Abortion

philologos

Sam Vimes: Just an update. You know they can produce stem-cells which are actually better than embryonic stem cells from adult cells? Pluripotent stem cells are actually much much better. It's a wonder why people aren't publicising it more though. With two alterations to the gene in the US and in Japan they have had huge success with this. I am so against the stem-cells in UCC if they can do this by other means.

Check out this PDF and this audio from a Christians In Science conference explaining it all.

Best stay on topic however

Noffles

I find it laughable that someone in this thread is saying that people should not have sex unless they can deal with the consequences.... That simply ruins a good old shag!

WillieCocker

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

Agreed.
Say that to those who aren't "Lucky" enough to have kids.

Uncle Arthur

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.

oh my god the horror of it all! that there has completely changed my outlook on this whole debate!! you cant be having that! abortions for all!!

Noffles

Jakkass wrote: »

Sam Vimes: Just an update. You know they can produce stem-cells which are actually better than embryonic stem cells from adult cells? Pluripotent stem cells are actually much much better. It's a wonder why people aren't publicising it more though. With two alterations to the gene in the US and in Japan they have had huge success with this. I am so against the stem-cells in UCC if they can do this by other means.

Check out this PDF and this audio from a Christians In Science conference explaining it all.

Best stay on topic however

Christians in Science... almost and oxymoron there!

Uncle Arthur

Noffles wrote: »

I find it laughable that someone in this thread is saying that people should not have sex unless they can deal with the consequences.... That simply ruins a good old shag!

and abortion ruins a good old life

philologos

Noffles wrote: »

Christians in Science... almost and oxymoron there!

The facts about it are there, and the guy who spoke about it is a specialist in the area so meh it really doesn't matter what you think of the prospect of Christians working in scientific fields

Uncle Arthur deals with your point about sex and responsibility adequately.

WindSock

JimiTime wrote: »

I'm saying if you don't want children so much that you would kill one thats growing in your belly, then you should think about a bit of self control.

Sometimes contraceptives don't work and/or sometimes women don't have a choice if their rapist decides not use them at all.

My child

Thats between yourself and the woman you had sex with, and not the 2 million approx other women in this country.

You believe in God do you?

Not relevent to this discussion but here goes; I don't disbelieve in the possibility of a god, many gods or no god and I certainly don't follow an old book that was written and altered by men 2,000 years ago.

Perhaps you would prefer if I asked why Women evolved a clitoris.

And here we go with the dehumanising of unborn human children.

I guess I don't value unborn life the same way as you. But then again I have the advantage of being equipped with the appropriate organs to really know what I personally deem as human or not.

WillieCocker

Malari wrote: »

To me someone's son, lover, father, brother whatever, dying in a war is infinitely more tragic than an abortion.

:pac:
WHAT!!!?
Someone who chooses to fight for whatever reason and kill somone just as insignificant as himself and you call it tragic.:eek:

Sam Vimes

Crumble Froo wrote: »

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'.

I suppose you could say you're unlucky to be a fertile woman but if you don't want to do any of the above you can either A) not put yourself in a situation where it's possible to get pregnant or kill someone to prevent it happening. Neither of which involve luck

Malari wrote: »

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?

I wouldn't call it arbitrary. Basically if you want to do something "immoral" you should have a damn good reason.

Aborting because of a severe handicap isn't to do with inconveniencing the parents, it's to do with the quality of life of the child. When you can tell depends on the specific problem. Downs syndrome for example can be detected very early due to the extra chromosome and most Downs foetuses are aborted I believe

Malari wrote: »

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.

They're both tragic but in the case of some wars and STR, they're necessary evils and the good far outweighs the bad. People are dying to save millions of others, not because a woman wants to be able to go out on the piss and doesn't want stretch marks

Jakkass wrote: »

Sam Vimes: Just an update. You know they can produce stem-cells which are actually better than embryonic stem cells from adult cells? Pluripotent stem cells are actually much much better. It's a wonder why people aren't publicising it more though. With two alterations to the gene in the US and in Japan they have had huge success with this. I am so against the stem-cells in UCC if they can do this by other means.

Check out this PDF and this audio from a Christians In Science conference explaining it all.

Best stay on topic however

Yeah I heard something about that but I was under the impression the research was in its early stages because if the research has been successful there's really no need for a debate

Noffles

Jakkass wrote: »

The facts about it are there, and the guy who spoke about it is a specialist in the area so meh it really doesn't matter what you think of the prospect of Christians working in scientific fields

Uncle Arthur deals with your point about sex and responsibility adequately.

You can all preach as much of your bile as you like the fact of the matter is though:

Ireland will not allow a women to act freely and terminate if they wish.

The UK WILL allow this and Irish women go there in their hundreds to act "freely"

But I've strayed away from the actual point of this thread... must of been all the preaching and "thou shalt not... " that distracted me!

WindSock

Uncle Arthur wrote: »

oh my god the horror of it all! that there has completely changed my outlook on this whole debate!! you cant be having that! abortions for all!!

Funny how you left out the rest of her sentance. She isn't arguing that that is the sole reason to not have a baby (as valid as it is)

WindSock

WillieCocker wrote: »

:pac:
WHAT!!!?
Someone who chooses to fight for whatever reason and kill somone just as insignificant as himself and you call it tragic.:eek:

Many people don't choose to go to war.

philologos

WindSock wrote: »

Not relevent to this discussion but here goes; I don't disbelieve in the possibility of a god, many gods or no god and I certainly don't follow an old book that was written and altered by men 2,000 years ago.

You bring up an irrelevant point about God's purpose for the uterus, and then you tell JimiTime that his point is irrelevant? Just take a minute to think about hypocrisy and then look at this situation again.

"Written and altered" - It has been suggested by some theologians that there are a handful of disputed passages, however 99.9% of the Bible is as it was in the first century. You would need to provide textual and theological evidence to show that the Bible has been altered seriously in respect to the morals of life (as this is relevant to the discussion) from the 1st century until the present. I don't think you can somehow, but I'll give you a shot.

WindSock wrote: »

I guess I don't value unborn life the same way as you. But then again I have the advantage of being equipped with the appropriate organs to really know what I personally deem as human or not.

Are you serious?

"I have a uterus therefore I know what a human is" is ridiculous and it has no bearing on the objective standard set by the Government and the people in the 1983 pro-life amendement.

Crumble Froo

Jakkass wrote: »

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.

emmm... im not in the US. and why should it be the responsibility of the government to provide for people who are not citizens/residents of their country? it is recommended that one has travel insurance coming here, i did, but it lasted only 4 months after i officially moved here.

I don't consider you to have a right to deny another their rights.

and at that point, i don't consider them to have rights in the first place. i guess we'll have to agree to disagree there.

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.

compromise? there is no compromise there. as far as you're concerned, it's either no sex, or accidently get pregnant and go through with that. where's the compromise?

im in a long term relationship. ive moved half way across the world to live with this man. neither of us believe in marriage, but we are both truly dedicated to each other. legally we are partners and have, as far as i know, the same rights as a married couple. but we're not entitled to have sex just in case i get pregnant at some point over the next 20 years? not to mention he already has a 16 year old and himself couldn't imagine dealing with another kid from zero up? but no sex, just in case we get pregnant, cos we couldn't cope with a kid?

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.

well, maybe it's a bit redundant arguing this on boards.ie, but the laws of the irish state are not relevant to me. abortion is legal where i live.

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".

more like, it doesnt look, act or behave like a proper human. heart, brain, anything. a newborn baby could survive without its mother, a foetus could not. parasitic.

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

it's a law for a reason :pac:

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

and i disagree vehemently with that, having worked with people with learning disabilities in the past. still proper humans. but anyway, we're talking about hitler, rationality doesnt really count here...

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.

i dont believe that a 2month old foetus is a person. it cannot make any sort of choice. it is completely redundant without the mother. to you it's appalling, to me, it's entirely rational and fair. again, i guess we'll have to agree to disagree, i can't imagine either of us saying anything to change the others' mind.

If it kills the embryo yes.

then just no sex? at all, ever, if you don't intend having kids? :eek:

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

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.

i would consider an early abortion, or even the morning after pill a responsible action. again... long term relationship, already with one child, no intention or means of supporting another... i can't imagine living with my life partner and not having sex for another 25ish years until i hit the menopause. particularly as he's quite older than me and statistically stands a good chance of not living that long.

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

prove they'll be loving.

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.

my partner and i are both pro-choice. personally, i don't think i could have an abortion, but i believe strongly that a person should have that choice. i am in a serious relationship and have no intention of abstaining from sex for the rest of our lives, or of having any kids.

and i meant that men get off easy in that they dont have any huge repurcussions from getting a woman pregnant, bar paying child support, maybe. women have to deal with 9 months pregnancy, missing work, hospital charges and a feckin baby.

WillieCocker

Noffles wrote: »

Ireland will not allow a women to act freely

!

I have a pair of knickers at the ready......

philologos

Noffles wrote: »

Ireland will not allow a women to act freely and terminate if they wish.

Why should people have the right to decide about another persons life in the womb?

Noffles wrote: »

But I've strayed away from the actual point of this thread... must of been all the preaching and "thou shalt not... " that distracted me!

Did you miss all the "it's my body therefore I have the right to deprive human rights" malarky earlier?

Malari

WillieCocker wrote: »

:pac:
WHAT!!!?
Someone who chooses to fight for whatever reason and kill somone just as insignificant as himself and you call it tragic.:eek:

You really do see things plainly don't you? What about an invasion? What about fighting in defense of other innocents? That's not tragic?

Noffles

Jakkass wrote: »

Why should people have the right to decide about another persons life in the womb?



Did you miss all the "it's my body therefore I have the right to deprive human rights" malarky earlier?

I possibly did... but in my opinion it comes down to this, a woman has a choice and no one should be able to dictate what they do in the early stages of an unwanted pregnancy...

It's a huge argument and will go on and on I'm sure... but as long as they have a choice I don't really care.

WindSock

Jakkass wrote: »

You bring up an irrelevant point about God's purpose for the uterus, and then you tell JimiTime that his point is irrelevant? Just take a minute to think about hypocrisy and then look at this situation again.

My belief in god is irrelevant to this discussion, yes. That was clitoris, not uterus.

"Written and altered" - It has been suggested by some theologians that there are a handful of disputed passages, however 99.9% of the Bible is as it was in the first century. You would need to provide textual and theological evidence to show that the Bible has been altered seriously in respect to the morals of life (as this is relevant to the discussion) from the 1st century until the present. I don't think you can somehow, but I'll give you a shot.

I would never even dream of beginning to try to discuss the bible with yourself, you have forgotten more than I could ever learn. However I am letting you know my stance on what I think in regards to what god is and what the bible is.

"I have a uterus therefore I know what a human is" is ridiculous and it has no bearing on the objective standard set by the Government and the people in the 1983 pro-life amendement.

Well, only I would know what grows inside of me, you wouldn't. Although I wish you had the ability to know what it is like.

Crumble Froo

Uncle Arthur wrote: »

oh my god the horror of it all! that there has completely changed my outlook on this whole debate!! you cant be having that! abortions for all!!

:rolleyes: just pick on one thing i said. for my average daily/weekly life, yes, i do quite enjoy a drink to unwind. particularly as pregnancy would stop me from surfing and skating. i'd go on a bit more, but it's 1am, and ive got to be up for work in 4 hours. enjoy nitpicking and judging while im sleeping.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I suppose you could say you're unlucky to be a fertile woman but if you don't want to do any of the above you can either A) not put yourself in a situation where it's possible to get pregnant or kill someone to prevent it happening. Neither of which involve luck

i try my very best to keep myself from a situation where i could get pregnant. in 7 years, i have had sex without a condom only once. i would be quite happy not to be a fertile woman, but the monetory and health cost of changing that are a little more than im willing to pay.
yeah, i could kill someone. why not kill my partner, bastard can't get me pregnant then... somehow, i reckon that could be a bit more of a shcoking crime than disposing of some cells that have started growing inside me.

anyway. at the end of the day, there's nothing anyone can do to change my opinion on this. 2 years ago, i'd have probably been in the middle, leaning toward the pro life side. a little life experience later, and i would say that im very unlikely to ever have an abortion, but would support legislation that gives women the choice if they want to .

philologos

Crumble Froo wrote: »

and at that point, i don't consider them to have rights in the first place. i guess we'll have to agree to disagree there.

Human rights are universal, not subjective.

Crumble Froo wrote: »

compromise? there is no compromise there. as far as you're concerned, it's either no sex, or accidently get pregnant and go through with that. where's the compromise?

No, I don't suggest that you shouldn't have sex at all. I think that you should be willing to face the consequences if you do have a unplanned pregancy though.

Mother: Right to not have the child.
Child: Right to life.
Compromise: Adoption. Child does not live with his biological mother and father. Mother has pregnancy but does not have to keep the child if she is not willing to.

Crumble Froo wrote: »

im in a long term relationship. ive moved half way across the world to live with this man. neither of us believe in marriage, but we are both truly dedicated to each other. legally we are partners and have, as far as i know, the same rights as a married couple. but we're not entitled to have sex just in case i get pregnant at some point over the next 20 years? not to mention he already has a 16 year old and himself couldn't imagine dealing with another kid from zero up? but no sex, just in case we get pregnant, cos we couldn't cope with a kid?

As I said I'm not saying that you shouldn't have sex with your partner (I personally would advocate it within marriage but other people won't share my views on that, and it doesn't kill another life) but when you insist that your conjugal rights supersede the right to life for the unborn that is when I find issue with it.

Crumble Froo wrote: »

well, maybe it's a bit redundant arguing this on boards.ie, but the laws of the irish state are not relevant to me. abortion is legal where i live.

Most people will be oriented to the Irish law in this respect.

Crumble Froo wrote: »

more like, it doesnt look, act or behave like a proper human. heart, brain, anything. a newborn baby could survive without its mother, a foetus could not. parasitic.

Your argument is from development. I could say I don't think a life is a life because it cannot ride a unicycle. It's irrelevant. Biologically this is a human life. These are just standards that people put on it to justify the killing of another. This is probably the most used fallacy in the abortion debate. If you looked from the start this was already discussed within the first few pages

Crumble Froo wrote: »

it's a law for a reason :pac:

Too late sorry

Crumble Froo wrote: »

and i disagree vehemently with that, having worked with people with learning disabilities in the past. still proper humans. but anyway, we're talking about hitler, rationality doesnt really count here...

Using Hitler in an argument is entirely acceptable

I and other pro-lifers have explained our position from reason within the first few pages of this thread. Pro-choicers have continually appealed to emotion on behalf of the mother with the "It's my body" fallacy, and the fallacy of development being repeated multiple times in the thread.

Crumble Froo wrote: »

i dont believe that a 2month old foetus is a person. it cannot make any sort of choice. it is completely redundant without the mother. to you it's appalling, to me, it's entirely rational and fair. again, i guess we'll have to agree to disagree, i can't imagine either of us saying anything to change the others' mind.

Just because the unborn is voiceless doesn't mean that you have the right to suppress its rights. It's a human life biologically. I know that fact may be hard to deal with, but it's time that we didn't dance around with what we consider to be a life, as I personally could consider any human who doesn't ride a unicycle to work to be not living, or not a person. It's not rational at all it's based on your emotions.

Crumble Froo wrote: »

then just no sex? at all, ever, if you don't intend having kids? :eek:

I've explained this earlier. Feel free, take precautions, but if you do fall pregnant the child has the right to life and you have no right to deny that.

Crumble Froo wrote: »

prove they'll be loving.

That's up to social services to do.

Crumble Froo wrote: »

my partner and i are both pro-choice. personally, i don't think i could have an abortion, but i believe strongly that a person should have that choice. i am in a serious relationship and have no intention of abstaining from sex for the rest of our lives, or of having any kids.

I know, but I'm just saying in general. It mightn't pertain to your personal situation but it seems to be the best solution.

Crumble Froo wrote: »

and i meant that men get off easy in that they dont have any huge repurcussions from getting a woman pregnant, bar paying child support, maybe. women have to deal with 9 months pregnancy, missing work, hospital charges and a feckin baby.

They should take equal responsibility, and I'm against men running away from their responsibility.

Missing work is dealt with by maternity leave, hospital charges can be covered by insurance, and the baby can be given up for adoption.

philologos

WindSock wrote: »

My belief in god is irrelevant to this discussion, yes. That was clitoris, not uterus.

As was your point to JimiTime. And apologies I made a mistake, I meant clitoris yes.

WindSock wrote: »

I would never even dream of beginning to try to discuss the bible with yourself, you have forgotten more than I could ever learn. However I am letting you know my stance on what I think in regards to what god is and what the bible is.

Defending those who are discriminated against is a key virtue in the Biblical text. I feel sorry for any mother who is in this situation. However I cannot morally justify or support the pro-choice position. I feel it is wrong to the core and I cannot deny this. I do feel pity for these women, and if people have made mistakes through abortion I wish them the very best in dealing with what grief they may have.

WindSock wrote: »

Well, only I would know what grows inside of me, you wouldn't. Although I wish you had the ability to know what it is like.

Actually, through science we can all know what is growing in the womb.

JC 2K3

Jakkass wrote: »

Human rights are universal, not subjective.

Errr... I think you'll find they are subjective.

WillieCocker

Malari wrote: »

You really do see things plainly don't you? What about an invasion? What about fighting in defense of other innocents? That's not tragic?

Yea "Choice", you cannot get plainer than that.
War isn't tragic.........it's a fact of life.

"Abortion" on the other hand.........

philologos

Noffles wrote: »

I possibly did... but in my opinion it comes down to this, a woman has a choice and no one should be able to dictate what they do in the early stages of an unwanted pregnancy...

You didn't answer my question mind. Why should anyone have the right to dictate death to a child?

Noffles wrote: »

It's a huge argument and will go on and on I'm sure... but as long as they have a choice I don't really care.

Probably. Having choice over what should happen to other peoples lives is precisely the reason why I do care.

Malari

WillieCocker wrote: »

Yea "Choice", you cannot get plainer than that.
War isn't tragic.........it's a fact of life.

What, you can only have facts or tragedies? I don't get it.

WillieCocker wrote: »

"Abortion" on the other hand.........

...is also a fact of life.

philologos

Malari wrote: »

...is also a fact of life.

I'm a pacifist and a pro-lifer, so I consider both to be wrong. I personally would consider pacifism as a part of pro-life.

5318008!

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.

we could use that logic to defend the killing of newborns.

Abortion is morally questionable, there's no point denying that. And unlike other things which are morally questionable (stem cell research, animal testing) it doesn't really seem to do any massive good to jusity it.


I can see how in the 1970s/80s an abortion could have greatly helped a woman with an unwanted pregnancy (I'm not saying this would have been justification enough for me, just that i can understand the logic involved).
But Ireland has changed a lot since then and society is a lot more accepting. I just don't see any good justifications for it nowadays.

Nodin

Jakkass wrote: »

"Written and altered" - It has been suggested by some theologians that there are a handful of disputed passages, however 99.9% of the Bible is as it was in the first century..

O Goody.

Btw, What does that prove again?

Jakkass wrote: »

You would need to provide textual and theological evidence to show that the Bible has been altered seriously in respect to the morals of life (as this is relevant to the discussion) from the 1st century until the present. I don't think you can somehow, but I'll give you a shot...

However one can say quite easily that the interpretation of the text has not only changed but has branched far and wide. And of course, the question underlying the whole thing is what weight does such a text have over the (for example ) Vedic scriptures or the Egyptian writings.....