Abortion whats your stance?

philologos

kizzyr wrote: »

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.

In discussing the legality of abortion in Ireland, they are irrelevant. Moral opinions clearly differ between countries (unfortunately), but this is our question to answer for now and in the future in terms of law.

I do believe universally that it is wrong, but I think that other countries should have no impact on Ireland's decision in relation to abortion law.

Edit: Hagar makes an excellent point. Perhaps in sex-ed classes children should be made to watch an abortion being carried out on video, and then make their decision on it's morality.

kizzyr

Hagar wrote: »

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

There is only one person concerned, the woman. The foetus is a foetus not a person.

philologos

So the foetus in the womb is actually nothing at all. It may as well not exist? Would you agree that life begins when the sperm and the ovum fuse together as a zygote?

Even at 24 weeks when it has a heart beat and can survive outside the womb prematurely it is just a foetus? I find that a bit hard to believe to be honest.

kizzyr

Jakkass wrote: »

In discussing the legality of abortion in Ireland, they are irrelevant. Moral opinions clearly differ between countries (unfortunately), but this is our question to answer for now and in the future in terms of law.

I do believe universally that it is wrong, but I think that other countries should have no impact on Ireland's decision in relation to abortion law.

Edit: Hagar makes an excellent point. Perhaps in sex-ed classes children should be made to watch an abortion being carried out on video, and then make their decision on it's morality.

Hey lets make them see how they will be affected by cholesterol build up too, how they have to perform a coronary bypass, that will make sure that kids don't eat any fried food or anything with animal saturates. We'll show them the effects of diabetes too, heck we'll even throw in an amputation so they'll see the effects of this on their health by eating too much sugar and not exercising.
Every single medical procedure looks disgusting when you see it carried out. Breast augmentation procedures, face lifts, liposuction, hip replacements, neurosurgery, skin grafts etc etc. Childbirth to be honest is one of the most barbaric disgusting things I have ever seen and yet it still doesn't stop teenagers having sex and getting pregnant does it.
The argument is pathetic.

kizzyr

Jakkass wrote: »

So the foetus in the womb is actually nothing at all. It may as well not exist? Would you agree that life begins when the sperm and the ovum fuse together as a zygote?

Even at 24 weeks when it has a heart beat and can survive outside the womb prematurely it is just a foetus? I find that a bit hard to believe to be honest.

It is a zygote not a baby and certainly not a person.
I support a cut off point of 16 weeks for general terminations and an extended time frame for those that are carried out following the detection of severe abnormalities. To be honest I think it inhuman of anyone to continue with a pregnancy when they know that they will bring into the world a baby that will be handicapped in almost every way for everyday of it's life.

philologos

Isn't the zygote not the previous stage in human life prior to being that of a baby? It's a lifeform all the same living and growing into common human forms that we would attibute with a baby outside the womb. None the less it is still human life surely?

F.A.

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.

Yes, I have. Did I like what I saw? No, but as kizzyr rightly points out, surgical procedures as such are all but pleasant to the eye.

I wonder if any of the pro life brigade ever watched the film "If These Walls Could Talk". I would be interested to hear their opinion.

kizzyr

Jakkass wrote: »

Isn't the zygote not the previous stage in human life prior to being that of a baby? It's a lifeform all the same living and growing into common human forms that we would attibute with a baby outside the womb. None the less it is still human life surely?

A sperm is the human life in an early stage, an ovum is human life in the early stage if you want to look at it like that.
To me personally I do not see a zygote as a baby, human person or any such thing. I see it as something that has the potential to become such if the woman wants to allow it to continue to grow and develop within her.

Hagar

No they are not. They need to meet to start a new life.

/edit/

Of the surgical abortion procedures detailed in this link which would you recommend?
I mean which would be your favourite?

Personally the one where they insert a catather in the cranium and vacuum out the contents has a lot going for it, but then again so has the direct saline injection. So many choices...

I suppose a poll is out of the question?

philologos

The pro-choice argument is one of de legitimizing life until it is no longer considered life in the public sphere any more. The word "terminated" is used as a preferable alternative to "kill", it's almost like "eliminate" in combat situations. Why do you need to hide behind this cover up of words. Why can't you own up to what you actually support, the right to chose to allow killing of the unborn for matters of convenience.

Indeed a poll would have been good, but I don't think the OP can do that at this late stage in the thread.

Laura Appleby

Jakkass wrote: »

The pro-choice argument is one of de legitimizing life until it is no longer considered life in the public sphere any more. The word "terminated" is used as a preferable alternative to "kill", it's almost like "eliminate" in combat situations. Why do you need to hide behind this cover up of words. Why can't you own up to what you actually support, the right to chose to allow killing of the unborn for matters of convenience.

Indeed a poll would have been good, but I don't think the OP can do that at this late stage in the thread.

People hide behind word cover ups all the time you guys. all the time. its not covering up words anyway just more appropriate words thats why the english language is so like varied

Laura Appleby

think about it when you are looking at those gorgeous new season jimmy choos we could call them shoes or we could call them murdered cow stripped of skin and glued to endangered wood with a boiled up horse.

Easier to call them shoes right?

philologos

Murder is illegal killing. Using cattle for leather or meat doesn't count for that. We've been through how animals differ to humans already.

Laura Appleby

Jakkass wrote: »

Murder is illegal killing. Using cattle for leather or meat doesn't count for that. We've been through how animals differ to humans already.

Thats just your opinion you are being speciest

philologos

speciest, the new prejudice of the century

Anyhow, humans are far superior to animals in means of intelligence and ability. Thus why I separate them and why most of society separates them. Unless you want to argue for employment law for cattle or paid holidays

carlybabe1

Hagar wrote: »

Like abortionists perhaps.

Just because you think its wrong doesn't make it so. In much the same way that just because homophobics think it goes against the laws of nature doesn't make it so, also similar to junkies having babies and taking them home from hospital when they clearly cant look after themselves, doesn't warrant supervision.....Oh wait no sorry, they actually do get to do that, so abortion is the only thing in which other people can advocate what they think you should do with your own person seriously Im amazed that it still stands

F.A.

Jakkass wrote: »

Anyhow, humans are far superior to animals in means of intelligence and ability. Thus why I separate them and why most of society separates them.

I still fail to see why that justifies the killing of animals. You fight for embryos because they cannot fight for themselves, but killing animals is a must?

Unless you want to argue for employment law for cattle or paid holidays

No, but I wouldn't argue for employment laws for embryos or paid holidays for them either.

carlybabe1

eveie wrote: »

there have been a number of high profile people who were unsuccessful abortions, as in they were thrown in a bin after being pulled from the womb and they survived. many of them speak out about abortion and how horrific it is

Im sorry but Im gonna have to ask you for proof on this eveie, I doubt sincerely that anything 'thrown in tha abortion bucket" could survive for starters. If so then maybe they should patent it re: my hypotheses as an alternative to abortion.

carlybabe1

Jakkass wrote: »

Are you seriously doubting that abortions do and have failed in the past?

Are you seriously suggesting they haven't?? Yet more proof please

Laura Appleby

Jakkass wrote: »

speciest, the new prejudice of the century

Anyhow, humans are far superior to animals in means of intelligence and ability. Thus why I separate them and why most of society separates them. Unless you want to argue for employment law for cattle or paid holidays

what you said above is not techinically true great apes have far superior intelligence and ability than very profoundly mentally handicapped people and they have about the same intelligence as a five year old human child but they are still permitted to be used for medical experiments, kept in zoos used for human enertainment etc.

Hagar

carlybabe1 wrote: »

Just because you think its wrong doesn't make it so. I

That cuts both ways, just because you think it's right doesn't make it so.

carlybabe1

eveie wrote: »

find it funny that no matter what i say its never taken at face value, her name is Gianna Jenson i presume if you put her name into google youl find links. she gives takes all over the world. i have been to 2 of her confrences, also martin luther kings niece had i think 2 abortions, she also has 3 children and she also gives talks on the matter, she was in ireland last year

Are you talking about the porn queen and why would your claims be taken at face value, when we (pro choice) have voiced our claims, with the backing of scientific proof, regardless of the fact that some of you want to ignore it. Of course we're gonna ask for proof...And Martin Luther King's niece< that should be interesting

carlybabe1

eveie wrote: »

there are also a number of books which have accounts of people who have worked in abortion clinics and what they've witnessed and how it has affected them, they were once pro-choice and now strongly oppossed to abortions. i cant think of the names of the books off hand but im sure il find out

There are a number of books detailing accounts of people being abducted by aliens, visited by the spirits of the 'undead' and one of visions of the future, the most famous one being Nostradamus, does the majority give them credence, no they're ridiculed by most, Why? CAUSE THERE'S NO SCIENTIFIC PROOF

carlybabe1

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

You cant abuse your child if you dont have one

Zulu

kizzyr wrote: »

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

Again - that's not true.
Can you prove it? No.
Where did you pull that "fact" from? Your hat.

Zulu

kizzyr wrote: »

There is only one person concerned, the woman. The foetus is a foetus not a person.

Not a person according to you.

Jakkass

Jakkass wrote: »

The pro-choice argument is one of de legitimizing life until it is no longer considered life in the public sphere any more. The word "terminated" is used as a preferable alternative to "kill", it's almost like "eliminate" in combat situations. Why do you need to hide behind this cover up of words.

Right, because no prolifers ever call an embryo/fetus/etc a "baby" to make an emotional appeal. Oh wait...

carlybabe1

eveie wrote: »

theadydl i will try and get that information off hand im not sure to be honest.
obama has also said that he would vote in favour of aborted babies being left to die in bins instead of giving them the medical help they require. obviously not all babies that are aborted die straight away and are left to die, please someone tell me how that is ok?????

Please offer me proof before posting absolutely outrageous claims. Its nothing short of propaganda

Zulu

carlybabe1 wrote: »

Please offer me proof before posting absolutely outrageous claims. Its nothing short of propaganda

That's rich coming from the one poster who has consistently refused to provide ANY proof or answer ANY direct questions.

I'm still waiting for answers to the questions I posed.

Laura Appleby wrote: »

babies RUIN peoples lives. why is it so wrong to stop peoples lives being destroyed by ugly babies

Stop trolling please.

Laura Appleby

Also Its been posited that babies HATE being born its the most traumatic thing that ever happens in anyones life so i guess we are sparing them that

CDfm

Laura Appleby wrote: »

think about it when you are looking at those gorgeous new season jimmy choos we could call them shoes or we could call them murdered cow stripped of skin and glued to endangered wood with a boiled up horse.

Easier to call them shoes right?

in PR etc its called framing to make an objectional term more user friendly but really disguising its real objective.

So a focus group probably decided thru the word pro-abortion had negative associations like baby killing and stuff so they gave it a make over and now its cool and funky pro- choice.Thoroughly dishonest makeover if you ask me.

Whereas Pro-life is still the same loveable people you always knew and could trust.

Laura Appleby

Zulu wrote: »

That's rich coming from the one poster who has consistently refused to provide ANY proof or answer ANY direct questions.

Stop trolling please.

Dude get over yourself just cos i disagree with you doesn't mean i'm trolling. Calling babies ugly was a joke although some are unsightly and they are the most disgusting of all animal babies when they are born. A mouse baby is cuter no contest. Even gross vulture babies are cuter

Laura Appleby

CDfm wrote: »

.

Whereas Pro-life is still the same loveable people you always knew and could trust.

I dont trust anyone who denies me the right to have an unwanted GROWTH removed

CDfm

Laura Appleby wrote: »

what you said above is not techinically true great apes have far superior intelligence and ability than very profoundly mentally handicapped people and they have about the same intelligence as a five year old human child but they are still permitted to be used for medical experiments, kept in zoos used for human enertainment etc.

Lay off the mentally handicapped Laura- its a bit uncalled for.

I worked with the mentally handicapped as a student and its not a clever point and some might call it offensive.

carlybabe1

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

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.



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.

Obviously others dont feel the same however, those of us who can read the scientific information on embryology agree with you, and dont see it as a person because physically its not

Laura Appleby

CDfm wrote: »

Lay off the mentally handicapped Laura- its a bit uncalled for.

I worked with the mentally handicapped as a student and its not a clever point and some might call it offensive.

I said very profoundly mentally handicapped and it is not in the least meant in a derogatory way. Scientific studies have been done on this. i respect everyone and everythings (who is living) right to life. just think our criterion for what we consider a person should be redrawn so that other species are included.

carlybabe1

eveie wrote: »

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

His is not scientific proof, its his opinion, and as one pro-lifer pointed out, staistics can be twisted all too easily. Freedom of choice is vital to this thread, as nobody is "pro-abortions, abortions for everyone, we are far too over populated as it is" We are pro choice which is very different, although I know that most of you are having trouble with that concept

Hagar

Pro-choice just means I'll think about it for a bit to lend an air of respectability then I'll remove the inconvenient growing life inside me.

carlybabe1

Jakkass wrote: »

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

If pregnancy isn't a matter of biology then what the hell is :eek:

Laura Appleby

Hagar wrote: »

Pro-choice just means I'll think about it for a bit to lend an air of respectability then I'll remove the inconvenient growing life inside me.

until you get serious about what a life actually is you are just going to have to let people abort.

philologos

Did you actually read my post. It was referring to vegetarianism and eating meat. I don't think Darwinism is relevant to that. It should be left to matters concerning evolution and not to matters concerning social principles.

carlybabe1

Zulu wrote: »

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 must have missed that answer too, so if you dont mind re-iterating for me, unless of course Ive somehow insulted you, in which case I apologise

Laura Appleby

Jakkass wrote: »

Did you actually read my post. It was referring to vegetarianism and eating meat. I don't think Darwinism is relevant to that. It should be left to matters concerning evolution and not to matters concerning social principles.

If you think that then you don't GET Darwin. he was the biggest animal rights activist in the world. EVER!!! well for his times he was hugely progressive and an understanding of that is integral to understanding his whole writings.

Hagar

Laura Appleby wrote: »

until you get serious about what a life actually is you are just going to have to let people abort.

What makes you think I'm not serious? I'm serious and abortion is against the law in Ireland.

philologos

Laura Appleby wrote: »

until you get serious about what a life actually is you are just going to have to let people abort.

Why? Why on earth would we have to tolerate that? I hope Irish law stays the exact same now and forever. As I said before, there are many things I will tolerate, but killing the voiceless whose opinions never count is not what I am going to tolerate at the voting booth or in vocal opinion.

carlybabe1

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.

Have you? and not enhanced photos that anyone can do on thier pcs, real seen with your own two eyes, not propaganda

CDfm

Hilarious, fair balls for fighting your corner- this is a message on your public profile

Laura - this is a serious thread - can you troll somewhere else please

Jakkass

Jakkass wrote: »

...but killing the voiceless whose opinions never count is not what I am going to tolerate at the voting booth or in vocal opinion.

Not having a brain or/then any conscious thought tends to prevent the whole "opinions" possibility.

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.

:rolleyes:
I think watching any surgery is horrible and upsetting. Can I ban that too?
Seriously, if that is the best you have...

Laura Appleby

Hagar wrote: »

What makes you think I'm not serious? I'm serious and abortion is against the law in Ireland.

If you are serious about LIFE then that extends to all living things on this planet you cant be pro-LIFE one minute and harp on and on about the miracle of creation and how it is sacred and then chow down on a hamburger

philologos

Laura Appleby wrote: »

If you think that then you don't GET Darwin. he was the biggest animal rights activist in the world. EVER!!! well for his times he was hugely progressive and an understanding of that is integral to understanding his whole writings.

I personally am apathetic to Darwin as many people here are apathetic to Christianity. Please keep the thread related to abortion instead of talking about Charles Darwin. I'm sure he was an excellent biologist, but I don't think he's relevant to this thread.