Abortion whats your stance?

carlybabe1

Well she should have known better shouldn't she? Nobody forced her to get pregnant at all. I don't think killing a child is a rational solution to dealing with teenage pregancy, just as much as I don't support murder.

I would hazard a guess that either you dont have a daughter, or she's not in a postion where this is likely to happen to her in the near future. Good luck with that logic

They shouldn't have any guilt for doing the right thing.

Bit of a cop out this, its a known fact that victims of sexual assault do feel guilt, irrational it may well be but its guilt none the less. But I do agree that nobody should feel guilt for doing the right thing for themselves at a particular time in thier lives

I believe sex is what caused the pregnancy not the lack of abortions. People should be prepared for those consequences every time they have sex. That is why I think it should be reserved for a loving married couple as opposed to teenagers. Also I'm sure there has to be a standard reached for adoption.

Accidents happen its a fact of life, and I dont believe that someone should have to pay for a mistake for the rest of thier lives.... and what about the life of the unwanted child, do you think that its as simple as the mother has the baby, takes one look at it and falls in love and everything else is forgotten??? That kind of thing doesnt always happen, even to people who want a baby

Hagar

carlybabe1 wrote: »

Is it just me or are is there a wee bit of stereotyping going on here??? What about the married couples who have only just had a baby and suddenly find thier expecting again. It happens more often than you'd like to think. If you think about the statements that have been posted re:social welfare, em they have babies, or they wouldnt be on the social, ergo they DIDNT have abortions......

Quite a bit of stereotyping to be fair, but stereotypes arise when a set of circumstances become so common-place that they are un-deniably accurate regardless of how unpleasant it is.

The fact that they didn't have abortions is quite relevent. These women didn't have abortions so that that could obtain a lifestyle, other women have abortions so that they can maintain an existing lifestyle. The baby is the last thing considered. It's either a means to an end or an obstacle. Killing babies is the ultimate crime against humanity no matter how it's dressed up.

philologos

carlybabe1 wrote:

I would hazard a guess that either you dont have a daughter, or she's not in a postion where this is likely to happen to her in the near future. Good luck with that logic

Correct, I don't. However let's focus on the discussion shall we? I wouldn't accept murder in any circumstances. I consider this to be just another of many circumstances by which I won't tolerate murder. I'm a pacifist also, I don't believe it's right to wage war or lift a fist at another person. Why should it be any different to my stance on this one? They are the voiceless ones here. The 50,000,000 per annum who never got heard. Don't you find that tragic?

carlybabe1 wrote:

Bit of a cop out this, its a known fact that victims of sexual assault do feel guilt, irrational it may well be but its guilt none the less. But I do agree that nobody should feel guilt for doing the right thing for themselves at a particular time in thier lives

There is always a possibility of meeting your daughter. Theres no possibility of meeting your aborted child in this life. Actually I believe the guilt of abortion could be unbearable for many would-be mothers who have realised they have done the wrong thing. My heart goes out to them really, what a terrible position to be in.

carlybabe1 wrote:

Accidents happen its a fact of life, and I dont believe that someone should have to pay for a mistake for the rest of thier lives.... and what about the life of the unwanted child, do you think that its as simple as the mother has the baby, takes one look at it and falls in love and everything else is forgotten??? That kind of thing doesnt always happen, even to people who want a baby

Not trying to be smart, but accidents don't happen if you don't have sex until marriage. That's the way I view it anyway. I hope you don't feel that I am an uncompassionate monster, because I actually am trying to look at both sides of this situation instead of just one. It's best for both the mother and any potential children to be cautious about sex.

Malari

Jakkass wrote: »

Correct, I don't. However let's focus on the discussion shall we? I wouldn't accept murder in any circumstances. I consider this to be just another of many circumstances by which I won't tolerate murder. I'm a pacifist also, I don't believe it's right to wage war or lift a fist at another person. Why should it be any different to my stance on this one? They are the voiceless ones here. The 50,000,000 per annum who never got heard. Don't you find that tragic?

What does your quote of 50 million refer to?

