live in Dublin ya cant get a doctor on weekends.

Any pro-lifers out there who can tell us what their stance on it is.

What I am trying to get a handle on is what are the options after unprotected sex or say an accident like a burst condom?

The next thing is back to sex education how would a young person go about accessing these options

Also - if we are relying on sex education are they told in school right if you are in this situation this is what you do this is who you call or you may end up with a baby??

carlybabe1

I honestly dont know what way they teach sex ed, but if its still the way it was when I was in school then good luck, its no wonder theres so many unwanted pregnancies. We were told preiod pains were as a result of being unfit, I **** you not!!!! Ill not be leavin it to schools to teach my two babies, thats for sure. Wat about the pill injection? Prevention is ALWAYS better than cure Is her mam not sortin out that stuff, only from the whole "dont want to talk to me da bout that stuff, Id be scarle" point of you As far as I know the only option after a mishap is the map, dont think theres an alternative

eveie

the m.a.p is best taking within 12 hours of unprotected sex but as a number of posters have stated it can be taken within 72 hours. so if for instance you have unprotected sex on friday night you can go to your g.p on monday and get it(although the chances of it being successful lower) i will agree that i think it should be more readily available but it is a very powerful drug that shouldnt be abused so if freely available it may lead to it being abused.
the point made about brian activity doesnt ly too well with me.
what would you say if a child was born with servre brain damage(or a very underdeveloped brain) is that being less of a person that someone who is born healthy? personhood is not granted on exit of the womb, we establish personhooh way before that. is a child that is still born less of a person than a child that dies 1 day after birth?

CDfm

eveie wrote: »

the m.a.p is best taking within 12 hours of unprotected sex but as a number of posters have stated it can be taken within 72 hours. so if for instance you have unprotected sex on friday night you can go to your g.p on monday and get it(although the chances of it being successful lower) i will agree that i think it should be more readily available but it is a very powerful drug that shouldnt be abused so if freely available it may lead to it being abused.
the point made about brian activity doesnt ly too well with me.
what would you say if a child was born with servre brain damage(or a very underdeveloped brain) is that being less of a person that someone who is born healthy? personhood is not granted on exit of the womb, we establish personhooh way before that. is a child that is still born less of a person than a child that dies 1 day after birth?

So can we agree that the availability of the Morning after pill is not not adequete and this does in some way contribute to the demand for abortion?

If a handicapped child is born or a child is born with brain damage I believe they have much of a right to life as everyone else. I believe in Ireland that we have world class facilities despite what some would have us believe.

AT what point do you define personhood? Is it an emotional bond between the parents of the unborn child or is it something else? I know its crude but an early miscarriage doesnt say child or does it?

CDfm

carlybabe1 wrote: »

I honestly dont know what way they teach sex ed, but if its still the way it was when I was in school then good luck, its no wonder theres so many unwanted pregnancies. We were told preiod pains were as a result of being unfit, I **** you not!!!! Ill not be leavin it to schools to teach my two babies, thats for sure. Wat about the pill injection? Prevention is ALWAYS better than cure Is her mam not sortin out that stuff, only from the whole "dont want to talk to me da bout that stuff, Id be scarle" point of you As far as I know the only option after a mishap is the map, dont think theres an alternative

i am a modern guy.there are some of us - well theres me and eddie in limerick and i believe theres one in belfast . :rolleyes:

This is the 21st century but I get yer point my daughters friends roll their eyes when she stocks up on nescessities and me pay and we also go clothes shopping in the sales.

Zombrex

tallaght01 wrote: »

While I see your point, wicknight, we have to realise that the moral argument informs the practicalities. So, unfortunately we need something more tangible than the rather esoteric concept of "Being".

Well I guess you do the best you can.

My problem, and the reason I mentioned it, is that too often I think we rush to practically easy classifications, such as conception, with no real moral argument behind why such a point actually is worth picking beyond that it is easy to pick.

Zombrex

CDfm wrote: »

So it comes down to legal and ethical conciderations - therein lies the problem?

Well it comes down mostly to medical discovery. We still don't understand fully how the brain forms this wondrous thing we call consciousness, so it is hard to tell when the brain starts forming it.

CDfm wrote: »

But arent these arguments normally put forward by people arguing the pro- life aghenda and are the exception and not the rule?

Well the problem is that arguments such as saying that abortion is ok in the case of rape actually betrays the original assertion, that the foetus is a person with rights. If that is the case then what does being a product of rape have to do with those rights? You can't kill a 5 year old because it was the product of a rape, why can you kill a foetus that is supposed to have the same rights as that five year old?

To me it is more a product of an emotional argument than anything else. People don't like the idea of killing babies, but equally they don't like the idea of a woman who has been raped having to give birth to the product of that rape. So their positions get rather muddled.

It is why I think it is important to go back to simpler principles, such as why we have rights in the first place, and how we bestow those rights.

CDfm wrote: »

Thats a tricky one and I casnt understand the logic from a religous view point? Thats a Jehovah witness stance and hospitals and courts have developed a mechanism to deal with it.My view is living child its got its own right to life and you have no right to endanger that? Then the only knowledge I got on JWs I got from South Park.

Well the argument is that the woman, as a person, has the right to do with her own body as she wishes, even if that involves the death of someone else.

So say you wake up after a bomb blast and find out that your blood has been hooked up in a make shift transfusion to someone beside you, you have the right (some would argue) to stop that, even if it meant the person would die.

How this applies to abortion is the argument that the woman has the right to stop her body being used for the sustaining of another person, her child, if she so wishes. If the foetus is killed as a result that isn't her responsibility.

I think the issue of parental responsibility over rides that argument some what. Parents have a responsibility to the welfare of their children even if they don't want to look after them.

CDfm wrote: »

other mechanisms to deal with that.Does that cross the line into eugenics - the nazis social engineering via a sterilisation program.

Yes, I'm a big support of Nazi sterilisation programs ... more of them I say :pac:

No, the point is that often having an abortion (within the framework I described above as moral) is often the most responsible thing a person can do. It is stopping a mistake, an act of irresponsibility, becoming much worse.

CDfm wrote: »

Also - mentally handicapped people can have happy lives. I worked with the mentally handicapped as a student and that is an ethical issue also. Do we abort those who we dont consider normal? Thats like drowning an unwanted puppy

You abort them for what ever reason, so long as it is before the person exists. The same way you use a condom for what ever reason you currently don't want to have kids.