Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Abortion

Options
1…78101213…24

Comments

  • Options
    #272
    ParkRunner
    Registered Users Posts: 3,032 ✭✭✭ParkRunner


    I am in the pro-choice category here and I can see abortion being legal in Ireland in my lifetime.

    There are about 5,000 women a year going abroad to have abortions approximately and god knows how many others ordering the abortion pill over the internet and taking it without proper medical supervision.

    Even the European Court of Human Rights agreed that the right to privacy was violated where a Polish woman was denied an abortion and subsequently suffered a retinal haemorrage leaving her eyesight severly limited


  • Options
    #273
    king_of_inismac
    Registered Users Posts: 1,366 ✭✭✭king_of_inismac


    Interesting debate. Just to give some background, I would consider myself an open-minded liberal guy, and I believe strongly in civil liberties.

    I understand why people are pro-abortion, and all of them make perfect sense to me.

    However, I'm anti-abortion (I prefer this term to pro-life, isn't everyone pro-life anyway?) for this reason:

    I don't think you can pick an arbitrary time and say after that the foetus should be awarded all the protection that a normal human enjoys, but 60 minutes before that point the foetus has no rights whatsoever.

    So if I do truely believe a foetus is a viable human with all the protections that a normal human, then I have to be passionate and vocal about my opinion.

    We have the contraceptive pill, condoms etc. If you don't want to get pregnant, and you're very careful, you can avoid it. Does it take responsibility? Yes. Is it hard work? Yes.

    But a much much better alternative to abortion.

    Finally, I would fully support abortions where the life of the mother is threatened. I would never say the rights of the foetus should outweigh the rights of the mother, just equal them

    M


  • Options
    #274
    WindSock
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,239 ✭✭✭✭WindSock


    king_of_inismac wrote: »
    We have the contraceptive pill, condoms etc. If you don't want to get pregnant, and you're very careful, you can avoid it. Does it take responsibility? Yes. Is it hard work? Yes.

    Contraception doesn't always work, especially with lack of education.

    If I were unfortunate enough to have gotten pregnant with an emotiaonally abusive ex 10 years ago, he would still be in my life today. That would suck a lot.


  • Options
    #275
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    WindSock wrote: »
    If you can take a foetus out of my womb and science can have it survive and develop without my womb then fair enough, it's yours. Until then, if it is utterly dependent on me, then it's mine to keep or not to keep.

    Irrelevant. A child will also be dependent on you when it is born. Should we kill it if you don't like it? By your reasoning you have no reason to say no to outside the womb as well as inside.
    EF wrote: »
    I am in the pro-choice category here and I can see abortion being legal in Ireland in my lifetime.

    I can too, it's outright frightening.
    EF wrote: »
    There are about 5,000 women a year going abroad to have abortions approximately and god knows how many others ordering the abortion pill over the internet and taking it without proper medical supervision.

    This doesn't make it right.
    bronte wrote: »
    I honestly think you have no idea about pregnancy if you are discussing it as such.
    I think you can definitely value human life..no doubt about it. Carrying a child is a different story.

    I think you have no idea about the value of human life. Then again I'm now "anti-woman" for saying this :D(even though there are a lot of women who support the pro-life position)


  • Options
    #276
    WindSock
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,239 ✭✭✭✭WindSock


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Irrelevant. A child will also be dependent on you when it is born. Should we kill it if you don't like it? By your reasoning you have no reason to say no to outside the womb as well as inside.

    A child is not dependant on solely the person who gave birth to it.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #277
    ParkRunner
    Registered Users Posts: 3,032 ✭✭✭ParkRunner


    Jakkass wrote: »

    This doesn't make it right.

    ]

    True but it is what is happening out there in the real world.


  • Options
    #278
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    WindSock wrote: »
    A child is not dependant on solely the person who gave birth to it.

    It's dependent on it's mother and father. Should they have the right to kill it because they don't want to provide for it? See your arguments all have a relevance external to the womb that make it look absolutely absurd.


  • Options
    #279
    WindSock
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,239 ✭✭✭✭WindSock


    Jakkass wrote: »
    It's dependent on it's mother and father. Should they have the right to kill it because they don't want to provide for it? See your arguments all have a relevance external to the womb that make it look absolutely absurd.

    No, it's dependant on a caregiver, not just the biological Mother and/or Father. A caregiver can be administered to a baby when it can survive outside the womb with or without the aid of science.


  • Options
    #280
    bronte
    Registered Users Posts: 11,331 ✭✭✭✭bronte


    Jakkass wrote: »


    I think you have no idea about the value of human life. Then again I'm now "anti-woman" for saying this :D(even though there are a lot of women who support the pro-life position)

    Where did I say you were anti - woman? Read the post.


  • Options
    #281
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    EF: If mass killing was happening in the real world would you condemn it? Just because something happens in the real world does not mean I have the right to outright condemn it as barbarism.

    bronte: It's an ad hominem fallacy based on my gender, it has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Many women support pro-life causes.

    WindSock: Dependence is dependence. It's nothing more than mere double standards if you are to say one is different than the other.

    snyper: No it isn't. Hard boiled eggs aren't fertilised. The human equivalent would be sucking content out of an ova, not out of a foetus or of an embryo. This also assumes that abortion is only taking place when the child is not developed enough to be born. This isn't the case and many people have survived abortions.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #282
    WindSock
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,239 ✭✭✭✭WindSock


    Jakkass wrote: »
    WindSock: Dependence is dependence. It's nothing more than mere double standards if you are to say one is different than the other.
    This isn't the case and many people have survived abortions.

    From what point have they survived?

    I think you are missing my point. If a foetus from conception can survive outside the womb, then fair enough. Whoever it depends on is then irrelevant once it is outside the body.


  • Options
    #283
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    WindSock: They have survived with disability incurred from abortions. As I said earlier in the thread, the policy if children were born in spite of abortions in the USA was to commit infanticide until Bush made it illegal. Some people got lucky however. Well lucky in the respect that they got to live full and fulfiling lives even with a disability.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPF1FhCMPuQ

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8B1nKGIAeg


    Your point is basically one of dependence. If a child has no guardian it too will die, outside of the womb. You're not seeing that you are having double standards.


  • Options
    #284
    WindSock
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,239 ✭✭✭✭WindSock


    Yes, but at what stage of the pregnancy were they aborted?


  • Options
    #285
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    So now you are saying that they don't have the right to abort in the womb under certain circumstances? You really should had made that clear from the get go. How can you justify some fetii being different from another. It's one life process from the conception unto the point when you are talking about. In terms of status they are only different by development.

    You are arguing that it is justified to kill those less developed than x.

    This x value on life has no bearing on whether or not that is a human being. This x could be the ability to play the piano or sing the alphabet backwards.


  • Options
    #286
    WindSock
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,239 ✭✭✭✭WindSock


    Jakkass wrote: »
    WindSock: They have survived with disability incurred from abortions. As I said earlier in the thread, the policy if children were born in spite of abortions in the USA was to commit infanticide until Bush made it illegal. Some people got lucky however. Well lucky in the respect that they got to live full and fulfiling lives even with a disability.

    That woman was attempted to be aborted at 7.5 months pregancy. Of course she had a chance of survival.
    Your point is basically one of dependence. If a child has no guardian it too will die, outside of the womb. You're not seeing that you are having double standards.

    No, my point is about chance of survival once outside the womb. Like I said earlier in the thread, if a foetus can be taken out of my womb from early on and survive then let it be. But for the moment the youngest a foetus has known to survive outside of the womb is 4 to 5 months or something.


  • Options
    #287
    AckwelFoley
    Registered Users Posts: 12,556 ✭✭✭✭AckwelFoley


    Jakkass wrote: »
    This also assumes that abortion is only taking place when the child is not developed enough to be born. This isn't the case and many people have survived abortions.

    Leave Dr Bollocko out of this.


  • Options
    #288
    bronte
    Registered Users Posts: 11,331 ✭✭✭✭bronte


    Jakkass wrote: »
    EF:
    bronte: It's an ad hominem fallacy based on my gender, it has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Many women support pro-life causes.

    It has EVERYTHING to do with the topic at hand. Of course many women support pro-life causes...I don't remember saying they didn't :confused:
    What I'd like to know is how you think you're qualified to tell a woman what to do with her body when you have no idea what it is to be female in the first place.
    Be female. Suffer monthly irregardless of whether you want children or not and to top it all off you get to listen to someone who has no idea what it's like.
    Lovely.
    Bottom line is you don't get to decide.


  • Options
    #289
    ParkRunner
    Registered Users Posts: 3,032 ✭✭✭ParkRunner


    Jakkass wrote: »
    EF: If mass killing was happening in the real world would you condemn it? Just because something happens in the real world does not mean I have the right to outright condemn it as barbarism.

    .

    You have every right to have your own opinion on the subject and yes if mass killing was happening in the real world, of course I would condemn it.

    However, I am strongly in favour of freedom of choice. I am sure it is a decision that any right minded person would not take lightly to abort a foetus. But to deny a woman the option of having an abortion could lead to all types of mental illness..depression, suicide ideation, substance abuse etc.

    Personally I think women should be able to have an abortion here and have access to all the relevant appropriate information and medical resources before they decide to go ahead and terminate the foetus. The situation as it stands where Irish women have to travel to England, often unaccompanied and live with the stigma that currently exists in this country of having an abortion is wrong I believe.

    I admit that I am a bit uncomfortable with the thought of a foetus being terminated beyond 20 weeks, unless it develops some abnormality at a later stage and I think the law in England should be changed to reflect this.


  • Options
    #290
    MarkR
    Moderators, Regional Midwest Moderators Posts: 11,102 Mod ✭✭✭✭MarkR


    I think you'd need more information about the abortion process. Particularly the after care. Would there be cookies? With or without milk?

    Sorry, but that's just how I feel.


  • Options
    #291
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    bronte wrote: »
    It has EVERYTHING to do with the topic at hand. Of course many women support pro-life causes...I don't remember saying they didn't :confused:

    No it doesn't have everything to do it. It's sexism, and my gender doesn't detract from any of my points. I stand against killing of other human beings whether that is in abortion or whether that is on the battlefield. These people are worthy of my respect and of my defence. They are the true victims.
    bronte wrote: »
    What I'd like to know is how you think you're qualified to tell a woman what to do with her body when you have no idea what it is to be female in the first place.

    I haven't told a woman what to do with her body I've merely given my opinon on the issue. It's not my decision. However I advocate saving lives. It's not just "her body" though. I've explained that very clearly in previous posts. Biologically this is a case of two human biological entities and not one. "Bodily integrity" applies to the unborn as well as the mother.

    This is the problem with pro-choice, it discriminates and mutes the rights of the unborn as if they don't matter. They do, just as much as the mothers. That's where I am coming from anyway.
    bronte wrote: »
    Bottom line is you don't get to decide.

    Nobody should have the right to decide what happens to another persons life! Life or death isn't up to you to decide for anyone.
    EF wrote: »
    You have every right to have your own opinion on the subject and yes if mass killing was happening in the real world, of course I would condemn it.

    It is unfortunately, it's encouraged in the West. Infact the moral actors of the world seem to be more concentrated in the global South on this issue and the Islamic world.
    EF wrote: »
    However, I am strongly in favour of freedom of choice. I am sure it is a decision that any right minded person would not take lightly to abort a foetus. But to deny a woman the option of having an abortion could lead to all types of mental illness..depression, suicide ideation, substance abuse etc.

    I don't think people should choose on other peoples lives.
    EF wrote: »
    Personally I think women should be able to have an abortion here and have access to all the relevant appropriate information and medical resources before they decide to go ahead and terminate the foetus. The situation as it stands where Irish women have to travel to England, often unaccompanied and live with the stigma that currently exists in this country of having an abortion is wrong I believe.

    I'm glad that it is illegal here still except where the mother is likely to die. One life alive is better than two dead.
    EF wrote: »
    I admit that I am a bit uncomfortable with the thought of a foetus being terminated beyond 20 weeks, unless it develops some abnormality at a later stage and I think the law in England should be changed to reflect this.

    I don't see what the difference is between an embryo and a foetus at 20 weeks is from a moral view. They are both human lives, they are worthy of our respect.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #292
    Uncle Arthur
    Closed Accounts Posts: 74 ✭✭Uncle Arthur


    EF wrote: »
    You have every right to have your own opinion on the subject and yes if mass killing was happening in the real world, of course I would condemn it.

    However, I am strongly in favour of freedom of choice. I am sure it is a decision that any right minded person would not take lightly to abort a foetus. But to deny a woman the option of having an abortion could lead to all types of mental illness..depression, suicide ideation, substance abuse etc.

    Personally I think women should be able to have an abortion here and have access to all the relevant appropriate information and medical resources before they decide to go ahead and terminate the foetus. The situation as it stands where Irish women have to travel to England, often unaccompanied and live with the stigma that currently exists in this country of having an abortion is wrong I believe.

    I admit that I am a bit uncomfortable with the thought of a foetus being terminated beyond 20 weeks, unless it develops some abnormality at a later stage and I think the law in England should be changed to reflect this.


    so its alright at 19 weeks where the baby makes urine and is kicking and its alright at week 15 when all joints and limbs can move? :rolleyes:
    ah yeah certainly every person should be free to choose to kill another human absolutely:rolleyes:


  • Options
    #293
    ParkRunner
    Registered Users Posts: 3,032 ✭✭✭ParkRunner


    Uncle Arthur wrote: »
    so its alright at 19 weeks where the baby makes urine and is kicking and its alright at week 15 when all joints and limbs can move? :rolleyes:
    ah yeah certainly every person should be free to choose to kill another human absolutely:rolleyes:

    The reason I said 20 weeks is because at that stage, according to scientists anyway, the foetus starts to develop nerve endings and would therefore would suffer pain if aborted. Also it is more than likely that at 20 weeks a foetus wouldn't survive outside the womb.

    In England they tried to reduce the upper limit from 24 to 20 weeks for the very reason that a foetus can on many occasions survive outside the womb at 24 weeks, but it was rejected. Most women do have an abortion within 12 weeks or so anyway.


  • Options
    #294
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Why are you bringing science into this? The pro-choice view has nothing to do with science whatsoever. Irrespective of pain the unborn has a clear right to survive. This is basically just another version of the point from development. I could consider it atrocious to kill someone who can play the zylophone, but before that it could be completely kosher by me. Realistically these things have nothing to do with what is a human life, and what human rights are. Someone really needs to compile a list of fallacies used in the abortion debate, I call this one the fallacy of development :)

    An abortion at 12 weeks to me anyway is just as monstrous as an abortion at 24 weeks.


  • Options
    #295
    Dave!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,857 ✭✭✭✭Dave!


    What about 11 weeks?


  • Options
    #296
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Any weeks. Even 1 week. Life is life.


  • Options
    #297
    ParkRunner
    Registered Users Posts: 3,032 ✭✭✭ParkRunner


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Why are you bringing science into this? The pro-choice view has nothing to do with science whatsoever. Irrespective of pain the unborn has a clear right to survive. This is basically just another version of the point from development. I could consider it atrocious to kill someone who can play the zylophone, but before that it could be completely kosher by me. Realistically these things have nothing to do with what is a human life, and what human rights are. Someone really needs to compile a list of fallacies used in the abortion debate, I call this one the fallacy of development :)

    An abortion at 12 weeks to me anyway is just as monstrous as an abortion at 24 weeks.

    The reason I mentioned the 20 week cut off point is that I am reflecting what is going on out there in the real world. Medical science is improving and the laws in England may need to be looked at again.

    Just like medical science has developed so has society in this country and I think it is better for a woman, who is going to have an abortion anyway by travelling abroad, to have access to all the care and support she needs here in this country and have an abortion.

    If a relative or friend of yours asked you for financial assistance to go to England for an abortion for whatever reason, would you deny them assistance?


  • Options
    #298
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    EF wrote: »
    If a relative or friend of yours asked you for financial assistance to go to England for an abortion for whatever reason, would you deny them assistance?

    I would urge them strongly to reconsider. I wouldn't pay for an abortion for anyone. I would support them in bringing the child into the world however in every respect. I could not encourage the death of another human being. It's like asking me would I go to find an assassin with a relative or a friend if they wanted to kill someone who is a nuisance to them. It's something I couldn't do without being riddled with guilt for the rest of my life probably. I know deep down that it is wrong, because we have all been given the gift of life to live to the best of our ability and to perhaps leave this world a better place than when we entered. Everyone deserves this chance.


  • Options
    #299
    ParkRunner
    Registered Users Posts: 3,032 ✭✭✭ParkRunner


    Jakkass wrote: »
    I would urge them strongly to reconsider. I wouldn't pay for an abortion for anyone. I would support them in bringing the child into the world however in every respect. I could not encourage the death of another human being. It's like asking me would I go to find an assassin with a relative or a friend if they wanted to kill someone who is a nuisance to them. It's something I couldn't do without being riddled with guilt for the rest of my life probably. I know deep down that it is wrong, because we have all been given the gift of life to live to the best of our ability and to perhaps leave this world a better place than when we entered. Everyone deserves this chance.

    I also would urge them to reconsider and seek professional counselling on all options available but if they decided that their only realistic option is to abort the foetus then I don't think my or other people's moral stance should come into the equation.


  • Options
    #300
    Tar.Aldarion
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,096 Mod ✭✭✭✭Tar.Aldarion


    EF wrote: »
    I also would urge them to reconsider and seek professional counselling on all options available but if they decided that their only realistic option is to abort the foetus then I don't think my or other people's moral stance should come into the equation.

    Let's say an adult wants to kill another adult, why should anybodys 'moral stance' come into the equation? S/He should be allowed do it?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #301
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    EF wrote: »
    I also would urge them to reconsider and seek professional counselling on all options available but if they decided that their only realistic option is to abort the foetus then I don't think my or other people's moral stance should come into the equation.

    If you are truly against killing another you wouldn't advocate the choice to someone. I certainly won't, and I won't concede that the only realistic option is to abort when it clearly isn't. I would let any of my family and friends know that I love them very much but I can't possibly support this.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement