Abortion whats your stance?

F.A.

Thanks Zulu and CDfm, you have entirely confirmed my suspicions, i.e., you haven't really got an objective and logical as opposed to subjective and emotional argument against abortion. You cannot even see how arbitrary your morals are. That's all I wanted to know and others to see. 10/10.

philologos

F.A. wrote: »

You are missing the point entirely. We are ALL going to die. The phrase "right to life" is therefore nothing but phrase, albeit a nice sounding one.

So what? At least most people don't get killed by someone else before they even experience life. You're surely missing the point completely. How does that allow for abortion in any shape or form. They are still human beings.

FA wrote: »

Humanity may differ in whatever way, but how exactly does that justify the killing of animals? Also, how exactly have we been "given" this world? I think you have just proven my point about religion as this is an argument that can only be made if you somehow believe in a God of some sort...

You got me, I believe in the Abrahamic God. Many pro-lifers at least from reading this thread do not believe in a God. Anyhow, how exactly does my religion de legitimize my argument? I've made rational points throughout this thread precisely about what we can do to prevent abortions and unplanned pregnancies, and about how we should honour life.

Killing animals is not the same as killing humans. One is lawful killing, and the other is unlawful (murder).

CDfm

F.A. wrote: »

Thanks Zulu and CDfm, you have entirely confirmed my suspicions, i.e., you haven't really got an objective and logical as opposed to subjective and emotional argument against abortion. You cannot even see how arbitrary your morals are. That's all I wanted to know and others to see. 10/10.

I love my children and I have two. So the arguments here are not arbitrary they are real.And though I havent had to make these decisions they might or I might be left holding the baby literally.

I like KFC - but will settle for a pizza if Im lazy cos there is none nearby.

kizzyr

Zulu wrote: »

You can suggest all you like. The simple fact of the matter is that there are laws against animal abuse and cruelty in this country.
Thus, to claim that animal abuse is "generally accepted" is utter rubbish.
Why should I? This thread is about abortion, not the welfare of animals in transit. You are dragging the thread off topic in a very poor attempt to create a straw-man.
Abortion is illegal in this country.

0/10

Actually it isn't. When there is a threat to the life of the mother as distinct from her health abortion can be legally obtained.

tallaght01

what's an "abortion survivor"??

Does it refer to the baby or the ma??

Zulu

kizzyr wrote: »

Actually it isn't. When there is a threat to the life of the mother as distinct from her health abortion can be legally obtained.

Apologies - you are of course correct. But I did mean in the general sense, I taught you would have acknowledged that.

For the record - I have no problem with abortions that are legal in this country.

eveie

randy alcorn wrote a book in which there are statistics which prove that child abuse has risen with the legalisation of abortion in many ountries so the argument of "well so many children are not wanted and therfore abused and i would rather see a child die then live and be abused" is quashed.
anything i state on this thread comes from knowledge i have aquired over the years i am not here to make up lies my argument holds for itself.
tallaght an abortion survivor is someone who survived an abortion gianna jenson is an example if you goodle her you'l find some stuff.
as for the animal argument.......start a different thread, such a ridiclous argument, blunt i know, but the truth. we as humans have a conscience.....animals dont, this is not down to religion, if it wasnt for humans animals would have no rights. since we first existed we have eaten animals, the majority and by that i mean about 98% if not more of cows are breed soely for the purpose of being made into a delicious burger, they would never have exsisted and tasted fresh grass if it wasnt for farmers.
animal cruelty is very much frowned upon, but you seem to have so much compassion for animals why do you not have compassion for your own species??? surely the unborn baby deserves compassion???

ChocolateSauce

eveie wrote: »

this thread is not abour assisted suicide, its a completely different subject although very important, in countries where it has been legalised it has been abused.
also it has been proven time and time again that the number of women opting for abortion has increased in countires where it has been legilised, as has child abuse

Firstly, of couse there will be more abourtions in a country where it is legal. That's par for the course. As for increase in child abuse, this is groundless conjecture. Please supply evidence for your claim.

Ok, I've made a small mistake in identifying who said what because I copied and paste the quotes HTML wrongly. I've fixed it now and apologise for the error.

Do the unborn give their explicit consent to abortions? Interesting question that people perhaps should think about.

I have my opinions on that, but I'm not here to debate whther the foetus is a person or not.

Originally Posted by ChocolateSauce
You say you don't know if it has a soul, but you're still willing not only to bet that it does,

When did I say that?
Do you want to invent some other opinions for me aswell?

Deciding how I feel, and telling me my opinions, might appear to you to strengthen your argument, but let me assure you it doesn't. It smacks of the arrogance you so strongly strive to obliterate.
Please stop.

You said you're agnostic, ergo by definition you say you don't know if there is a soul. I didn't invent an opinion for you, I assumed one. If I'm wrong, please feel free to correct me. Guessing your stance based on your position is, as you pointed out, a messy business; but I am forced to guess if you don't state it.

What the hell are you banging on about? We are discussing abortion.

I'm not. I'm discussing freedom of choice. I'm saying why it is wrong to force your opinions on others. Have I once given a detailed argument as to why it isn't wrong to abort?

Firstly I'd examine why my personal beliefs on most important issues contrasted with the rest of that society so much. Then, assuming I still felt the same, I'd lobby to see if there is anyone else of that opinion, and see about getting it changed; if that didn't work, I'd move.

I don't think someone should have to flee their own country because they're different from the norm. I think their country should protect them.

A baby doesn't ask to be aborted.

For this one I will descend into the realm of abortion debate (as opposed to freedom debate)....babies don't get aborted; pre-babies, foetuses, non-persons get aborted. Killing babies is an atrocious prospect. No one who is pro-abortion is pro-killing babies. They do not think a foetus is a person worthy of the consideration we give to others. If they did, they'd be pro-life.

Also, a foetus cannot consent to being aborted because it does not have any concept of reality, personhood, time or self-preservation. In essence, it lacks everything a thinking, feeling person has. It even lacks what most animals have. How anyone can value that above the mental, physical, emotional and financial wellbeing of an actual person is beyond me.

But that is just my opinion, I accept others do not feel that way. Back to freedom, I respect their choice not to abort.

eveie

the title of this thread is "abortion whats your stance" it is not "freedom" so therefore you should try keep to the titled discussion.
i have already supplyed evidence if you cared to read my last post, randy alcorn has a number of statistics in his book, also many countires have carried out their own research into it, basically what it shows is that not only do people have no regard to the unborn life but to the born life also

Zulu

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

You said you're agnostic, ergo by definition you say you don't know if there is a soul.

...so why would I "bet" there was one?
Clearly I wouldn't.

I didn't invent an opinion for you, I assumed one.

Same difference really. The bottom line is, you got it completely wrong.

If I'm wrong, please feel free to correct me.

You are wrong. Feel free to apologise and retract your statement.

Guessing your stance based on your position is, as you pointed out, a messy business; but I am forced to guess if you don't state it.

I have stated it clearly, read the thread.
What I didn't state clearly is my opinions on a soul, which is a different topic completely. Although you are trying to drag it into this one for some reason.

And let me stress: you are the only one dragging the concept of a soul into this debate

I'm discussing freedom of choice.

And I'll exercise my freedom of choice in a vote.

I'm saying why it is wrong to force your opinions on others.

That depends on the opinion. I am of the opinion that rape is wrong, and would happily impose my opinion on a would-be rapist. Wouldn't you?
Seriously - direct question: I am of the opinion that rape is wrong, and would happily impose my opinion on a would-be rapist. Wouldn't you?
Answer it with a direct answer. Yes or no.

I don't think someone should have to flee their own country because they're different from the norm. I think their country should protect them.

Like a paedophile?

Also, a foetus cannot consent to being aborted because it does not have any concept of reality, personhood, time or self-preservation. In essence, it lacks everything a thinking, feeling person has.

You of course can provide proof of this can't you?
Proof please.

CDfm

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Firstly, of couse there will be more abourtions in a country where it is legal. That's par for the course. As for increase in child abuse, this is groundless conjecture. Please supply evidence for your claim.



I have my opinions on that, but I'm not here to debate whther the foetus is a person or not.



I'm not. I'm discussing freedom of choice. I'm saying why it is wrong to force your opinions on others. Have I once given a detailed argument as to why it isn't wrong to abort?



For this one I will descend into the realm of abortion debate (as opposed to freedom debate)....babies don't get aborted; pre-babies, foetuses, non-persons get aborted. Killing babies is an atrocious prospect. No one who is pro-abortion is pro-killing babies. They do not think a foetus is a person worthy of the consideration we give to others. If they did, they'd be pro-life.

Also, a foetus cannot consent to being aborted because it does not have any concept of reality, personhood, time or self-preservation. In essence, it lacks everything a thinking, feeling person has. It even lacks what most animals have. How anyone can value that above the mental, physical, emotional and financial wellbeing of an actual person is beyond me.

Chocolatesauce - I dont think that is exactly the point that eevie was making. I am posting here a link to Erin Pizzey who is the founder of womens aid in the UK.

Rightly or wrongly what she says is that gender based feminist groups surpress information and stastistics where women are the perpetrators of domestic violence. Here is a link to her blog

http://www.sossandra.org/author/erin

Whether there is a relationship between abortion and child abuse I dont know but reading thru the blog something is amiss.

Secondly this is an abortion debate so if you are posting here thats what its about.

Whether or not a foetus is a person is a core issue to this debate as what you are proposing is removing the legal and constitutional protections that currently exist.So surely you must debate the issues and the line you have drawn is pre-birth which is fairly on the extreme side of the debate - its puppy drowning territory.

There are many "pro-choice" posters who are not afraid to post on issues and supply info which is not there simply to support their own arguments. I have had to rethink my own views on several issues- that I was sure on.

Well I have kids and have made lots of sacrifices for them- financial emotional etc is what parents give up- maybe you are one of these "Child Free" people who just isnt cut out to be a parent. Thats ok.

philologos

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

You said you're agnostic, ergo by definition you say you don't know if there is a soul. I didn't invent an opinion for you, I assumed one. If I'm wrong, please feel free to correct me. Guessing your stance based on your position is, as you pointed out, a messy business; but I am forced to guess if you don't state it.

Let's try reason over the the humanity of the unborn being aborted before bringing souls into it. You are the only one who has referred to a soul so far in this discussion.

Whether it has a soul or not is irrelevant, if it is indeed human it should be afforded the same rights as all mankind, including the right to life. Regardless of whether you think it's a nice phrase, the people who drafted it in 1948 actually did mean it as a right to life.

F.A.

CDfm wrote: »

I love my children and I have two. So the arguments here are not arbitrary they are real.And though I havent had to make these decisions they might or I might be left holding the baby literally.

I like KFC - but will settle for a pizza if Im lazy cos there is none nearby.

I did not say the arguments were arbitrary but that they are based on emotions. You have just proven that. Your love for your children is not a rational argument against abortions, however much you'd like it to be.

philologos

Why deny that love to parents who are desperate to adopt because they cannot conceive?

F.A.

eveie wrote: »

as for the animal argument.......start a different thread, such a ridiclous argument, blunt i know, but the truth. we as humans have a conscience.....animals dont, this is not down to religion, if it wasnt for humans animals would have no rights. since we first existed we have eaten animals, the majority and by that i mean about 98% if not more of cows are breed soely for the purpose of being made into a delicious burger, they would never have exsisted and tasted fresh grass if it wasnt for farmers.
animal cruelty is very much frowned upon, but you seem to have so much compassion for animals why do you not have compassion for your own species??? surely the unborn baby deserves compassion???

I am sorry that my post seems to rain on your parade, but my points are entirely valid. First of all, why does having a conscience make us superior to animals? Who says so and why? Secondly, Yes, we have a conscience, which according to you should be used when deciding on one's stand on abortion. Yet, you deny that this same conscience should be applied when it comes to the suffering of animals. Don't you think it's sad we bring cows into this world for the simple purpose of eating them? Surely you don't assume that cows don't feel pain? If they do, how can killing them be completely justified - even when it isn't necessary, while aborting a fetus that may or may not feel pain is wrong?

Sorry, but my point remains. Your arguments are hypocritical.

philologos

Intelligence, ability and potential purpose separate us from animals. That's the reason there is such legislation allowing for the legal killing of animals to provide a means of food, and legislation preventing against killing mankind.

Why don't we legalise murder under that premise? Some could argue that you could be denying them some fun by making it illegal? (poor them eh?)

Your argument falls short. Why advocate murder of unborn children, and not advocate the murder of grown people.

F.A.

Jakkass wrote: »

So what? At least most people don't get killed by someone else before they even experience life. You're surely missing the point completely. How does that allow for abortion in any shape or form. They are still human beings.

No, I don't miss the point. My point is that if you do apply emotional factors, then you should also see the cruelty of bringing life into this world only to kill it for your pleasure - which eating mean constitutes at this stage of our evolution. I fail to see how this cruelty is acceptable when abortion is not.

You got me, I believe in the Abrahamic God. Many pro-lifers at least from reading this thread do not believe in a God. Anyhow, how exactly does my religion de legitimize my argument? I've made rational points throughout this thread precisely about what we can do to prevent abortions and unplanned pregnancies, and about how we should honour life.

Killing animals is not the same as killing humans. One is lawful killing, and the other is unlawful (murder).

Thanks for being honest. My point stands: according to your belief, killing animals is entirely alright, aborting is not, because humans are somehow superior. Belief systems should, however, not be inflicted on people who do not share it. Otherwise, you ought to be prepared to give up meat if vegetarians have their way. Do you see what I mean?

CDfm

F.A. wrote: »

I did not say the arguments were arbitrary but that they are based on emotions. You have just proven that. Your love for your children is not a rational argument against abortions, however much you'd like it to be.

Yes it is sweetie-pie. Its da mommies and the daddies job to keep da babies snug and warm. No no sweetie- mommy isnt fat -she has a special thing like a baby bouncy castle to keep baby safe.

OF, course we keep babies safe.

That F.A. is called parental instinct and I believe those feelings are normal. Why, you may even have them some day.

philologos

F.A. wrote: »

No, I don't miss the point. My point is that if you do apply emotional factors, then you should also see the cruelty of bringing life into this world only to kill it for your pleasure - which eating mean constitutes at this stage of our evolution. I fail to see how this cruelty is acceptable when abortion is not.

I don't see Darwinism as being applicable in discussing about eating animals for food. It should be left to matters of biology.

F.A wrote: »

Thanks for being honest. My point stands: according to your belief, killing animals is entirely alright, aborting is not, because humans are somehow superior. Belief systems should, however, not be inflicted on people who do not share it. Otherwise, you ought to be prepared to give up meat if vegetarians have their way. Do you see what I mean?

I'm not arguing for "inflicting" my beliefs on anyone. As we've seen in this thread there are also many reasons outside the sphere of religion for arguing against abortion.

Humans are obviously superior to animals. Please compare a dog to a human being in terms of intelligence, speech, capabilities etc. If meat was illegal, I'm obliged to follow the law of the State and respect that, or migrate. I could live eating artificial meat made with vegetables I think

F.A.

Jakkass wrote: »

Intelligence, ability and potential purpose separate us from animals. That's the reason there is such legislation allowing for the legal killing of animals to provide a means of food, and legislation preventing against killing mankind.

Why don't we legalise murder under that premise? Some could argue that you could be denying them some fun by making it illegal? (poor them eh?)

Your argument falls short. Why advocate murder of unborn children, and not advocate the murder of grown people.

I am not advocating anything, actually.

The difference between aborting and murdering of grown people is the general acceptance of these things among different social groups, rather independent from a specific belief. If you take it to extremes, yes, that is arbitrary. Morals themselves are. That is why laws etc. are made to suit the moral of a majority of people while attempting to take those of minorities into account. Remember, the death penalty is accepted in certain societies. It might also be interesting for you to note that there are several societies in history where infanticide was, in fact, completely legal.

philologos

Indeed, the majority of Irish people wish to vindicate the rights of the unborn child, that's why there is such a law.

CDfm

F.A. wrote: »

I am not advocating anything, actually.

.

Thanks for enlightening me - I thought I missed something earthshattering

F.A.

Jakkass wrote: »

Humans are obviously superior to animals. Please compare a dog to a human being in terms of intelligence, speech, capabilities etc.

Dogs are obviously superior to humans. Please compare a human to a dog in terms of smell, barking, and loyalty.

Seriously, though, to claim superiority is always a bit arrogant. It simply depends on what you take as criteria for superiority. Personally, I don't believe there is anything superior about us - show me an animal that has ever endangered the planet it lives on etc...

philologos

How is it arrogant, humans are genuinely capable of doing considerably more things than that of a dog. It's factual.

F.A.

Jakkass wrote: »

Indeed, the majority of Irish people wish to vindicate the rights of the unborn child, that's why there is such a law.

Well, the majority of Irish people did so in the past. Issues that split society that much, however, tend to be in need of review every now and then as times and majorities change.

CDfm

kizzyr wrote: »

Actually it isn't. When there is a threat to the life of the mother as distinct from her health abortion can be legally obtained.

Kizzyr - good point

philologos

F.A. wrote: »

Well, the majority of Irish people did so in the past. Issues that split society that much, however, tend to be in need of review every now and then as times and majorities change.

That's why opinion polls take place, and guess what? The majority of Irish people still wish to vindicate the right of the child. Although I've always wondered why I don't get a chance to vote over the legality of murder, or other things of a similar nature to that of abortion?

F.A.

CDfm wrote: »

Yes it is sweetie-pie. Its da mommies and the daddies job to keep da babies snug and warm. No no sweetie- mommy isnt fat -she has a special thing like a baby bouncy castle to keep baby safe.

OF, course we keep babies safe.

That F.A. is called parental instinct and I believe those feelings are normal. Why, you may even have them some day.

If you dropped the patronising, I might entertain you. However, you are completely trapped in your emotional stance. I prefer rational arguments.

F.A.

Jakkass wrote: »

That's why opinion polls take place, and guess what? The majority of Irish people still wish to vindicate the right of the child. Although I've always wondered why I don't get a chance to vote over the legality of murder, or other things of a similar nature to that of abortion?

Simply because there is a much more widely spread consensus that murdering adults is wrong. It doesn't split society nearly as much as abortion.

F.A.

One more thing (different angle! I promise!):

People telling pregnant women who want to abort to give their children up for adoption seem to forget that pregnant women have families who might put a lot of pressure on the women to NOT give their grandchild, niece/nephew, you-name-it, up for adoption. It is idealistic and simplistic to assume that adoption solves everything.

philologos

F.A. wrote: »

One more thing (different angle! I promise!):

People telling pregnant women who want to abort to give their children up for adoption seem to forget that pregnant women have families who might put a lot of pressure on the women to NOT give their grandchild, niece/nephew, you-name-it, up for adoption. It is idealistic and simplistic to assume that adoption solves everything.

I'm sure just as many tell them not to abort if not more. That's a non-starter argument. So people abort to obey their families? Why don't they not get pregnant in the first place to obey their families?

F.A.

Well, technically, your family may never know you aborted. Hard to hide a pregnancy and give the child up for adoption in secret.

CDfm

F.A. wrote: »

If you dropped the patronising, I might entertain you. However, you are completely trapped in your emotional stance. I prefer rational arguments.

Let me put it another way for you.But a lot less fun.

If you take Maslows Hierarchy Of Needs - at the bottom of the pyramid you have physiological needs and at the top actualisation/realisation needs.

Now at a childs level their physiological needs are provided by the parents but at a pre-birth/pregnancy phase this is provided by the mother.

Even in the animal kingdom this is replicated. I often hear quoted that man is the only creature who kills one another - this is not true - chimps do and other animals do. But man is the only animal that will abort its young intentionally.

At a rational level with limited resources the rational thing is not to have children. However - thats not the only issue. Humans are complex and there are a whole host of hormonal , enviromental and other factors. Even a cow who looses a calf will oftan adopt an orphaned calf. Cross species adoption though rare is not that uncommon.

So at a rational level your points may have merit but at a human level the can be viewed as unnatural.

So can you see the point I was making now- its not purely a religous or a rational argument or even gender based there are a whole host of complex issues even from from an ethical humanist perspective to concider.

ChocolateSauce

Zulu, we can sort a lot of questions out if you answer this: Why do you think a foetus is worthy of equal rights to a person?

I'm discussing freedom of choice. And I'll exercise my freedom of choice in a vote.

I suppose you are free to vote to oppress people, you are free to try and force your opinions on others. It is just immoral to do so. Just do your integrity a favour and never, ever pretend to support personal liberty.

That depends on the opinion. I am of the opinion that rape is wrong, and would happily impose my opinion on a would-be rapist. Wouldn't you?

There are two very important differences between the rape et al question and the abortion question.

1. There is no question about whether rape is right or wrong, unlike abortion. It is not under dispute from any circle or walk of life.

2. The victims of rape are able to say it was a crime against them. The fact they are able to do this is proof of their personhood (though none is needed).

I cannot answer with a direct yes or no. It would be my opinion it was wrong to rape, but what is more important is the opinion of the victim. If the victim said to me, I don't mind being raped (and by extension, if all victims, or their own volition, said this), then I would be forced to accept their position. Since a foetus, not being a person, cannot protest (for aforementioned reasons-not sentient, etc), it is up to higher powers (parents) to decide for it.

Also, a foetus cannot consent to being aborted because it does not have any concept of reality, personhood, time or self-preservation. In essence, it lacks everything a thinking, feeling person has. You of course can provide proof of this can't you?
Proof please.

You can't prove your side either. And actually, we know that up to a certain point it they can't feel physical pain, and it is ludicrace to suggest something without a brain (early pregnancy) can feel anything at all.


CDfm, thanks for the link, I couldn't find it.....

This link can hardly be called a source. It links to a database, not directly to a piece of evidence. The claim went that legal abortion leads to child abuse. Well, firstly this site seems to be concerned primarily with victims of abuse, so obviously any study done will not be a random sample. Not that studies were done, these are all news articles and opinion pieces. Furthermore, if a study were to be done, it would be highly questionable if conducted by a person or group with an agenda. Still furthermore, even if child abuse is higher in countries with legal abortion, how is this linked with abortion? There are many other factors which would have to be not only considered, but ruled out before one could make that leap.

In short, this "source" fails the test.

As for my parenting abilites...dunno, never tried. I've always suspected I'd be good at it. But I'm too young to even think about kids, so it really doesn't matter. I'd rather no go down the road my birth-mother did.

Cheap shots aside, do you think being a parent has anything to do with one's stance on abortion? It's all very well and good to look at your kids and say, I love them I'd never hurt them, but if they were never born you wouldn't have that kind of attachment to them. My mother had an abortion when I was 8, and neither of us ever miss the sibling I never had. Sure, life would be different with one around, but that is pure speculation and day dreaming about something that did not happen (or nightmare-ing...another child would have placed a crippling burden on our family at a time before the celtic tiger when my mother was long-term unemployed).

Is a foetus a person? I say no, you say yes. We cannot both be right. We also cannot assume you are right (or that I am right...I might be wrong). What we can do is agree to disagree and go our seperate ways. Sadly the pro-life side does not do this, and instead insists they know better than other people.

Please allow me to explain in detail my use of the soul term. I don't think anyone who does not believe in a soul can think anything under 12 weeks has humanity. It looks more like a fish than a human. I thus use the term to refer to the hypothesis that an embryo has humanity. The debate about when abortion becomes wrong (to people who are pro-abortion) centres around when it gains humanity.

If anyone here does not believe in a soul/force etc, but thinks an embryo has humanity, I'd like to hear the reasoning behind it.

Why deny that love to parents who are desperate to adopt because they cannot conceive?

Deny nothing, there's no shortage of children needing to be adopted. There are millions throughout the world who need a family, giving up for adoption instead of aborting just adds to this problem.

Intelligence, ability and potential purpose separate us from animals

Ore lying in the ground has the potential to become a defibrillator, it doesn't mean we place the same value on it. As for the other two, foetues don't have those. Animals do.

Speaking of animals....

Humans are obviously superior to animals. Please compare a dog to a human being in terms of intelligence, speech, capabilities etc

The scientist in me couldn't let this slide...with the singular and spectacular exception of our intelligence(s), we are a deeply inferior animal compared to the masses of others. For every single thing we can do (except think), there are other species that can do the same thing except better, or in more ways. Dogs smell better, egles see better, apes are stronger, bats hear better, insects reproduce better, etc etc. Irrelevant, but interesting.

If meat were illegal, I'd fight against the unjust and absurd tyranny of the vegetarian. Civil disobedience is key. Sadly, as abortion is a medical proceedure, civil disobediencecan be life-threatening if done by a non-professional. Then again, so can cooking.

kizzyr

Jakkass wrote: »

That's why opinion polls take place, and guess what? The majority of Irish people still wish to vindicate the right of the child. Although I've always wondered why I don't get a chance to vote over the legality of murder, or other things of a similar nature to that of abortion?

Murder is not the same as abortion. Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy and the prevention of a foetus coming to term and being born as a baby. We become people through our life experiences and the development of a personality. Murder is the willful killing of another person,someone who has been born, grown and developed and experienced life.

Zulu

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Zulu, we can sort a lot of questions out if you answer this: Why do you think a foetus is worthy of equal rights to a person?

I've already answered this. Have you read the thread?

You'll sort of a lot of questions if you bother to read the thread.

I suppose you are free to vote to oppress people, you are free to try and force your opinions on others.

If that's the way you view democracy, fair enough.

I'm not forcing anything on anyone

No, of course your not, you're just arguing for "choice". The "choice" to kill an unborn child.

It is just immoral to do so.

No. No it's not.
Immoral:
1) violating moral principles (well I'm not violating my moral principles, of those of the state, which would be the majority of Irish people)
2) not conforming to the patterns of conduct usually accepted or established as consistent with principles of personal and social ethics (and it would appear that I am indeed conforming to the patterns of conduct usually accepted or established as consistent with principles of personal and social ethics)

Ergo, I'm not being immoral.

Just do your integrity a favour and never, ever pretend to support personal liberty.

I have no issue with my integrity. I think it's wrong to kill. That's the bottom line

There are two very important differences between the rape et al question and the abortion question.

Quite, but you were attempting to say that we shouldn't "force our opinions on others". I was mearly pointing out how that particular "nugget" was ridiculous.

2. The victims of rape are able to say it was a crime against them. The fact they are able to do this is proof of their personhood (though none is needed).

Are you suggesting that being able to speak out about a crime against the person is "proof" of personhood?

I cannot answer with a direct yes or no

You can, but you won't. You won't because to do so would be to acknowledge a massive, gaping, undeniable hole in your logic.

It would be my opinion it was wrong to rape, but what is more important is the opinion of the victim.

So the opinion is more important than the action?

the victim said to me, I don't mind being raped (and by extension, if all victims, or their own volition, said this), then I would be forced to accept their position.

Nice attempt, but rape has a meaning. It means the victim did mind.

Since a foetus, not being a person,

thats the crux of the debate.
You say it's not a person, yet provide no proof.
I say, I don't know whether it is or it isn't, so I err on the side of caution.

You can't prove your side either.

I never suggested otherwise. I err on the side of caution. Just in case. I don't want to be responsible for a death.
I can live with someone going through a pregnancy mind you.

Zulu

kizzyr wrote: »

Murder is not the same as abortion. Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy and the prevention of a foetus coming to term and being born as a baby. We become people through our life experiences and the development of a personality. Murder is the willful killing of another person,someone who has been born, grown and developed and experienced life.

Well, thats not entirly true.
Murder is: the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law.
Now anti-abortion might see the unborn child as a human being, so they'd be accurate calling it murder.

CDfm

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

CDfm, thanks for the link, I could find it.

This link can hardly be called a source. It links to a database, not directly to a piece of evidence. The claim went that legal abortion leads to child abuse. Well, firstly this site seems to be concerned primarily with victims of abuse, so obviously any study done will not be a random sample. Not that studies were done, these are all news articles and opinion pieces. Furthermore, if a study were to be done, it would be highly questionable if conducted by a person or group with an agenda. Still furthermore, even if child abuse is higher in countries with legal abortion, how is this linked with abortion? There are many other factors which would have to be not only considered, but ruled out before one could make that leap.

In short, this "source" fails the test.

I didnt make the claim that it lead to abuse. What I am suggesting that the founder of Womens Aid in the UK and that is who Erin Pizzey is writes extensively on and is an opponent of the gender-based feminist ideoligy - ironic as she was on of the first to popularise it.

If you follow her writings she says that the movement surpresses or attacks research that does not support its gender based ideoligy.
The Irish Pro-choice movement is linked to this ideoligy.

What she says that evidence that women can perpetrate violence and abuse children and that such findings are surpressed is worth concidering.

AS you say you are a scientist and as such the studies you would undertake would follow an empirical model and if say a clinical drug trial was falsefied then its findings would not be reliable.

Of course, we are not talking about your mother here and it would be very unfair to ask you to elaborate. All I can say is that you could not have developed an emotional attachment so could not hasve felt any loss.Thats normal.

I do think parents have a better understanding of the issues as it is more real but the Duke of Wellington said something like - "JUst because I was born in a stable doesnt make me a horse " (its debated whether he was denying being Irish or likening himself to Christ)

But you should develop your own opinions because you might be faced with a similar situation some day. You have a contribution.

F.A.

CDfm wrote: »

Let me put it another way for you.But a lot less fun.

If you take Maslows Hierarchy Of Needs - at the bottom of the pyramid you have physiological needs and at the top actualisation/realisation needs.

Now at a childs level their physiological needs are provided by the parents but at a pre-birth/pregnancy phase this is provided by the mother.

Even in the animal kingdom this is replicated. I often hear quoted that man is the only creature who kills one another - this is not true - chimps do and other animals do. But man is the only animal that will abort its young intentionally.

At a rational level with limited resources the rational thing is not to have children. However - thats not the only issue. Humans are complex and there are a whole host of hormonal , enviromental and other factors. Even a cow who looses a calf will oftan adopt an orphaned calf. Cross species adoption though rare is not that uncommon.

So at a rational level your points may have merit but at a human level the can be viewed as unnatural.

So can you see the point I was making now- its not purely a religous or a rational argument or even gender based there are a whole host of complex issues even from from an ethical humanist perspective to concider.

I have read this several times but still fail to see what you're trying to convey. So animals adopt, sometimes even across species. Animals sometimes also abandon and kill their offspring. In other words, they do what we do.

And yes, the issue is complex, but if you bring morals into it, then you should also be able to discuss these very same morals in application to animals. I just feel that many people on here praise themselves as humanistic because they are against abortions, yet when it comes to the very real (and not necessary) killing of animals, these same humanistic feelings somehow don't apply. I cannot comprehend how someone can be extremely upset/angry/uptight (choose as appropriate) about aborting a 12-week old unborn embryo, yet have no problem whatsoever with the killing of animals for the simple pleasure of eating meat. I am asked to see the abortion of an embryo that has absolutely no chance of survival outside the womb as inflicting suffering on the unborn, but to dismiss the suffering of born animals as something completely normal. This is just hypocritical to me, so I try to apply rationale only - and get condescending remarks for it.

Anyway, I honestly apologise if I have missed your point. I hope you get mine, but no probs if not.

CDfm

kizzyr wrote: »

Murder is not the same as abortion. Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy and the prevention of a foetus coming to term and being born as a baby. We become people through our life experiences and the development of a personality. Murder is the willful killing of another person,someone who has been born, grown and developed and experienced life.

I think there is also a legal difference in that a mother charged vwith killing a child less than 3 months old is charged with a lessor crime.

Also- I saw a posting and cant find it by Carlybabe on crimes and penalties against unborn children but cant find it.

kizzyr

CDfm wrote: »

Let me put it another way for you.But a lot less fun.

If you take Maslows Hierarchy Of Needs - at the bottom of the pyramid you have physiological needs and at the top actualisation/realisation needs.

Now at a childs level their physiological needs are provided by the parents but at a pre-birth/pregnancy phase this is provided by the mother.

Even in the animal kingdom this is replicated. I often hear quoted that man is the only creature who kills one another - this is not true - chimps do and other animals do. But man is the only animal that will abort its young intentionally.

At a rational level with limited resources the rational thing is not to have children. However - thats not the only issue. Humans are complex and there are a whole host of hormonal , enviromental and other factors. Even a cow who looses a calf will oftan adopt an orphaned calf. Cross species adoption though rare is not that uncommon.

So at a rational level your points may have merit but at a human level the can be viewed as unnatural.

So can you see the point I was making now- its not purely a religous or a rational argument or even gender based there are a whole host of complex issues even from from an ethical humanist perspective to concider.

