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…1011131516…24

Comments

  • Options
    #362
    orestes
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,972 ✭✭✭orestes


    Thaedydal wrote: »
    /Doses orestes with black kosh and penny royal in laudnum and a pessary made of yarrow, quicklime and lemon.

    How can you do this to me?! I thought you loved me, and I loved you, and our precious child would be the fruit of our loins and carried on our love into the glory of the world, half of each of our souls brought together to form one new beautiful and unique soul greater the the sum of it's parts! We would have added a new wonder to the magic and glory of The Lord world to rejoice in the glory of His love! You have murdered our child and our love, I can never forgive you for this, but you had better hope God does


  • Options
    #363
    Nevyn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 43,045 ✭✭✭✭Nevyn


    orestes wrote: »
    I bet you even eat eggs, don't you? Soft-boiled so you can see the victim as you cut tut the top off and dip your bread in the poor aborted chicken-child

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balut_(egg)

    Balut for everyone.

    http://bizzarefoods.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/balut1.jpg


  • Options
    #364
    Tar.Aldarion
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,096 Mod ✭✭✭✭Tar.Aldarion


    Thaedydal wrote: »
    Or when people get tired of the same pro life waffle when abortion was the only type of contraception for thousands of years even before christianity and the christian church wasn't bothered by until the last 100 years or so.

    While I don't agree with any religion claptrap, this has nothing to do with religion, even if he's quoting crap up above. Surely nothing done for thousands of years could be morally dubious.


    Though I wonder, if the bible said abortion was ok, would Jackass have a problem with it, I guess not.


  • Options
    #365
    Nevyn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 43,045 ✭✭✭✭Nevyn


    orestes wrote: »
    How can you do this to me?! I thought you loved me, and I loved you, and our precious child would be the fruit of our loins and carried on our love into the glory of the world, half of each of our souls brought together to form one new beautiful and unique soul greater the the sum of it's parts! We would have added a new wonder to the magic and glory of The Lord world to rejoice in the glory of His love! You have murdered our child and our love, I can never forgive you for this, but you had better hope God does


    There are you dr, yes, yes see just as I said on the phone, raving, utterly raving and hysterical. What, really the cure for hysterics is a hysterectomy?

    Are you sure it will work?

    Ok then yes, yes I will sign the papers, please, yes the chloroform and the restraints and tell me how they are afterwards.

    There you are dr, thank you so much, What, orestes was pregnant and you only found that out when you took the womb out and then dissected it for examination?

    Oh my how tragic, and I guess it means we won't be able to have children and that is grounds for an annulment. They may not take that well, yes you may as well make sure that they are as comfortable as possible in that padded cell.


  • Options
    #366
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Tar.Aldarion wrote: »
    While I don't agree with any religion claptrap, this has nothing to do with religion, even if he's quoting crap up above. Surely nothing done for thousands of years could be morally dubious.

    She was mistaken about "nothing being done for thousands of years". Historical sources seem to suggest that it was condemned from pretty much the get go.

    I only quoted the Bible bcause Thaedydal brought up Christianity. I can discuss abortion without referring to the Bible. Although I do find it curious that Thaedydal decided to derail the thread now. I'm not sure if another user would have got away with it.
    Tar.Aldarion wrote: »
    Though I wonder, if the bible said abortion was ok, would Jackass have a problem with it, I guess not.

    If the Bible said that abortion was okay would I still be a Christian? I don't know. I can't assess. I can only deal with what we do have.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #367
    Nevyn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 43,045 ✭✭✭✭Nevyn


    Jakkass wrote: »
    "The LORD called me before I was born, while I was in my mothers womb He named me." (Isaiah 49:1).

    Which trimester was that? Can't find that in the bible.

    And to hear such a thing means having developed ears and a brain to process sounds. So thats about what 5 months.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    However, I explained all my arguments in a secular and a rational manner. Pro-choice arguments simply do not make clear sense when they are assessed for their merit. The main fallacy is that the same objections people have to the foetus being life can be applied to any other human life outside the womb. I cannot possibly see this as right. It was a good discussion and I want to thank all who were involved :)

    nah really the mother's body acts as life support and if she doesn't wish to do that and servers is at an early stage then that "life" won't survive that is what makes it different then any life outside the womb.

    and it's nod derailing it's showing some of the horrific lengths women underwent to end a pregnancy, everything I listed above is and has been used to cause a miscarriage and most at great risk of harm to the woman.