Jakkass wrote: »

There is always a possibility of meeting your daughter. Theres no possibility of meeting your aborted child in this life. Actually I believe the guilt of abortion could be unbearable for many would-be mothers who have realised they have done the wrong thing. My heart goes out to them really, what a terrible position to be in.

For many they abort because they want to deal with the unwanted pregnancy once and for all. No child birth, no meeting the child in the future. For me, it's an argument for abortion.

Jakkass wrote: »

Not trying to be smart, but accidents don't happen if you don't have sex until marriage. That's the way I view it anyway. I hope you don't feel that I am an uncompassionate monster, because I actually am trying to look at both sides of this situation instead of just one. It's best for both the mother and any potential children to be cautious about sex.

And what about sex after marriage? What if you never get married? What if you never want a child. You are looking at this in a very blinkered way as far as I can see.

carlybabe1

Do you believe that people should be allowed to take currently illegal drugs, such as herion and cocaine? (on the basis that it's there body)

As per, thats muddying the waters a bit. The reasondrugs are illegal is not on the basis of it being thier body, but because of the adverse effects on society that addiction to these drugs have.

Thats a bit of a strawman! Pregnant women aren't puppy farms.

I dont get the differenc (besides the obvious physical one), your forcing a women against her wishes, to carry to term an offspring that you can then give away to another family

I'd explain the risks of sex to her before she had sex.
I wouldn't allower her to kill another person because she was worried about weight gain.

Again a bit out of context, I highlighted bloatedness as its a common discomfort among pregnant women. It has nothing to do with ruining her figure, this statement is a myth

Yes, yes I would. I wouldn't allow her to kill another person and compound her mistake.

And making her have a child that woud alter her life and limit her horizons isnt compounding her mistake

This is such a rarity, I question the validity of it's merit in tis discussion, suffice to say you don't make rules for the majority on this outside chance.

It has every merit in this discussion, just because the rape isnt reported doesnt mean it doesnt happen. If you look at the procedure a women who claims rape has to go through its nothing short of rediculus, much easier to keep schtumm an quietly cross the water. With all due respect zulu, I have noticed you can shift the goalposts in this debate, introduce something and when its turned round claim it has no relevance. And if the law is anythin to go by, yes you do make rule for the majority on an outside chance.

]this would apply for an abortion. How does this help your argument? At least with adoption there wouldn't exist the guilt of killing a child.

Not everyone who has an abortion feels guilt. Nor should they

Aodan83

Abortion is a really tricky subject for a reason. On the one hand you could claim its just murder, or the death sentence , even though the one sentenced to death is about as innocent as you could get. But if you get a girl pregnant, or you ar the pregnant girl at say 16, abortion seems like the best way. An unwanted pregnancy could prevent someone doing the things they want like go to college. Because of that i wouldn't say i was against it but i wouldn't be campaigning for it to be legalised here.

philologos

Malari wrote: »

What does your quote of 50 million refer to?

The global abortion count for the year 2006. It's more than 7 times the Holocaust in one year.

Malari wrote: »

For many they abort because they want to deal with the unwanted pregnancy once and for all. No child birth, no meeting the child in the future. For me, it's an argument for abortion.

Killing a child is convenient alright I'll give you that. :rolleyes:

Malari wrote: »

And what about sex after marriage? What if you never get married? What if you never want a child. You are looking at this in a very blinkered way as far as I can see.

Sex after marriage, by then you should be capable of having a child financially, and should be grown up enough to take care of one.

I think you know what my answer is for "what if you never get married?". However I don't impose my solution upon anyone.

Blinkered? Interesting term please elaborate if you can.

Malari

Jakkass wrote: »

The global abortion count for the year 2006. It's more than 7 times the Holocaust in one year.

I think saving the lives of 50 million people who are already in poverty, starvation, suffering from disease, water deprivation, etc is far more important than saving the lives of the unborn.

Jakkass wrote: »

Killing a child is convenient alright I'll give you that. :rolleyes:

I'm assuming from your roll-eyes that you don't think it's convenient? I do, I'm not apologising for it.