Humans and chimps/ primates are remarkably similar to one another, less than 1% of a difference. Therefore it isn't so odd that they will have a social hierarchy that is closely related to our own.
Human beings can mate and reproduce on a regular basis and do so willfully. Animals (as far as we know) are driven by a desire to reproduce that they don't necessarily understand in the same way that humans do. While we both reproduce to ensure the propagation of the species life is more tenuous in the animal kingdom that human world and so each new life is essential to them and so they don't (can't anyway) terminate from choice. That said the weakest of each litter is left behind. If an animal gives birth to a cub/pup/ etc and it is not 100% fit and healthy they leave it to fend for itself and more often than not it dies.

kizzyr

CDfm wrote: »

I think there is also a legal difference in that a mother charged vwith killing a child less than 3 months old is charged with a lessor crime.

Also- I saw a posting and cant find it by Carlybabe on crimes and penalties against unborn children but cant find it.

Believe it or not it is remarkably difficult to bring a conviction of murder against a woman who has killed a baby that is less than 12 months old. The act is known as infanticide and it is believed that a woman who does this to her own child is mentally unwell, generally seen as post postpartum depression and under the Mental Health Act will not be charged with murder/ infanticide in the way the baby's father would be should he commit the same act.

CDfm

F.A. wrote: »

I have read this several times but still fail to see what you're trying to convey. So animals adopt, sometimes even across species. Animals sometimes also abandon and kill their offspring. In other words, they do what we do.

And yes, the issue is complex, but if you bring morals into it, then you should also be able to discuss these very same morals in application to animals. I just feel that many people on here praise themselves as humanistic because they are against abortions, yet when it comes to the very real (and not necessary) killing of animals, these same humanistic feelings somehow don't apply. I cannot comprehend how someone can be extremely upset/angry/uptight (choose as appropriate) about aborting a 12-week old unborn embryo, yet have no problem whatsoever with the killing of animals for the simple pleasure of eating meat. I am asked to see the abortion of an embryo that has absolutely no chance of survival outside the womb as inflicting suffering on the unborn, but to dismiss the suffering of born animals as something completely normal. This is just hypocritical to me, so I try to apply rationale only - and get condescending remarks for it.

Anyway, I honestly apologise if I have missed your point. I hope you get mine, but no probs if not.

This thread relates primarily to whether or not abortion should be legalised.

In other words it a pro/ anti abortion debate within the framework of Irish law under a general humanities heading embracing many different views and disciplines.

This thread doesnt include vegetarian issues.

My instinct is that your a troll and so will be ignoring your posts as we have a very good thread here with some excellent contributors and we want to keep it that way.

I am not going to bother explaining this to you again and will not be replying to your posts.

kizzyr

Zulu wrote: »

Well, thats not entirly true.
Murder is: the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law.
Now anti-abortion might see the unborn child as a human being, so they'd be accurate calling it murder.

As far as they are concerned. However, society as a whole agrees that murder is wrong, all of society (and I'm speaking in the broader sense here not just a local Irish one) does not agree that abortion is murder, not all of society agrees that a foetus is a person or a baby.

F.A.

Troll? Thanks for your courtesy.

Does it help if I tell you that I am not actually a vegetarian myself? I am, however, pro choice. I am sorry that challenging people's morals is deemed as trolling by some instead of being met by rational counter arguments.

philologos

kizzyr wrote: »

As far as they are concerned. However, society as a whole agrees that murder is wrong, all of society (and I'm speaking in the broader sense here not just a local Irish one) does not agree that abortion is murder, not all of society agrees that a foetus is a person or a baby.

The only society that matters concerning the illegal status of abortion is the Irish one. Other societies are irrelevant, although I would like to see international efforts to combat abortion worldwide.

kizzyr

Jakkass wrote: »

The only society that matters concerning the illegal status of abortion is the Irish one. Other societies are irrelevant, although I would like to see international efforts to combat abortion worldwide.

How are other societies (although as humans we all live in one society not several different ones) irrelevant? People are people and the ethics and morality of the abortion debate are relevant to all. If you think abortion is wrong and are firm in your belief then you should believe that no matter where the act takes place. Similarly I believe in a woman's right to bodily integrity and privacy, to her right to chose no matter where in the world she may live.

Hagar

Have any of the pro-abortion / pro-choice ever seen a real foetus chopped up in a bucket? Have they every seen the medical staff carefully putting the bits back together like a jigsaw to make sure that they haven't missed anything before they complete the procedure?

It shouldn't be the least bit upsetting, after all it not a baby, just tissue.

kizzyr

Hagar wrote: »

Have any of the pro-abortion / pro-choice ever seen a real foetus chopped up in a bucket? Have they every seen the medical staff carefully putting the bits back together like a jigsaw to make sure that they haven't missed anything before they complete the procedure?

It shouldn't be the least bit upsetting, after all it not a baby, just tissue.

That argument is so old and so worthless. Any medical procedure looks disgusting, heart bypass, gall bladder removal, hip replacement. They are all gross to look at and yes it is, all of it, just tissue.

Hagar

All the other procedures you mention are beneficial to the persons concerned, whereas abortion doesn't benefit everyone concerned.