    Oh and please don't leave out orestes she played her part, extremely well.
    Procedures for abortions have been found in Egyptian medical scrolls and it wasn't frown upon it was just another
    fact of life and death.


  • Options
    #368
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Thaedydal wrote: »
    Which trimester was that? Can't find that in the bible.

    And to hear such a thing means having developed ears and a brain to process sounds. So thats about what 5 months.

    It's implying that God has divine foreknowledge or at least that is what I grasp from it. If you want to discuss Christianity and the Bible the best place is to go to the Christianity forum. I'm sure PDN and Fanny Craddock would oblige you.
    Thaedydal wrote: »
    nah really the mother's body acts as life support and if she doesn't wish to do that and servers is at an early stage then that "life" won't survive that is what makes it different then any life outside the womb.

    Did you read the thread from the start? If the childs parents / guardians don't feed it it will die too. Is that right? Why isn't it if aborting a child you don't want to support is right? That doesn't make it any different. Dependence still exists.
    Thaedydal wrote: »
    and it's nod derailing it's showing some of the horrific lengths women underwent to end a pregnancy, everything I listed above is and has been used to cause a miscarriage and most at great risk of harm to the woman.

    You've been joking about fetii and eating them. How is that relevant?
    Thaedydal wrote: »
    Procedures for abortions have been found in Egyptian medical scrolls and it wasn't frown upon it was just another
    fact of life and death.

    Hence why I referred to barbarism. I'm quite aware that this has happened in the ancient world. I'm thankful that quite a lot of societies have now progressed from it.


  • Options
    #369
    S.I.R
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,837 ✭✭✭S.I.R


    i voted Yes and No. :)


  • Options
    #370
    Nevyn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 43,045 ✭✭✭✭Nevyn


    Jakkass wrote: »
    It's implying that God has divine foreknowledge or at least that is what I grasp from it.

    Which God?

    Jakkass wrote: »
    Did you read the thread from the start? If the childs parents / guardians don't feed it it will die too. Is that right? Why isn't it if aborting a child you don't want to support is right? That doesn't make it any different. Dependence still exists.

    IT is not the same level of dependence, so thats a lame duck arguement.
    An actual infant anyone can take up the task of caring for the child,
    not the case with a gestating fetus before it can survive outside the womb.

    If the mother wishes to stop gestating the fetus currently on one else can take over.

    This is not star trek you know, they can't like just use the transported to beam the fetus from one womb to another.

    Jakkass wrote: »
    You've been joking about fetii and eating them. How is that relevant?

    They are tasty and crunchy and it relates to how in a western christainsed countries any fetus is considered oddly sacred.


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Hence why I referred to barbarism. I'm quite aware that this has happened in the ancient world. I'm thankful that quite a lot of societies have now progressed from it.

    Well I think how we treat women, full grown actual humans with full and proper rights who have to travel for an abortion to be barbaric.


  • Options
    #371
    shqipshume
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,193 ✭✭✭shqipshume


    If you don't want a unwanted pregnancy then just cover up protect yourself and don't get pregnant ;) Not to mention all the other reasons you should protect yourself.and for the younger lot don't have sex!

    I hope they never let abortion in Ireland make people so less responsible like they are in England and other countries.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #372
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Thaedydal wrote: »
    Which God?

    You know full well which God I am referring to :)
    Thaedydal wrote: »
    IT is not the same level of dependence, so thats a lame duck arguement.
    An actual infant anyone can take up the task of caring for the child,
    not the case with a gestating fetus before it can survive outside the womb.

    Location doesn't change rights. Human rights are universal. As I say the best way to deal with it is through compromise. That's why I advocate the Constitutional stance on life. It's something to be protected, and defended because violating those rights is prejudice, and outright discrimination. It's handier when the weak are voiceless too.

    Thaedydal wrote: »
    If the mother wishes to stop gestating the fetus currently on one else can take over.

    This is not star trek you know, they can't like just use the transported to beam the fetus from one womb to another.

    If she wishes? Who says the life of another is hers to decide over? That's the real problem I have with the pro-choice position. It isn't anyone elses to decide over.

