Abortion

Noffles

JimiTime wrote: »

I agree. Its when she's given the choice to kill somebody else that I tend to draw the line.

I'm afraid I can't agree with you there, but that's maybe because coming from a progressive country where women have the choice and are not in fear of breaking the law for choosing something that goes against a religion....

Freedom of choice.. and I hope the days that this is still there go on and on.

But again this is just an opinion and we all have them.

O'Coonassa

Dragan wrote: »

And where are you getting the above from? If you don't mind my asking?

You were saying, in half-jest I presume, that asking womens if they were pro or anti abortion made for a bad chat up line.

When I replied to you I was suggesting that the type of men who are concerned about abortion actually should be doing the asking before doing the deed, regardless of how bad an angle of approach it is.

For this reason my reply to you begins with the construct called IF...as in if you are that type of person. Immediately before that word was the prefix LOL to indicate what was being said was being said in a jocular manner following on from the humour of your previous post.

Apparently you have seriously misunderstood my meaning and responded in such a manner that I am left thinking.......well you know well enough what you'd be left thinking...

AngryBadger

Deleted User wrote: »

if bad luck struck we would decide to take the trip the england for an abortion.

You know my major problem with abortion is, and has always been that it's a perfect excuse for this idea of "bad luck" being responsible for unwanted pregnancy.

Sperm isn't some magical thing floating around waiting for a vulnerable uterus. And pregnancy is not easy to achieve, the mere fact of ejaculate being present inside a female does not guarantee pregnancy. True there are a small number of cases where people genuinely use contraception correctly and yet still wind up with an unplanned pregnancy but these are by far and away the minority. The majority of cases of unplanned pregnancy are down to selfishness, lack of responsibiliy, and a good helping of basic stupidity.

When did it become "ok" to discuss abortion like it was the most wonderful solution to such a major failing in people?

/RANT OVER

Noffles

AngryBadger wrote: »

You know my major problem with abortion is, and has always been that it's a perfect excuse for this idea of "bad luck" being responsible for unwanted pregnancy.

Sperm isn't some magical thing floating around waiting for a vulnerable uterus. And pregnancy is not easy to achieve, the mere fact of ejaculate being present inside a female does not guarantee pregnancy. True there are a small number of cases where people genuinely use contraception correctly and yet still wind up with an unplanned pregnancy but these are by far and away the minority. The majority of cases of unplanned pregnancy are down to selfishness, lack of responsibiliy, and a good helping of basic stupidity.

When did it become "ok" to discuss abortion like it was the most wonderful solution to such a major failing in people?

/RANT OVER

People are people and thus will make mistakes... tis in our nature and being able to fix a mistake is the important bit... and surely we have the choice to do this?

JimiTime

Galvasean wrote: »

Nice way to avoid a difficult question. "Because he loves you" would have been a better answer.

There's nothing difficult about the question. Its simply irrelavant. It does become relevant however, if we identify who this God charachter is. Maybe you shouldn't jump the gun next time you decide to lecture me.

Noffles wrote: »

People are people and thus will make mistakes... tis in our nature and being able to fix a mistake is the important bit... and surely we have the choice to do this?

Of course. Its when this 'solution' is killing an unborn child, that some folk say 'hang on'.

Peyton Thoughtless Armband wrote: »

That looks like a threat after reading his previous post.

LOL, didn't cop that.

PS: Cheers Javaboy. Do u do ironing by any chance:)

Noffles

JimiTime wrote: »

There's nothing difficult about the question. Its simply irrelavant. It does become relevant however, if we identify who this God charachter is. Maybe you shouldn't jump the gun next time you decide to lecture me.



Of course. Its when this 'solution' is killing an unborn child, that some folk say 'hang on'.

"Some folk" will say all sorts though....

Galvasean

JimiTime wrote: »

There's nothing difficult about the question. Its simply irrelavant. It does become relevant however, if we identify who this God charachter is. Maybe you shouldn't jump the gun next time you decide to lecture me.

Clearly WindSock was asking you as someone who believes in God why would God give women a clitoris.
So now that God has been identified as something you believe in would you mind terribly answering the question?

philologos

Galvasean wrote: »

Clearly WindSock was asking you as someone who believes in God why would God give women a clitoris.
So now that God has been identified as something you believe in would you mind terribly answering the question?

Just because we believe in God does not mean we know the purpose for every single thing. Rather, it is impossible that I can know the purpose for every single thing. I'd assume on a hunch that pleasure during sex is to encourage people to "go forth and multiply" like the Bible says in Genesis 1.

Anyhow, the only thing that happens when people keep bringing up religion on an abortion thread is to have others complain about Christians talking about it on AH.

WindSock wrote: »

Are you saying people shouldn't have sex if they don't want children? What decade do you live in? You do realise it's ok to have sex for pleasure, don't you? Why did god give woman a clitoris?

Yes, it's okay for people to have sex for pleasure, as long as you don't kill any unborn child that forms in the womb. When your sexual freedoms supersede the right to life that's when it's problematic.

WindSock wrote: »

Child is not foetus. Do you weep and mourn for those 5,000 'Irish children' who are 'murdered' very year?

It's saddening that people carry out such barbaric acts in the 21st century.

Uncle Arthur

Noffles wrote: »

I'm afraid I can't agree with you there, but that's maybe because coming from a progressive country where women have the choice and are not in fear of breaking the law for choosing something that goes against a religion....

Freedom of choice.. and I hope the days that this is still there go on and on.

But again this is just an opinion and we all have them.

opposing abortion is not necessarily reserved for those who are religious. some non-religious people actually have morals too.....

Sam Vimes

I didn't want to get back into this but the below is after annoying me

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

You mean backpedaling.

Sorry mate but you misunderstanding my statement and me clarifying it is not back pedalling

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

I, however, am done. All I ask is for you to think about your reasons why you wish to have the freedom to not believe in religious dogmas that tell you will be blood guilty if you do not believe and speak of salvation through Jesus and then wonder why a person wishes to have the freedom to not be told by pro-lifers that they are blood guilty for aborting a fetus that they do not view as a human life.

I know exactly why I feel this way. Belief in freedom from religious dogma is very different to belief in being allowed to murder someone whose life is inconvenient to you. Also as someone who was adopted I'm very mindful of the fact that I'd be medical waste if my mother thought like you and I know that there are thousands of families crying out for a child who can't adopt one because of all the women who are killing theirs. My own parents always wanted a large family but could only have two children because there weren't enough to go around

In response I'd ask why you think a foetus shouldn't have rights. I've never seen a pro choice person give me an argument for why a foetus shouldn't have rights that amounts to any more than they don't want it to so they can kill it. I see the same wishful thinking in pro choice people as I do in religious people

So do you think a foetus shouldn't have rights based on some kind of evidence or is it just that you really really don't want it to have rights because that would fcuk up your social life?

AngryBadger

Noffles wrote: »

People are people and thus will make mistakes... tis in our nature and being able to fix a mistake is the important bit... and surely we have the choice to do this?

Surely a better choice would be to not get pregnant?

We could go 'round in circles with this all night, most people seem to have the attitude that unplanned pregnancies "just happen", I disagree, and I feel this blazzé attitude encourages irresponsible behaviour sexually.

Fair enough, there are an extremely tiny numbers of cases where people genuinely use contraception correctly but are unfortunate enough to become pregnant, but in the majority of cases you're talking about people not using contraception at all, using it wrong, getting off their heads and doing who-knows-who etc etc.

I'm not trying to villify people who have, or have experienced an unplanned pregnancy, but I don't agree with throwing around the idea of "abortion as a way to correct our mistakes". There's a thread up about this with alarming frequency, and yet I rarely see thread about improving sexual education, or trying to correct the bad attitudes towards sex that lead to this problem in the first place.

I suppose in a sense I feel abortion is just a way of treating the symptoms and not the problem.

*shadow*

WindSock wrote: »

So what? Your life is changed forever once you have a kid. Some people are not ready for it and some don't want to go full term and adopt out. It's not that selfish, it's reality.

You talk about how how abortion is acceptable or ok because it's no fair to force a women have a baby when she's not ready. Well get real no women is ever ready for pregnancy planned or unplanned and if you have unprotected sex then you must accept responsibility for that.

People talk about how abortion is ok because its only a grouping of cells, try explaining that to every woman that has ever lost a baby unvoluntarily through a misscariage. Try telling them they grieved for a mass of cells and see what they'd have to say.

By week 3 the baby's heart has begun beating

By week 5 its brain is formed

By week 8 the baby is extremely reactive to it's enviornment. The baby's sex is also determined at this stage i.e it recieves a dose of the testostrone if it is to develop as a male

By the end of week 12 the baby is no longer considered to be in the embryonic stage. Its fingers and toes have also formed.

Weeks 14-16 the Brain has developed to the point that baby can suck, swallow and make irregular breathing movements.

By week 16 the sex of the baby is distinguishable

By week 20 the baby is fully formed and will spend the remainder of its time in the womb maturing further. It has a heart beat or 120-160 beats a minute

I am pro choice up to a certain point but I do not believe it should be allowed after 12 weeks except in cases of rape, danger to the mothers life or if the baby is going to be born with a sever disability. and similar rules should apply if introduced here.

If a woman is to have an abortion then she should be made aware of the stage of the baby's development so that she knows exactly what she is aborting. This whole thing about it only being a grouping of cells is or tissue is just ****, Thats what every human being is, you and me we are just a grouping of cells and tissue if that is how you wnat to look at it, telling these women that its ok for this reason is awful, people seem to think that this will somehow lessen the blow of abortion.




The reality is No matter how much you think you are Not ready for a baby you are far far less ready for the mental and psychological effects of abortion.

Crumble Froo

Jakkass wrote: »

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?

if i had a child, yes i would support it as best i possibly could .right now, i couldnt do that. at all. as mentioned already, i honestly don't think i could handle the pregnancy. i am not resident in the country i live in, i could not afford the hospital bills of the pregnancy, or the time off work. i have no debts, but am earning less than €6,000 a year at the moment.

as for the adoption option, not a chance. my partner was adopted and i know he'd never give a child of his up for adoption.

death being completely compatible with best for child, well i can guarantee you, it would happen within the first 2months 3 as an absolute maximum, i do not consider a foetus a child/baby at that point.

as for your hired assassination, i noticed you didnt quote/comment on the rest of my last post... why is an abortion 'murder', but not looking after yourself properly during pregnancy not 'abuse' or 'neglect'?

Rabies

*shadow* wrote: »

People talk about how abortion is ok because its only a grouping of cells, try explaining that to every woman that has ever lost a baby unvoluntarily through a misscariage. Try telling them they grieved for a mass of cells and see what they'd have to say.

I think its more grieving for what could have been, not what it was.

I'll be honest here, I have experience with this personally and know how it feels. Maybe I'm a heartless bastard, but I've been through it and came out fine.

Noffles

Uncle Arthur wrote: »

opposing abortion is not necessarily reserved for those who are religious. some non-religious people actually have morals too.....

Fine, that's a fair point but as long as women have the choice I'll be happy with any of these debates... if the choice is removed then we've fallen back into the dark ages..... And women all over the world will have their lives ruined.

JC 2K3

Sam Vimes wrote: »

In response I'd ask why you think a foetus shouldn't have rights. I've never seen a pro choice person give me an argument for why a foetus shouldn't have rights that amounts to any more than they don't want it to so they can kill it. I see the same wishful thinking in pro choice people as I do in religious people

Rights are arbitrary and are conferred arbitrarily. You simply sidestepped this the last time I mentioned this in this thread.

I could use your arguments for not killing foetuses for why we shouldn't kill animals. The reason we think it's ok to kill animals when it is convenient for us to do so is because we just don't consider them to be as important as humans, there's no hugely logical reason there. We can just decide that unborn foetuses are not as important as humans ex utero if we wish.

Ultimately, we have a shítty reproductive system as a result of evolution which is incompatible with the modern world and the way humans generally wish to live their lives these days. It makes sense, therefore, to define human rights as applying to a subset of humans which are ex utero to give rise to a society where we have more control over our own lives.

philologos

Crumble Froo wrote: »

if i had a child, yes i would support it as best i possibly could .right now, i couldnt do that. at all. as mentioned already, i honestly don't think i could handle the pregnancy. i am not resident in the country i live in, i could not afford the hospital bills of the pregnancy, or the time off work. i have no debts, but am earning less than €6,000 a year at the moment.

I'm not quite sure on the technicalities of this, but does health insurance not cover pregnancies in hospital? (On a quick google I found that in Ireland some offer €2100 - €2900 for home birth or hospital accomodation, I don't know what the case is elsewhere).

Crumble Froo wrote: »

as for the adoption option, not a chance. my partner was adopted and i know he'd never give a child of his up for adoption.

He'd never give up a child for adoption yet he'd happily kill one?

Crumble Froo wrote: »

death being completely compatible with best for child, well i can guarantee you, it would happen within the first 2months 3 as an absolute maximum, i do not consider a foetus a child/baby at that point.

Time frame is irrelevant to me. It's still killing at 1 week.

Crumble Froo wrote: »

as for your hired assassination, i noticed you didnt quote/comment on the rest of my last post... why is an abortion 'murder', but not looking after yourself properly during pregnancy not 'abuse' or 'neglect'?

Why isn't it murder? You are killing a human life in the womb. That's what abortion is. As for not looking after yourself properly during pregnancy, that could be very much be considered abuse or neglect. If you drink or smoke heavily during a pregnancy causing miscarriage or deformity then I would consider that abuse.

Rabies wrote: »

I think its more grieving for what could have been, not what it was.

Right, but the life was already present and forming.

Rabies wrote: »

I'll be honest here, I have experience with this personally and know how it feels. Maybe I'm a heartless bastard, but I've been through it and came out fine.

I'm not going to call you heartless by any respect. I guess it's that some people put different values on the human life that is in the womb and that is the key issue with this debate. Some people think that human life is dispensible, I certainly don't.

Noffles wrote: »

Fine, that's a fair point but as long as women have the choice I'll be happy with any of these debates... if the choice is removed then we've fallen back into the dark ages..... And women all over the world will have their lives ruined.

I don't think women should have any decision in what happens to another life. That to me is the Stone Age. As for women having their lives ruined, I think with support and encouragement of adoptive services that women could get through it. Why don't you care for the lives of the unborn which are ruined every day if you are going to merely consider the lives of the women?

Do you not see this is clear discrimination and prejudice?

Sam Vimes

JC 2K3 wrote: »

Rights are arbitrary and are conferred arbitrarily. You simply sidestepped this the last time I mentioned this in this thread.

I could use your arguments for not killing foetuses for why we shouldn't kill animals. The reason we think it's ok to kill animals when it is convenient for us to do so is because we just don't consider them to be as important as humans, there's no hugely logical reason there. We can just decide that unborn foetuses are not as important as humans ex utero if we wish.

Ultimately, we have a shítty reproductive system as a result of evolution which is incompatible with the modern world and the way humans generally wish to live their lives these days. It makes sense, therefore, to define human rights as applying to a subset of humans which are ex utero to give rise to a society where we have more control over our own lives.

My arguments don't apply to animals because they are not now nor will they ever be sentient beings. I could use your arguments for slavery and genocide and in fact such arguments have in the past been used for both slavery and genocide. If we need a lot of work done and we don't feel like doing it ourselves, it makes perfect sense to "define human rights as applying to a subset of humans which are white to give rise to a society where we have more control over our own lives." Abortion is just the latest example in history of the subjugation of the weak by the strong and I sincerely hope that in years to come people will look back on abortion with the same disgust that they currently look back on slavery with

JC 2K3

Sam Vimes wrote: »

My arguments don't apply to animals because they are not now nor will they ever be sentient beings

That's ridiculous.

You ought to do some googling and become a vegetarian.

Sam Vimes

JC 2K3 wrote: »

That's ridiculous.

You ought to do some googling and become a vegetarian.

Na I'm alright thanks


But I must say JC 2K3 that I can respect an argument like that. You're basically saying "yeah it's a human and yeah it has rights but I'm more important". While I consider that argument to be no better than the justification for slavery, at least it's intellectually honest. It's much better than all this self deluding crap like "oh it's not a person" or "it doesn't have a brain yet" or "it's just a clump of cells".

At least you're acknowledging what you're doing rather than fooling yourself into thinking it's no different to having an in grown toe nail removed

JC 2K3

Sam Vimes wrote: »

But I must say JC 2K3 that I can respect an argument like that. You're basically saying "yeah it's a human and yeah it has rights but I'm more important". While I consider that argument to be no better than the justification for slavery, at least it's intellectually honest. It's much better than all this self deluding crap like "oh it's not a person" or "it doesn't have a brain yet" or "it's just a clump of cells".

At least you're acknowledging what you're doing rather than fooling yourself into thinking it's no different to having an in grown toe nail removed

True, though I don't acknowledge that it has rights.

racism, slavery, genocide etc. are not conductive to a harmonious society. I can't envision a society where abortion would lead to dysfunction, the only problem being the metaphysical concept of a human life being lost. The truth, however, is that humans value things and lifeforms arbitrarily, and if an unborn human is considered not to have rights, then there's no ethical issue.

Sam Vimes

JC 2K3 wrote: »

racism, slavery, genocide etc. are not conductive to a harmonious society. I can't envision a society where abortion would lead to dysfunction, the only problem being the metaphysical concept of a human life being lost. The truth, however, is that humans value things and lifeforms arbitrarily, and if an unborn human is considered not to have rights, then there's no ethical issue.

Slavery chugged along quite nicely in most societies for a few thousand years and even exists today. As long as you do it properly and don't let the slaves get uppity everything can be quite harmonious......except for the slaves that is


edit: or could we define gay people as not having human rights? Maybe short people? Women perhaps?

Malari

Sam Vimes wrote: »

My arguments don't apply to animals because they are not now nor will they ever be sentient beings.

I don't think everyone would agree with you there. Firstly, humans are animals and we can't tell what we will some day find out about just how "sentient" higher primates are. Many people who have done lots of research into physical and emotional responses in primates think they should be given some rights already!

Crumble Froo

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm not quite sure on the technicalities of this, but does health insurance not cover pregnancies in hospital? (On a quick google I found that in Ireland some offer €2100 - €2900 for home birth or hospital accomodation, I don't know what the case is elsewhere).

IF one has health insurance. which i do not. im trying to figure out my budget as it stands at the moment (i only got this current job about a month ago), but im looking into it). but currently cannot afford to buy fruit and veg every week , let alone health insurance. (my health plan involves not getting sick).

and as for the irish offer of €2100-2900... if you read my last post, you'll realise that's about half what i earn in a year. over here, i know that a quick medical for immigration is costing me $400.

He'd never give up a child for adoption yet he'd happily kill one?

happily? not quite. but if i/we were to go through with the full pregnancy, we'd certainly keep it. but he accepts that given that the child/foetus/parasite would be growing in my body, reliant on my health (honestly, i cannot look after myself at the moment, let alone a ****ing foetus/child), that it is my choice whether or not i'd have it. he already has a child, he does not want another and neither do i. i intend to live vicariously through my niece.

as far as he's concerned, it would be weird to abort a child, because he was an unwanted child and could easily easily have been aborted. at the same time, his adoption was not the most successful one and has left him with more than a few issues. ultimately, he believes that at the end of the day, it's the woman's choice and therefore, it would be up to me.

Time frame is irrelevant to me. It's still killing at 1 week.

and it's just a bundle of nerves or whatever to me at 1 week.

honestly, i do get your point of view. for a good while, i was in the... i guess you'd call it 'pro-life' camp. but honestly, i believe that people should have the choice.

Why isn't it murder? You are killing a human life in the womb. That's what abortion is. As for not looking after yourself properly during pregnancy, that could be very much be considered abuse or neglect. If you drink or smoke heavily during a pregnancy causing miscarriage or deformity then I would consider that abuse.

is the morning after pill murder as well?
ok, so 'murder' or abortion is illegal in ireland. would you like to see 'abuse' punishable by law too? would you like to see people imprisoned for not being able to cope with a pregnancy/addiction? i can't look after myself at the moment. in short, i have a lot of issues, prevalent of those are eating disorders. i find it difficult to eat healthily to provide sufficient food/nutrients to myself. particularly given my pay rates, it feels a lot more difficult to justify the extortionate price of fruit and veg and healthy stuff like that. we take every precaution against pregancy, but contraception is never 100% certain.

Do you not see this is clear discrimination and prejudice?

so if a woman is unlucky enough to have an unwanted pregnancy, which she has no right to terminate, she has to endure the miserableness of pregnancy, no drinking, crazy healthy eating, hospital costs and time off work, just to give up the baby to some couple she's never met?

times like that, i wish i was a bloke. man, you'd get off easy.

clonmel

Deleted User wrote: »

I had this discussion recently with some friends,
basically I said at this moment of my life myself and my GF couldn't handle a child, so if bad luck struck we would decide to take the trip the england for an abortion. I don't see the problem but my friends did.

What are peoples opinions?

* I know this is a touchy subject so try keep it civil folks, I would like to hear some real opinions on this without risk getting the thread locked, thanks.

I don't see the problem myself.
I wouldn't do it, If I will ever get pregnant I think I would keep the child anyway, but it never happened to me, and I easily can understand who decide to choose the abortion...even if I do not think it would bethe right choice for me.

Sam Vimes

Malari wrote: »

I don't think everyone would agree with you there. Firstly, humans are animals and we can't tell what we will some day find out about just how "sentient" higher primates are. Many people who have done lots of research into physical and emotional responses in primates think they should be given some rights already!

No everyone wouldn't agree with me there. And of course it's not as simple as "animals aren't sentient". An ape is much higher than a termite for example and I'd be against testing on apes. So really it depends on the animal and it depends on what is being done to them.

For example, I'm for embryonic stem cell research for the same reason I wouldn't be totally against war. Sometimes it's necessary for some people to die to save millions and that's sort of what's happening with STR. In the same vein I'm for eating animals because people need to eat but against hunting for sport. And again in the same vein, I'm for abortion if the woman's life is in danger or if the child is severely handicapped but against it being used as if it's another form of contraception by people who don't want to be inconvenienced a human life

Sometimes things can be justified but "I don't feel like it" is not a justification for killing someone

Sam Vimes

Crumble Froo wrote: »

so if a woman is unlucky enough to have an unwanted pregnancy, which she has no right to terminate, she has to endure the miserableness of pregnancy, no drinking, crazy healthy eating, hospital costs and time off work, just to give up the baby to some couple she's never met?

times like that, i wish i was a bloke. man, you'd get off easy.

I wouldn't use the word unlucky exactly because the woman would have chosen to have sex (except in cases of rape of course) but unfortunately you're right because the alternative is to kill someone. I for one am glad that my natural mother went through with all of the above

philologos

Crumble Froo wrote: »

IF one has health insurance. which i do not. im trying to figure out my budget as it stands at the moment (i only got this current job about a month ago), but im looking into it). but currently cannot afford to buy fruit and veg every week , let alone health insurance. (my health plan involves not getting sick).

Fair enough.

Crumble Froo wrote: »

and as for the irish offer of €2100-2900... if you read my last post, you'll realise that's about half what i earn in a year. over here, i know that a quick medical for immigration is costing me $400.

This is the failing of the US Government not to be able to provide for people effectively. This should have been particularly the motive of the Bush Administration because they did bring in other pro-life legislation during the time (such as not committing infanticide after abortions). I doubt Obama is going to make legislation there to help women to be able to keep children instead of aborting them. Alas, the US is a very different country from our own little one.

Crumble Froo wrote: »

happily? not quite. but if i/we were to go through with the full pregnancy, we'd certainly keep it. but he accepts that given that the child/foetus/parasite would be growing in my body, reliant on my health (honestly, i cannot look after myself at the moment, let alone a ****ing foetus/child), that it is my choice whether or not i'd have it. he already has a child, he does not want another and neither do i. i intend to live vicariously through my niece.

I don't consider you to have a right to deny another their rights. In a contradiction of terms like this, compromise is the only reasonable terms of discussion. Pro-choicers never encourage this via media approach though they far prefer to mute the rights of the unborn.

Crumble Froo wrote: »

as far as he's concerned, it would be weird to abort a child, because he was an unwanted child and could easily easily have been aborted. at the same time, his adoption was not the most successful one and has left him with more than a few issues. ultimately, he believes that at the end of the day, it's the woman's choice and therefore, it would be up to me.

He believes that, fair enough. It has no bearing on the general ethics of the situation or of the rights of the unborn, which since the pro-life amendment of 1983 (I'm reading up on this right now for a politics exam ) the Irish State has pledged to vindicate the rights of the unborn here. The Constitution does recognise the right to travel, but as far as the legality of the case is here, it is strictly illegal except in cases where the mothers life is threatened.

Crumble Froo wrote: »

and it's just a bundle of nerves or whatever to me at 1 week.

Fallacious argument. A foetus is meant to be a clump of cells in the first week. That's what life is expected to be at that stage. This doesn't stop it being a human being. Think about what you are saying here:

"It doesn't look like a proper human in my opinion, therefore it isn't".

This isn't correct scientifically the case however. By extension, I could say that I don't find Africans to look like proper humans, and therefore I could sanction their killing.

Warning: Just about to break Godwins Law here

Hitler didn't consider the disabled to be proper humans, he had them killed and used for medical experimentation.

Crumble Froo wrote: »

honestly, i do get your point of view. for a good while, i was in the... i guess you'd call it 'pro-life' camp. but honestly, i believe that people should have the choice.

You don't think that people should have the choice. You think that one should have the choice and the other should have decisions made about its life without its consent. It's appalling.

Crumble Froo wrote: »

is the morning after pill murder as well?

If it kills the embryo yes.

Crumble Froo wrote: »

ok, so 'murder' or abortion is illegal in ireland. would you like to see 'abuse' punishable by law too?

Abortion isn't punishable by law, it's merely forbidden.

Crumble Froo wrote: »

would you like to see people imprisoned for not being able to cope with a pregnancy/addiction?

I haven't said anything about imprisonment. I do think that abortionists should be liable to jail time though if they are performing them illegally here.

Crumble Froo wrote: »

i can't look after myself at the moment. in short, i have a lot of issues, prevalent of those are eating disorders. i find it difficult to eat healthily to provide sufficient food/nutrients to myself. particularly given my pay rates, it feels a lot more difficult to justify the extortionate price of fruit and veg and healthy stuff like that. we take every precaution against pregancy, but contraception is never 100% certain.

Interesting point contraception isn't 100% certain. One should only have sex if they are able to deal with the potential consequences responsibly in my view anyway. People might regard that as being a bit antiquidated but it's the only foolproof approach to take on it.

Crumble Froo wrote: »

so if a woman is unlucky enough to have an unwanted pregnancy, which she has no right to terminate, she has to endure the miserableness of pregnancy, no drinking, crazy healthy eating, hospital costs and time off work, just to give up the baby to some couple she's never met?

Giving up a baby to a loving mother and father is better than killing it.

Crumble Froo wrote: »

times like that, i wish i was a bloke. man, you'd get off easy.

As O'Coonassa said it's probably better not to be in a serious relationship with someone who is pro-choice if you have pro-life values if you don't want a child of yours to be aborted.

Crumble Froo

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I wouldn't use the word unlucky exactly because the woman would have chosen to have sex (except in cases of rape of course) but unfortunately you're right because the alternative is to kill someone. I for one am glad that my natural mother went through with all of the above

well. if i was a man and chose sex, the worst that would happen was that if i ended up fathering a child, i would have to pay some money every month.

if i was a woman and chose to have sex, then the worst that could happen would be that i got pregnant, had a particularly miserable pregnancy with lots of nausea and health problems, followed by a few excruciating hours of giving birth, then the **** short term memory for a while, the hospital bills and the time off work. if i chose to adopt, apparently it can be quite heart wrenching to give the kid away. if i chose to keep it, i lose a few years of working (and again, not a resident, not entitled to ANY payments), or hte cost of putting a kid in care (might as well skip work for all the money i end up with), and my life not being my own for at least 18 years.

so with regard to being a woman, and ending up in the situation where sex caused pregnancy, i would certianly consider it to be 'unlucky'.

Malari

Sam Vimes wrote: »

No everyone wouldn't agree with me there. And of course it's not as simple as "animals aren't sentient". An ape is much higher than a termite for example and I'd be against testing on apes. So really it depends on the animal and it depends on what is being done to them.

For example, I'm for embryonic stem cell research for the same reason I wouldn't be totally against war. Sometimes it's necessary for some people to die to save millions and that's sort of what's happening with STR. In the same vein I'm for eating animals because people need to eat but against hunting for sport. And again in the same vein, I'm for abortion if the woman's life is in danger or if the child is severely handicapped but against it being used as if it's another form of contraception by people who don't want to be inconvenienced a human life

Sometimes things can be justified but "I don't feel like it" is not a justification for killing someone

I just think your criteria are a little arbitrary. A severly handicapped child is an inconvenience too. But you think it's ok to abort that and not a "normal" foetus at a very early stage of pregnancy? How soon can you tell how handicapped a foetus is anyway?

People apply different values to all the situations you listed above. There is no good and bad that can be the same for everyone. To me someone's son, lover, father, brother whatever, dying in a war is infinitely more tragic than an abortion.