Jakkass wrote: »

Sex after marriage, by then you should be capable of having a child financially, and should be grown up enough to take care of one.

I think you know what my answer is for "what if you never get married?". However I don't impose my solution upon anyone.

No, I don't know what your answer is, hence my question. Please elaborate, if you can.

Jakkass wrote: »

Blinkered? Interesting term please elaborate if you can.

This relates to your "sex after marriage" statement, as if everyone falls into this category. Some people do not want children. You seem to be suggesting that people grow up, get married, have children (as because they are married, they are now allowed to have sex) and live happily ever after. It's over-simplified.

Zulu

carlybabe1 wrote: »

As per, thats muddying the waters a bit. The reasondrugs are illegal is not on the basis of it being thier body, but because of the adverse effects on society that addiction to these drugs have.

So to answer the question, you wouldn't allow people to take these drugs - is that correct?

to carry to term an offspring that you can then give away to another family

not at all, she can keep her child if she wants.

Again a bit out of context, I highlighted bloatedness as its a common discomfort among pregnant women. It has nothing to do with ruining her figure, this statement is a myth

Semantics to be honest, the point I'm making is that feeling uncomfortable isn't a good enough reason to kill. Not much is to be honest.

And making her have a child that woud alter her life and limit her horizons isnt compounding her mistake

How would it limit her "horizons" if she offered it up for adoption?

It has every merit in this discussion, just because the rape isnt reported doesnt mean it doesnt happen.

How many pregnant women, who have concieved through rape want abortions per annum?

If you look at the procedure a women who claims rape has to go through its nothing short of rediculus,

It's unfortunate I'll agree, however lets keep this to abortion.

With all due respect zulu, I have noticed you can shift the goalposts in this debate, introduce something and when its turned round claim it has no relevance.

With all due respect, address the points and the thread topic please carlybabe, we both know what happened the last time you started casting assertions on other posters.

philologos

Malari wrote: »

I think saving the lives of 50 million people who are already in poverty, starvation, suffering from disease, water deprivation, etc is far more important than saving the lives of the unborn.

I agree with you to an extent, but I don't believe it's more important. Both scenarios are truly tragic.

Malari wrote: »

I'm assuming from your roll-eyes that you don't think it's convenient? I do, I'm not apologising for it.

I didn't mean it in a disrespectful way to you, but I could find the death of many people convenient just to "help me along in life". Surely that's the attitude of many gangland figures, but alas, that is also unethical surely?

Malari wrote: »

No, I don't know what your answer is, hence my question. Please elaborate, if you can.

Sure:

1 Corinthians 7:9 (NRSV) wrote:

But if they are not into practising self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to aflame with passion

I personally think that sexual relations are to be something to be shared within a stable marriage to prevent against cheating amongst other things, also it's beneficial against the spread of STD's, and of course as we are discussing her unplanned pregnancies. This is my best solution to the problem, I'd be interested in hearing what other people have to say about it. (PS. I do not expect you to take the same understanding as I do, but I think quoting from the Bible helps explain my view of the situation)

Malari wrote: »

This relates to your "sex after marriage" statement, as if everyone falls into this category. Some people do not want children. You seem to be suggesting that people grow up, get married, have children (as because they are married, they are now allowed to have sex) and live happily ever after. It's over-simplified.

Regardless of whether or not you think it's over-simplified, if it prevents unnecessary stress and strain, and if it makes peoples lives a lot easier without having to put a child to death I find it the most feasible solution.

carlybabe1

So to answer the question, you wouldn't allow people to take these drugs - is that correct?

This has no merit in this debate. As I said before, drugs are illegal because of the adverse affects it has on society . But its a moot point anyway

not at all, she can keep her child if she wants.

Thats kind of you :rolleyes: The whole point of her considering abortion is because she doesnt want it

Semantics to be honest, the point I'm making is that feeling uncomfortable isn't a good enough reason to kill. Not much is to be honest.

Indeed, tell me again why drugs have anythin to do with this And I never said comfort has anythin to do with it.

How would it limit her "horizons" if she offered it up for adoption?

why should she be forced to have it in the first place? And just because you think abortion is wrong isnt a good enough reason

How many pregnant women, who have concieved through rape want abortions per annum?

Obviously if they are not reported (which was my point) there are no accurate numbers

It's unfortunate I'll agree, however lets keep this to abortion.

With all due respect, address the points and the thread topic please carlybabe, we both know what happened the last time you started casting assertions on other posters.

I just did address the points, and I didnt cast assertions, I cast dispertions and only in response to name calling. But thats besides the point

kizzyr

Some people do not believe that a foetus is a baby and so a human person. They view it as something that has the potential to become a human being in time but is not at the early stages in fact a baby.

philologos

kizzyr wrote: »

Some people do not believe that a foetus is a baby and so a human person. They view it as something that has the potential to become a human being in time but is not at the early stages in fact a baby.

How isn't it though? It grows to be a baby, but a foetus is still a human being just at a less developed stage. It's a human lifeform from conception when the sperm and the ova form to a zygote. It has the potential to be a baby, but it is still very much a human life. All this seems to me is manipulating terms to somehow make a foetus illegitimate as a human life.

Zulu

carlybabe1 wrote: »

This has no merit in this debate. As I said before, drugs are illegal because of the adverse affects it has on society .

No, I just wanted a straight answer from you, which you still haven't provided.
What I'm trying to highlight to you is that the reason: "it's her body, she can do what she wants with it" isn't acceptable.
It isn't acceptable because it's not just her body, there is also a child.
It's also not acceptable, because the state has a responsibility of care to it's citizens. We also protect people who try to harm themselves. Because it's their body isn't a valid reason.
This logic also applies to drugs - society doesn't tolerate some drugs.
In response to your assertion that it's because "of adverse affects (sic) on society", I'd suggest that abortion also have adverse effects on society, and the poor mothers who opt for it.

And I never said comfort has anythin to do with it.

Quite, but you suggested:

morning sickness (sometimes all day nausea)/ heartburn/swollen hands,feet ankles,legs,face and just general michelin manness

my point is that these aren't a good enough reason to kill another person.

why should she be forced to have it in the first place? And just because you think abortion is wrong isnt a good enough reason

Well, me and at the last count, the majority of Irish adults.

I just did address the points, and I didnt cast assertions, I cast dispertions

:rolleyes:Oh dear, to correct someone, is to leave yourself open. Wide open.

kizzyr

Jakkass wrote: »

How isn't it though? It grows to be a baby, but a foetus is still a human being just at a less developed stage. It's a human lifeform from conception when the sperm and the ova form to a zygote. It has the potential to be a baby, but it is still very much a human life. All this seems to me is manipulating terms to somehow make a foetus illegitimate as a human life.

It can grow to be a baby but it isn't one at the early stages of development.Similarly I don't see embryos formed in a petri dish for IVF as babies either, I see them as exactly what they are: embryos that when implanted have a chance of developing into a baby if conditions are right.

CDfm

:rolleyes:Oh dear, to correct someone, is to leave yourself open. Wide open.[/quote]

Carlybabe and Zulu - I was going to say stop it you two
but I think you will find the word you are looking for is aspertions and the correct name for the Michelin Man is Bibendum.

Pedantic or what:D

carlybabe1

Jakkass wrote: »

How isn't it though? It grows to be a baby, but a foetus is still a human being just at a less developed stage. It's a human lifeform from conception when the sperm and the ova form to a zygote. It has the potential to be a baby, but it is still very much a human life. All this seems to me is manipulating terms to somehow make a foetus illegitimate as a human life.

Thats equivalent to saying that an egg is potentially a cute little yellow fluffy chick, just at a less developed stage. Do you eat eggs? And do you see them as eggs or potentially cute chicks??

Zulu

CDfm wrote: »

Carlybabe and Zulu - I was going to say stop it you two

apologies. It just grinds my gears when someone a) doesn't answer a direct question and b) corrects an honest mistake, while littering their posts with them

philologos

carlybabe1 wrote: »

Thats equivalent to saying that an egg is potentially a cute little yellow fluffy chick, just at a less developed stage. Do you eat eggs? And do you see them as eggs or potentially cute chicks??

Over simplification. Congratulations. A zygote is considerably more than an egg. It's not due to potentially, a zygote is just the stage of human life that comes before a baby being born. If you will compare it to a caterpillar and a butterfly. Now the caterpillar isn't any less of a life form, it's just less developed than the butterfly. The same applies in the case of a foetus and a baby. It's still human life.

Zulu

OT: aren't the eggs we eat, unfertilised ones? I was always lead to believe that anyway.

Malari

Jakkass wrote: »

I didn't mean it in a disrespectful way to you, but I could find the death of many people convenient just to "help me along in life". Surely that's the attitude of many gangland figures, but alas, that is also unethical surely?

I don't consider an unwanted, unborn embryo a person and I don't value it's existence over and above the lives of even gangland figures.

Jakkass wrote: »

I personally think that sexual relations are to be something to be shared within a stable marriage to prevent against cheating amongst other things, also it's beneficial against the spread of STD's, and of course as we are discussing her unplanned pregnancies. This is my best solution to the problem, I'd be interested in hearing what other people have to say about it. (PS. I do not expect you to take the same understanding as I do, but I think quoting from the Bible helps explain my view of the situation)

The bible quote does nothing to clarify your position because I don't really understand it. Is god meant to have said that to someone? What's so bad about becoming "aflame with passion"? Sounds good to me.

As for your cheating and STD theory, I just think it's a little naive to expect marriage to solve these issues. It's well-known that they don't and it's positing a religious solution for something that is a social issue. There are also couples who only want one child, or two. So after that, they abstain? Your solutions may fit a small number of couples but they are not suitable for most.

Jakkass wrote: »

Regardless of whether or not you think it's over-simplified, if it prevents unnecessary stress and strain, and if it makes peoples lives a lot easier without having to put a child to death I find it the most feasible solution.

It's not that I think it's over-simplified, it does not accurately describe the position of most people who may choose abortion. You can't say, just wait till you get married and then abortion doesn't even have to be an option. Do you see how that does nothing to avoid the choice? It's no solution at all. I can't see how you equate the two in any case.

carlybabe1

Zulu wrote: »

:rolleyes:Oh dear, to correct someone, is to leave yourself open. Wide open.

Assertions are a subset of the findings of a case study. These assertions are made during the last stage of the data analysis and are analogous to ...
www.setda.org/web/guest/glossary

Yes indeed :rolleyes:

Zulu

Christ Carlybabe, I know what an assertion is, and ironically it's use was valid where I had it.
Would you like me to go back over all your frequent spelling mistakes?

The very least you could do in an attempt to be civil is to extend the slightest courtesy to fellow posters in this thread that they extend to you. :rolleyes:

carlybabe1

Zulu wrote: »

Christ Carlybabe, I know what an assertion is, and ironically it's use was valid where I had it.
Would you like me to go back over all your frequent spelling mistakes?

The very least you could do in an attempt to be civil is to extend the slightest courtesy to fellow posters in this thread that they extend to you. :rolleyes:

Indeed, I am civil when the same is forth coming. And yes I know I misspell, but its not dykse...dyskee...dyleks...Oh **** it its lazyness

Zulu

Where have I been uncivil on this thread?
And please report the same.

CDfm

Zulu wrote: »

apologies. It just grinds my gears when someone a) doesn't answer a direct question and b) corrects an honest mistake, while littering their posts with them

lots of posters on the site are not answering direct questions. But the fluffy chicks stuff is probably a style of argument you are not used to.

The exchange was tres amusing as they say in France and we all know what I think of our Gallic cousins.:D

Yee haw we have lift off

philologos

Malari wrote: »

As for your cheating and STD theory, I just think it's a little naive to expect marriage to solve these issues. It's well-known that they don't and it's positing a religious solution for something that is a social issue. There are also couples who only want one child, or two. So after that, they abstain? Your solutions may fit a small number of couples but they are not suitable for most.

Even from a secular point of view it seems like a reasonable solution. If you are in a completely monogamous relationship and you always have been. How possibly are you going to pick up an STD.

As for cheating, you are right in that there is still a risk of adultery in a marriage, but when you have made a commitment such as the one that has been made, I'd argue that you would be less likely to cheat than in a boyfriend / girlfriend situation.

Seems the most rational way forward for me.

As for the last question you posed about after one or two children, it's just a case of using precautions and always being ready for the unexpected.

carlybabe1

Zulu wrote: »

Where have I been uncivil on this thread?
And please report the same.

If I was to read through and quote all your posts both in this thread and in others looking for the above, I would spend half the day, and frankly I havent the interest.

Back on topic, as far as I know the eggs we eat have already been fertilised, they just need to be incubated, but ill try find out for definite

Malari

carlybabe1 wrote: »

If I was to read through and quote all your posts both in this thread and in others looking for the above, I would spend half the day, and frankly I havent the interest.

Back on topic, as far as I know the eggs we eat have already been fertilised, they just need to be incubated, but ill try find out for definite

No, chicken eggs that we eat are not fertilised....unless maybe they keep a rooster in with free-range chickens? But unlikely.

philologos

carlybabe1 wrote: »

If I was to read through and quote all your posts both in this thread and in others looking for the above, I would spend half the day, and frankly I havent the interest.

Please don't get this thread closed too, it's going well.

carlybabe1

Malari wrote: »

No, chicken eggs that we eat are not fertilised....unless maybe they keep a rooster in with free-range chickens? But unlikely.

Eggs will hatch only if they are fertilised and incubated at the right temperature for the right period. For chicken eggs, 38oC for 21 days. Only fertilised eggs will have the potential to develop the embryo. The eggs you obtain from the supermarkets in Singapore are most likely non-fertilised hen eggs. Yes, hens do lay eggs on their own without the need of fertilisation. Hens are domesticated for that purpose - to lay eggs. If the farmer wants to have chicks, then the hen must mate with a rooster.

Fertilisation will take place before the egg is wrapped up by albumin and the egg shell, which occurs inside the hen's reproductive tract.

Just googled this from science net, thats amazin. Thanks
Apologies all if Im coming across as rude, its not meant, its warped humour. And jackass (does it not feel weird when people address you) I didnt get the last thread closed .

So if abortion is out of the question (hypothetically) and a women doesnt want to carry the pregnanacy to term, wat are the other options or is there any

Zulu

carlybabe1 wrote: »

If I was to read through and quote all your posts both in this thread and in others looking for the above, I would spend half the day, and frankly I havent the interest.

:rolleyes: I expected as much.

It wouldn't take you any time, as they don't exist. They don't exist, because I have remained civil.
You don't have any interest because you know I am right.

I don't appreciate you calling me uncivil when it's a lie. It's uncalled for and offensive.

On that note, I'll leave it, as I understand it's frustrating to others who wish to continue with the topic. And I'd extend an apology to the same for posting OT. I felt I needed to point out a blatant lie though.

Malari

carlybabe1 wrote: »

Just googled this from science net, thats amazin. Thanks
Apologies all if Im coming across as rude, its not meant, its warped humour. And jackass (does it not feel weird when people address you) I didnt get the last thread closed .

So if abortion is out of the question (hypothetically) and a women doesnt want to carry the pregnanacy to term, wat are the other options or is there any

Well humans are the same, females ovulate and produce an egg whether it is fertilised or not. We just don't wrap ours in calcium!

CDfm

Zulu wrote: »

:rolleyes: I expected as much.

It wouldn't take you any time, as they don't exist. They don't exist, because I have remained civil.
You don't have any interest because you know I am right.

I don't appreciate you calling me uncivil when it's a lie. It's uncalled for and offensive.

On that note, I'll leave it, as I understand it's frustrating to others who wish to continue with the topic. And I'd extend an apology to the same for posting OT. I felt I needed to point out a blatant lie though.

Good on ya Zulu -I imagine the moderators do look over this thread - but ya cant expect women to fight fair.

Its been happenin since Adam & Eve - we all know it was Eves fault but everyone got punished.:eek:

philologos

CDfm wrote: »

Its been happenin since Adam & Eve - we all know it was Eves fault but everyone got punished.:eek:

Not quite the understanding I would have of it, but i'll leave the theology out of the thread

CDfm

Jakkass wrote: »

Not quite the understanding I would have of it, but i'll leave the theology out of the thread

You mean Adam was totally innocent - well I never looked at it like that before. Thanks for the heads up on that

Malari

CDfm wrote: »

You mean Adam was totally innocent - well I never looked at it like that before. Thanks for the heads up on that

Well I think Adam was totally fictional, so probably best left out of this thread. I don't know where he comes into the abortion debate?

Zulu

he knocked up eve, didn't he? :pac:

CDfm

Sorry Malari - just a bit of friendly banter;)

kizzyr

I'm asking my next question out of a genuine interest and am not trying to be awkward so would appreciate it if no one tries to tell me that I am being.

For those of you who believe that from the moment of conception life, human life, beings and is sacred and worthy of the same rights as you or I, what is your stance on embryos created for IVF? Almost always there will be some extra embryos that won't be used, what do you think should be done with them?
1) embryo adoption which isn't without its merits and problems.
2) they should be left in storage indefinitely but given that they can't remain frozen and viable indefinately isn't this little more than allowing them to deteriorate slowly?
3)they should be given over for testing which IMO is a good thing as great advances in curing genetic defects can be discovered and refined in this way.
4) they should simply be destroyed.

carlybabe1

For myself I reckon that the embryo is not viable till 20 wks, and that yes the embryos should be given over for research

CDfm

Kizzyr I dont know- I do believe there are merits in stem cell research
Arent their issues on sperm donation(recent irish case) etc and embryo ownership(recent UK case) etc that makes this whole area difficult. But at a general level embryo adoption sits fine with me,indeffinate storage is a cop out. I hate to say it but I dont think an embryo outside the womb has "personhood" and destruction wouldnt bother me

kizzyr

CDfm wrote: »

Kizzyr I dont know- I do believe there are merits in stem cell research
Arent their issues on sperm donation(recent irish case) etc and embryo ownership(recent UK case) etc that makes this whole area difficult. But at a general level embryo adoption sits fine with me,indeffinate storage is a cop out. I hate to say it but I dont think an embryo outside the womb has "personhood" and destruction wouldnt bother me

The recent Irish case was around the ownership of frozen embryos. The couple had opted for fertility treatment and had 2 (3?) children as a result. They then split up and the man has since gotten together with someone else and had a child (children?). He was adamant that he wanted no more children as is his right. His previous partner then decided that she wanted to implant the 3 remaining embryos and have maintenance payments from him for the extra children. The angle she took on the case was that these 3 embryos were her children, siblings to her existing children and the frozen embryos had a right to be born. Her ex partner refused his consent for the implantation given that he didn't want any more children. The judge decided that the pre implanted embryo was not afforded protection under the Constitution as would an implanted embryo and so found in favour of the man. I have to say I think he was right to do this. We talk about a woman having the right to decide not to have a child and that right should be available to men too.
All sperm used in donation in Ireland is imported from Denmark. All fertility clinics in the Republic of Ireland are totally unregulated by the government.

CDfm

wasnt there a case of a lesbian couple and homosexual irish donor. I may be wrong but when they split his visitation rights were extinguished and maintenance awarded against him. I read something about it in a John Waters column but like most people the sensational aspects of the story obscured the result.

Zulu

kizzyr wrote: »

I'm asking my next question out of a genuine interest and am not trying to be awkward so would appreciate it if no one tries to tell me that I am being.

Good question (and if it wasn't awkward, it wouldn't be!)

For those of you who believe that from the moment of conception life, human life, beings and is sacred and worthy of the same rights as you or I, what is your stance on embryos created for IVF?

Ouch, I guess I rationalise my opinion by considering that the egg is artificially and until it makes it to the womb (ie while it's still in a petry(sp?) dish) I wouldn't consider it reasonable to give it the same rights as we afford the rest of us. The same would hold I guess to rationalise the MAP.
However I do recognise this as a grey area in the logic behind the argument, however, I feel far more comfortable with someone destroying something that has been entirely created outside of the womb, and hasn't started development, and is covered by defined ethical law, than someone destroying a child conceived naturally because it's going to compicate their life, or become an inconvenience.

Almost always there will be some extra embryos that won't be used, what do you think should be done with them?
1) embryo adoption which isn't without its merits and problems.
2) they should be left in storage indefinitely but given that they can't remain frozen and viable indefinately isn't this little more than allowing them to deteriorate slowly?
3)they should be given over for testing which IMO is a good thing as great advances in curing genetic defects can be discovered and refined in this way.
4) they should simply be destroyed.

Well, they already exist and assuming there is no woman who wants a child, I'd be inclined to suggest putting them to good use. So 3)

kizzyr

Zulu wrote: »

Good question (and if it wasn't awkward, it wouldn't be!)

Ouch, I guess I rationalise my opinion by considering that the egg is artificially and until it makes it to the womb (ie while it's still in a petry(sp?) dish) I wouldn't consider it reasonable to give it the same rights as we afford the rest of us. The same would hold I guess to rationalise the MAP.
However I do recognise this as a grey area in the logic behind the argument, however, I feel far more comfortable with someone destroying something that has been entirely created outside of the womb, and hasn't started development, and is covered by defined ethical law, than someone destroying a child conceived naturally because it's going to compicate their life, or become an inconvenience.

Well, they already exist and assuming there is no woman who wants a child, I'd be inclined to suggest putting them to good use. So 3)

Thank you for your well thought out answer. The case of the pre implanted embryo is a difficult one. To people who haven't needed to avail of fertility treatments an embryo created in a petri dish can be viewed as an object where as couple who have had to avail of fertility services will view any embryo that they can create, no matter how they create it, as special an entity that is just as precious and important to them as would one that was created naturally. Their hopes and dreams are invested in it.
I genuinely didn't put my embryo case forward to trick anyone but as I typed my response it showed me that an individuals point of view and personal circumstances can influence things. To some as soon as they discover they are pregnant they are thinking of their baby, baby names, boy or girl, etc etc. To others as soon as they discover they are pregnant they see only trouble, despair, etc depending on their circumstances.
Re: defined ethical law covering the embryo.......there is none. The judge in the case I spoke about had to reach that conclusion himself. The woman who brought the case is appealing it. Despite calls from the medical community our government refuses to tackle the issue of assisted reproduction in Ireland and to put in place systems and regulations. As it is any one can set up a fertility clinic if they want to. In the UK things are much more strictly regulated.

kizzyr

some user wrote:

if someone is not financially/emotionally ready for a baby..then theyre not ready..

abortion is ungodly.. but desperate times, call for desperate measures...

Only if you believe in God.

CDfm

kizzyr wrote: »

We talk about a woman having the right to decide not to have a child and that right should be available to men too.

Kizzyr - you are full of surprises. Thanks for posting that because at times discussions like this are off limits to guys and are an all female domain.:)

CDfm

some user wrote:

if someone is not financially/emotionally ready for a baby..then theyre not ready..

abortion is ungodly.. but desperate times, call for desperate measures...

I dont understand your posting. It seems well giddy.

Are you saying that you are totally for abortion no matter what with no controls whatsover?.

Thats how your posting reads to me.

Zulu

some user wrote:

abortion is ungodly.. but desperate times, call for desperate measures...

I can understand someone who doesn't see the child as a child opting for abortion, but I have a big problem understanding how someone can rationalising having an abortion if they understand what they carry to be a child.

Some user, I'm assuming when you say "ungodly" that you recognise the child. How can desperate times rationalise killing a child?

Human nature is littered with desperate times, most far far worse than finding yourself pregnant, yet people have carried out seemingly impossible acts of bravery and selflessness.

Do we need more role models?

(The above is on the understand that the child is recognised as more than "a bundle of cells, or a parasite(sic)")