    Thaedydal wrote: »
    They are tasty and crunchy and it relates to how in a western christainsed countries any fetus is considered oddly sacred.

    Human life. The foetus is human life, just less developed than you or I. Just as a newborn baby is less developed than you or I. Should I go around joking about eating children?
    Thaedydal wrote: »
    Well I think how we treat women, full grown actual humans with full and proper rights who have to travel for an abortion to be barbaric.

    I think how we treat women is the best way we possibly can while keeping both rights intact. It's a horrible situation to be in, but if one is to have sex while being financially unstable or not willing to have a child one should at least appreciate that pregnancy is a real risk. Killing other human beings is the height of barbarism and I will be defending the pro-life policy of the Government should it come to serious challenge in the next few years. I consider it injustice and entirely wrong that someone elses life can be ended for convenience.


  • Options
    #373
    fryup
    Registered Users Posts: 18,067 ✭✭✭✭fryup


    shqipshume wrote: »
    I hope they never let abortion in Ireland make people so less responsible like they are in England and other countries.

    what a load of self righteous cr&p:rolleyes:

    up to 5,000 irish women go to England every year to have abortions, doesn't seem so responsible to me

    anyway why should the british have to look after our problems


  • Options
    #374
    Gauge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,818 ✭✭✭Gauge


    Take this with a pinch of salt because I'm definitely not religious. The bible can be used to support the pro-choice view too.
    [url=http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=exodus%2021:22-23:13%3Bmatthew%2024:1-28%3Bpsalm%2029:1-11%3Bproverbs%207:6-23]Exodus 21:22-23[/url] wrote:
    If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely [a] but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

    Which could easily be interpreted to say that the fetus is an object, it's value is decided by the husband of the pregnant woman, it's nothing more than a civil matter. But if the woman is injured or killed, the "life for life" principal applies, indicating that the fetus' life is not of equal value to the mothers.


  • Options
    #375
    shqipshume
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,193 ✭✭✭shqipshume


    fryup wrote: »
    what a load of self righteous cr&p:rolleyes:

    up to 5,000 irish women go to England every year to have abortions, doesn't seem so responsible to me

    anyway why should the british have to look after our problems

    Hence why i said (If you don't want a unwanted pregnancy then just cover up protect yourself and don't get pregnant wink.gif Not to mention all the other reasons you should protect yourself.And for the younger lot don't have sex!);)

    God if you read every statistic and believed it you would be a bit silly, now thats estimated i am sure by a bunch of idiots.:D

    How are they dealing with our problems they are paid for it thats not having to deal with the women have to deal with themselves when they get back.And if it is readily available it just means alot of more kids throwing caution to the wind.


  • Options
    #376
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Gauge wrote: »
    Which could easily be interpreted to say that the fetus is an object, it's value is decided by the husband of the pregnant woman, it's nothing more than a civil matter. But if the woman is injured or killed, the "life for life" principal applies, indicating that the fetus' life is not of equal value to the mothers.

    No it can't really. Even in other parts of the Jewish Torah which is what you are quoting it treats blood as something that is to be drained from animals because it is the source of life and life is highly sacred in Judaism. Orthodox Jews who practice from the Torah to this day regard abortion in a similar light to modern Christians. Other sects of Judaism have taken liberties in interpreting it and the Babylonian Talmud.

    As I say pop onto the Christianity forum if you want clarification on the Scripture and it's history and so on. That law legislates against accidental death of the unborn, not about abortion.


  • Options
    #377
    Holsten
    Registered Users Posts: 4,971 ✭✭✭Holsten


    Ugh... quoting from the bible makes any argument null and void.

    This thread is a joke.


  • Options
    #378
    shqipshume
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,193 ✭✭✭shqipshume


    Key Facts
    In 2007, for women resident in England and Wales:

    The total number of abortions was 198,500, compared with 193,700 in 2006, a rise of 2.5%
    http://www.abortionreview.org/index.php/site/article/363/
    Compared to our alleged 5000 :D

    Yeah bring abortion in that really solves it.It is wrong and effects the woman or girl and their future and their health in some cases as well as mentally.


  • Options
    #379
    Nevyn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 43,045 ✭✭✭✭Nevyn


    Jakkass wrote: »
    You know full well which God I am referring to :)

    Your god is not my God.

    Jakkass wrote: »
    Location doesn't change rights. Human rights are universal.

    Nope they are not, they are not even gobal.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    If she wishes? Who says the life of another is hers to decide over? That's the real problem I have with the pro-choice position. It isn't anyone elses to decide over.

    IT is her body, if she no longer wants to be a life support machine then she does have that choice. It's her womb and it's being trespassed in and her body is being used with out her consent.

    Jakkass wrote: »
    Human life. The foetus is human life, just less developed than you or I. Just as a newborn baby is less developed than you or I. Should I go around joking about eating children?

    I like babys but I wouldn't eat a whole one.
    Apparently they taste more like suckling pig then chicken.
    But really not a new born you want to wait until they are about 3 months with a nice layer of fat under the skin to baste it in it's own juices and so that you get a nice bit of crackling.

    Baby back ribs anyone?

    Jakkass wrote: »
    I think how we treat women is the best way we possibly can while keeping both rights intact.

    Really have you been there to support someone while they went through the stress of finding the information, making the appointment to get a referal the stress of trying to get the money, book the flights and get time of work/college/ get someone to mind the kids, all while keeping it private and that is even before they travel and the get home and have to spend 3 days recovering at first and the whole process can take 3 to 8 weeks before
    her womb resets it's self and the longer she has been pregnant for the bigger the crash due to the hormoans.

    You seen that up close and personal or experienced it yourself to know the real facts so that you can then assuredly say we treat women the best way we possibly can?
    Jakkass wrote: »
    It's a horrible situation to be in, but if one is to have sex while being financially unstable or not willing to have a child one should at least appreciate that pregnancy is a real risk. Killing other human beings is the height of barbarism and I will be defending the pro-life policy of the Government should it come to serious challenge in the next few years. I consider it injustice and entirely wrong that someone elses life can be ended for convenience.

    Will you be then pushing for real health and fact bases sex and sexual education in school and free access to contraception for all those under 25?

    If prevention is better then cure then why are you not an advocate for the above?


  • Options
    #380
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Holsten: I didn't bring it into the thread :).


  • Options
    #381
    *shadow*
    Closed Accounts Posts: 144 ✭✭*shadow*


    Personally unless I found myself in an excruciating situation then I could not go through with it. Despite the fact Im in college and it would be a terrible situation to find myself in I would accept responsibility for the situation and I would find some way to cope.

    Im pro choice up to a point, I dont think any government should be allowed to dictated what is wrong or right for that woman but I also don't think it should be used as a form of contaception, I know someone who has had 2 abortions in the past while in a stable relationship with the man she went on to marry.

    As adults we need to take responsibility for our actions. I also can't believe England is actually advertising on tv all the time how the morning after pill can be bought over the counter now, the add states something allong the line of "forgot to use a condom....don't worry, theres the morning after pill"....what sort of message those that portray to young people!?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #382
    Toots
    Administrators, Business & Finance Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,920 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Toots


    Thaedydal wrote: »
    IT is her body, if she no longer wants to be a life support machine then she does have that choice. It's her womb and it's being trespassed in and her body is being used with out her consent.

    This is the argument I always end up having with my extremely pro-life H2B. The way I look at is, the foetus is almost like a parasite. It is incapable of sustaining life on it's own outside of the womb (obviously this is not the case when the foetus is like 6 months old, but that's why they don't carry out abortions that late) and therefore is completely and utterly dependent on the mother for survival.

    This argument that the foetus has a soul is a bit of a moot point. Where do you draw the line on what has a soul and what doesn't? Say for example if you have a tapeworm, would you leave it munching away in your stomach because the act of having it removed would be killing something that had a soul? Now, I know it sounds a bit mad comparing an unborn baby to a tapeworm, but if you look at it clinically, they both are dependent on a 'host' for survival.

    I think that while the foetus is dependent on the mother, she should have the right to decide if she wants her body to be used in this manner.


  • Options
    #383
    ParkRunner
    Registered Users Posts: 3,032 ✭✭✭ParkRunner


    Toots* wrote: »

    I think that while the foetus is dependent on the mother, she should have the right to decide if she wants her body to be used in this manner.

    The law as it stands in England allows abortion up to 24 weeks and beyond this in cases where the foetus is severly handicapped. In an increasing number of cases a child born prematurely at 22-24 weeks is surviving thanks to developments in medical science, so I hope if abortion is ever legalised here we could at least future proof the upper limit at about 20 weeks


  • Options
    #384
    O'Coonassa
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,318 ✭✭✭O'Coonassa


    Men...if you don't want an abortion then don't cum inside the kind of girl who would have one. It's really that simple.


  • Options
    #385
    4zn76tysfajdxp
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,944 ✭✭✭✭4zn76tysfajdxp


    O'Coonassa wrote: »
    Men...if you don't want an abortion then don't cum inside the kind of girl who would have one. It's really that simple.

    Is it? What if she lies?


  • Options
    #386
    JimiTime
    Registered Users Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    Personally, I'm against abortion, and would never advocate its legalisation. However, there are degree's of empathy I'd have, the rape scenario being one. Don't get me wrong, its 100% wrong, but it would be such a horrid scenario for the mother. Unfortunately, some horrid folk at some stage came up with an idea of allowing a mother to kill her unborn child, so now its presented as a choice.

    Along with this 'choice' we have some wonderful dehumanising language to go with it. 'Terminate the pregnancy'. 'Its a parasite' etc etc. Anything but 'an unborn child'. God forbid, we may make it sound human, and invoke some kind of guilt.

    Then we have strange arguements for it, but revealing a 'natural' unease. 'Not after such and such a time' or 'maybe if its rape', 'not if its used as contraception' etc. All show ones natural inclination towards something thats not quite right.

    I think the parasite one is most disturbing. It shows how far a persons concience has died. What an advanced society we live in ey. We call our children parasites, and ask will it be 'chemical burning' or 'scramble and suck' for your child today mam.


  • Options
    #387
    4zn76tysfajdxp
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,944 ✭✭✭✭4zn76tysfajdxp


    JimiTime wrote: »
    Personally, I'm against abortion, and would never advocate its legalisation. However, there are degree's of empathy I'd have, the rape scenario being one. Don't get me wrong, its 100% wrong, but it would be such a horrid scenario for the mother. Unfortunately, some horrid folk at some stage came up with an idea of allowing a mother to kill her unborn child, so now its presented as a choice.

    Along with this 'choice' we have some wonderful dehumanising language to go with it. 'Terminate the pregnancy'. 'Its a parasite' etc etc. Anything but 'an unborn child'. God forbid, we may make it sound human, and invoke some kind of guilt.

    Then we have strange arguements for it, but revealing a 'natural' unease. 'Not after such and such a time' or 'maybe if its rape', 'not if its used as contraception' etc. All show ones natural inclination towards something thats not quite right.

    I think the parasite one is most disturbing. It shows how far a persons concience has died. What an advanced society we live in ey. We call our children parasites, and ask will it be 'chemical burning' or 'scramble and suck' for your child today mam.

    Well in all fairness, you're playing the same game by using evocative language yourself such as referring to the unborn infants as "our children" and the patient as "Mam," although I'm guessing that was a clever Fruedian slip.

    People have different definitions of what constitutes a child at the stage and I think your emotive terms and the pro-choicers cold medical phrases are just two sides of the same sheming coin.


  • Options
    #388
    JimiTime
    Registered Users Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    Peyton Thoughtless Armband wrote: »
    Well in all fairness, you're playing the same game by using evocative language yourself such as referring to the unborn infants as "our children" and the patient as "Mam," although I'm guessing that was a clever Fruedian slip.

    People have different definitions of what constitutes a child at the stage and I think your emotive terms and the pro-choicers cold medical phrases are just two sides of the same sheming coin.

    I certainly am not playing such a game. It was an unborn child throughout history until abortion moved the goalposts. As I said, dehumanising our unborn children.

    As for emotive terms, calling an unborn child an unborn child is being honest, nothing more. Though at least you did acknowledge the cold medical terms it takes to bypass our concience and emotional attachments.


  • Options
    #389
    Crumble Froo
    Registered Users Posts: 8,196 ✭✭✭Crumble Froo


    one arguement i never quite get is the murder one. if the foetus is compared to a child and it's murder to kill it, then surely if the mother drinks or smokes or takes drugs while pregnant, she should be done for assault? what if she doesnt take sufficient vitamins/nutrients, eg folic acid, should she be done for neglect?

    don't think i could have an abortion myself, but i definitely believe that people should have the choice. if i was going to be a parent, i'd want to do the absolute 110% best i could for my child and right now, i can barely look after myself. i couldnt possibly cope with a child. i couldnt affort to take the time off work, im not a resident of the country i live in, i couldnt just claim from social services or whatever, and after watching my sister-in-law spend the best part of 9 months with awful morning sickness and nausea (even after meds for it) being just miserable, i don't think i could actually cope with the pregnancy itself either. now, im careful about contraception, but it's happened before and it'll happen again that it fails, and i think everyone should have the option of a plan b.


  • Options
    #390
    Uncle Arthur
    Closed Accounts Posts: 74 ✭✭Uncle Arthur


    Thaedydal wrote: »
    Your god is not my God.




    Nope they are not, they are not even gobal.



    IT is her body, if she no longer wants to be a life support machine then she does have that choice. It's her womb and it's being trespassed in and her body is being used with out her consent.




    I like babys but I wouldn't eat a whole one.
    Apparently they taste more like suckling pig then chicken.
    But really not a new born you want to wait until they are about 3 months with a nice layer of fat under the skin to baste it in it's own juices and so that you get a nice bit of crackling.

    Baby back ribs anyone?




    Really have you been there to support someone while they went through the stress of finding the information, making the appointment to get a referal the stress of trying to get the money, book the flights and get time of work/college/ get someone to mind the kids, all while keeping it private and that is even before they travel and the get home and have to spend 3 days recovering at first and the whole process can take 3 to 8 weeks before
    her womb resets it's self and the longer she has been pregnant for the bigger the crash due to the hormoans.

    You seen that up close and personal or experienced it yourself to know the real facts so that you can then assuredly say we treat women the best way we possibly can?



    Will you be then pushing for real health and fact bases sex and sexual education in school and free access to contraception for all those under 25?

    If prevention is better then cure then why are you not an advocate for the above?
    amazing how you thank a post that seems to back up your point of view which quotes the bible then show you dont even believe in it. hypocrite.:rolleyes:


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #391
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    JimiTime wrote: »
    I certainly am not playing such a game. It was an unborn child throughout history until abortion moved the goalposts. As I said, dehumanising our unborn children.

    As for emotive terms, calling an unborn child an unborn child is being honest, nothing more. Though at least you did acknowledge the cold medical terms it takes to bypass our concience and emotional attachments.

    You're right look how the Declaration of Geneva (1948) changed from supporting the rights of the unborn to denying them when it was altered in Sydney in 1967. It's appalling, nobody can deny that the goalposts have been changed.

    The notable line in the 1948 version is this:
    I will maintain the utmost respect for human life from the time of conception, even under threat, I will not use my medical knowledge contrary to the laws of humanity;

    Note the last clause, which implies that maintaining the utmost respect for human life from the time of conception, was a law of humanity.
    Crumble Froo wrote: »
    don't think i could have an abortion myself, but i definitely believe that people should have the choice. if i was going to be a parent, i'd want to do the absolute 110% best i could for my child and right now, i can barely look after myself. i couldnt possibly cope with a child. i couldnt affort to take the time off work, im not a resident of the country i live in, i couldnt just claim from social services or whatever, and after watching my sister-in-law spend the best part of 9 months with awful morning sickness and nausea (even after meds for it) being just miserable, i don't think i could actually cope with the pregnancy itself either. now, im careful about contraception, but it's happened before and it'll happen again that it fails, and i think everyone should have the option of a plan b.

    If you want 110% for your child and you can't support for it, surely giving it a full life and trying to give it loving parents who can support it through adoption would be a reasonable way to deal with it. Death is completely incompatible with best for a child. If death should be offered as an option b why can't hired assassination?
    Peyton Thoughtless Armband wrote: »
    People have different definitions of what constitutes a child at the stage and I think your emotive terms and the pro-choicers cold medical phrases are just two sides of the same sheming coin.

    It's been the other way around throughout this thread really. The emotive "it's my body" style argument has been coming from pro-choicers, and the argument that it isn't just your body by showing that it isn't biologically has been coming from pro-lifers. Check from the start of the thread.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement