Abortion

ParkRunner

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

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

Of course not as it is the murder of another human being and they have an absolute right to life. However the law as it stands in Ireland disproportionately favours the interest of the foetus over the rights of pregnant women, in my opinion, thereby jeopardising women’s health and well-being and resulting in abortions performed illegally or abroad

ParkRunner

Jakkass wrote: »

If you are truly against killing another you wouldn't advocate the choice to someone. .

I wouldn't advocate any choice to them, I would urge them to seek professional assistance. If they on their own device come to the conclusion that they wish to have an abortion, I think it would only cause more trauma if I started saying the professional advice you got was wrong and I will not support you.

philologos

EF wrote: »

Of course not as it is the murder of another human being and they have an absolute right to life. However the law as it stands in Ireland disproportionately favours the interest of the foetus over the rights of pregnant women, in my opinion, thereby jeopardising women’s health and well-being and resulting in abortions performed illegally or abroad

Apply what is in bold to the unborn and you will stand where I stand.

I don't think it's disproportionate to come to a via media in relation to the situation. Adoption is the only way you can respect both sets of rights fairly. Infact it's disproportionate to mute the rights of the unborn, unjust, unfair, and infact plain discriminatory. The West is meant to be an area that advocates equality. Perhaps they should start showing it.

On your response to my post: You don't get my point. If you are against the death of other life you wouldn't advocate people to have a choice over whether someone should live or die. I can't support abortion, and I refuse to except when it would bring fatality to mother and child.

ParkRunner

Jakkass wrote: »

On your response to my post: You don't get my point. If you are against the death of other life you wouldn't advocate people to have a choice over whether someone should live or die. I can't support abortion, and I refuse to except when it would bring fatality to mother and child.

At what stage therefore does life begin in your opinion? Is it wrong to use contraception in your opinion as potentially a human life could have developed had a method of contraception not been used?

philologos

EF wrote: »

At what stage therefore does life begin in your opinion? Is it wrong to use contraception in your opinion as potentially a human life could have developed had a method of contraception not been used?

Life begins when biology has found that it begins. The zygote stage is when growth is seen. Growth is an attribute of life. Therefore rationally one would have to say at the point of fusion between the sperm and the ova is the beginning stage of life.

No, contraception is perfectly acceptable in my book. Sperm and ova are not human lives. They are pre-requisites of human life. I personally would advocate it only within marriage, but people will do what they do. It doesn't destroy a formed human life. Could have formed is not the same as actually being formed.

As an aside: this must have been the strongest pro-life percent on a boards poll ever. 37% is quite encouraging actually.

ParkRunner

It's an interesting debate and thankfully there are more options out there for women who are experiencing a crisis pregnancy than there were in the past.

I am not pro-abortion but the reality is that it happens and when the country has achieved some sort of stability economically hopefully it will be looked at again in terms of drawing up legislation confirming what the exact position is.

If not, the chances are that a case will be taken which meets the admissibility criteria of the European Court of Human Rights and all the issues can then be fully argued and ruled upon

moar

Aborted fetuses should be given to the poor to eat.

They're not people so it's ok, right?

Epic Tissue

Nothing wrong with an aul abortion :cool:

rainbow kirby

Jakkass wrote: »

As an aside: this must have been the strongest pro-life percent on a boards poll ever. 37% is quite encouraging actually.

To be honest, I think that's down to the phrasing of the poll. There are plenty of people who, though they would not personally support abortion, would not deny the right of others to have one if they so wish.

dr.bollocko

moar wrote: »

Aborted fetuses should be given to the poor to eat.

They're not people so it's ok, right?

Good and banned forever. Please carry on.

JC 2K3

Jakkass wrote: »

Life begins when biology has found that it begins. The zygote stage is when growth is seen. Growth is an attribute of life. Therefore rationally one would have to say at the point of fusion between the sperm and the ova is the beginning stage of life.

No, contraception is perfectly acceptable in my book. Sperm and ova are not human lives. They are pre-requisites of human life. I personally would advocate it only within marriage, but people will do what they do. It doesn't destroy a formed human life. Could have formed is not the same as actually being formed.

Thought experiment:

Scientists come up with a way to undo the fusion process and separate a zygote back to the sperm and ovum it began as. Is this murder, given that they can refuse and become the exact same person again? If it is not, then does it not show that sperm and ova have more significance than you're attributing to them?

philologos

rainbow kirby wrote: »

To be honest, I think that's down to the phrasing of the poll. There are plenty of people who, though they would not personally support abortion, would not deny the right of others to have one if they so wish.

Excuses, excuses, excuses

JC 2K3: I'd argue that once life is formed, life is formed and that is it. Again arguing with hypotheticals isn't much use if we are going to deal with the reality of the situation.

JC 2K3

Well, as I've mentioned before on this thread, what "life" is defined as biologically means nothing in this debate. It's about when rights should be conferred on an individual and why.

I believe that to confer rights at conception is as arbitrary as to confer them at some stage during pregnancy or at birth. The thought experiment I posted highlights why I think this.

philologos

JC 2K3 wrote: »

Well, as I've mentioned before on this thread, what "life" is defined as biologically means nothing in this debate. It's about when rights should be conferred on an individual and why.

Funny. I'd argue that anything but what "life" is defined as biologically really matters in this debate. All this discussion of what you think human life is is irrelevant if we know what it is.

JC 2K3 wrote: »

I believe that to confer rights at conception is as arbitrary as to confer them at some stage during pregnancy or at birth. The thought experiment I posted highlights why I think this.

All the reasons people have given in this thread can be applied outside the womb as well as inside. Nobody has given any decent solid reason why there should be a different standard inside the womb than outside. That is what is missing from pro-choice argumentation.

dee8839

I just think that until you're in the actual position of having to make that decision, you aren't truly qualified to have a stance on this subject.

I was once in the position where despite my then BF and my best efforts, we had a pregnancy scare. It was terrifying as we were very young, in college and completely financially insecure. And it did make me think about what I would do if it came to it.

To be honest, I think I would have had an abortion. And that is selfish. And I do think it would haunt me if I did. But at the same time, I know that I would not be able to provide the type of life that a child deserves.

I remember, in religion class in secondary school, our teacher told us that the foetus appears to be able to feel pain if you have a late-stage abortion, as in you can feel the foetus kicking and writhing afterwards, dying. I'm not saying that's definitely true. But its a chilling thought.

So basically, personally I would only have an abortion if I felt I wasn't at the stage in life that I could be a fit mother. But I am against it in theory. It really is a decision you can't make unless you actually have to.

JC 2K3

Jakkass wrote: »

Funny. I'd argue that anything but what "life" is defined as biologically really matters in this debate. All this discussion of what you think human life is is irrelevant if we know what it is.



All the reasons people have given in this thread can be applied outside the womb as well as inside. Nobody has given any decent solid reason why there should be a different standard inside the womb than outside. That is what is missing from pro-choice argumentation.

And I'd bet you can't give a solid reason why there should be a different standard 2 seconds before a sperm and ovum merge and after they merge......

You can say that it's biologically considered to be a life at that point, but it doesn't logically follow that it should have rights.

I could equally say that up until birth it's biologically considered to be a parasite, and thus we don't confer rights on it until after birth.

philologos

JC 2K3 wrote: »

And I'd bet you can't give a solid reason why there should be a different standard 2 seconds before a sperm and ovum merge and after they merge......

I have, several times in this thread. The first in my response to Terry. It's rather obvious I would have thought why pre-requisites to human life, are not human life itself until they fuse together to be able to grow into a baby.

JC 2K3 wrote: »

You can say that it's biologically considered to be a life at that point, but it doesn't logically follow that it should have rights.

All humans have the right to life. A human life is none the less human. I really don't know in what other situations the "right to life" is worthy of documenting in international human rights. Why do you think it's there? Even if someone is dead at war, they are not being denied the right to life because they have already lived, albeit a relatively short time.

JC 2K3 wrote: »

I could equally say that up until birth it's biologically considered to be a parasite, and thus we don't confer rights on it until after birth.

No you couldn't really. It's the same life pattern from conception to birth, and from birth to death. Dependence doesn't limit it's rights. If you don't want a child, be extremely careful, or don't have sex at all seems to be the reasonable way to deal with it. There is a decision to be made before abortion or pregnancy even comes into the question.

JC 2K3

Jakkass wrote: »

All humans have the right to life.

Says who? That's an assumptive statement. You have to make a case as to why that is true. It's not a self evident truth.

philologos

Do you wonder why they are called human rights JC 2K3? Seriously.

Human rights refers to the "basic rights and freedoms to which all humans are entitled." Examples of rights and freedoms which are often thought ...

The basic rights and freedoms that all humans should be guaranteed, such as the right to life and liberty, freedom of thought and expression, and ...

Some distinguish this from birth and some say for all humans. I don't see why on earth you would call them "human rights" if they aren't applicable to all humans however. I don't see what else the right to life could apply to apart from in the case of the unborn. If they aren't for all humans it is discriminatory and an injustice.

JC 2K3

Jakkass wrote: »

Do you wonder why they are called human rights JC 2K3?.

Well I believe that if there existed a word in the English language to mean a human that has been born, that that word would have been used instead of "human" when the phrase "human rights" was coined.

Jakkass wrote: »

Some distinguish this from birth and some say for all humans. I don't see why on earth you would call them "human rights" if they aren't applicable to all humans however. I don't see what else the right to life could apply to apart from in the case of the unborn. If they aren't for all humans it is discriminatory and an injustice.

The way I see it, right to life just means the right not to be killed, doesn't specifically have to refer to the unborn and therefore doesn't imply that the unborn are necessarily included in human rights.

In fact, the UN seems to declare that human rights only apply to those ex utero in the first article of the declaration of human rights:

Article 1
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

ParkRunner

All the constitution says is that the State "acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother".

A provision as vague and uncertain as this to me shows that it wasn't the intention to grant the unborn child an absolute right to life.

5318008!

Asking "At what point does life begin?" is a bit like asking "At what point did our ancestors become human?".
Using this question as your moral guide will either make you decide that "every sperm is sacred" or give you an argument riddled with holes.

Instead the quiestion should be: "At what point does it become wrong to interfere with the development of a human being?".


There's millions of embryos in labs all over the world. To bring them all to term would be physically impossible. If you interfere the embryo dies, If you don't interfere the embryo dies. If, by interfering you can use this embryo (which had 0 chance of becoming a concious being) to do good then surely this is what morality would demand of you.


A fetus in the womb is already on it's way. If you interfere, the fetus dies. If you don't interfere the fetus will most likely go on to live a happy and fullfilled life. By interfering, you are robbing from that fetus what otherwise would most likely have been a great life.

It is physically possible to bring all unwanted newborns in the world to the point of being self concious beings. If you kill a newborn baby you are not killing a self-concious being, but you are robbing from that baby what otherwise would most likely have been a great life.
To argue based on self-conciousness or intelligence would lead you to conclude that killing a newborn baby is no worse than killing a rat.

Scientific advancement will make it so a baby can be brought to term outside a womb. Where does this leave the "birth argument"?

Galvasean

rainbow kirby wrote: »

To be honest, I think that's down to the phrasing of the poll.

Indeed. Calling it a child implies that the pregnancy is already late term.
Now for someone like me I'd be opposed to late term abortions but more open to the idea of early term abortions under certain circumstances.
The polls inability to differenciate between the two has stopped me from voting.

ParkRunner

The chances are if a baby were to be born before 20 weeks, it would have about a 10% chance of being born alive, which is why the mother, who is keeping the child alive, deserves to have her rights respected.

JC 2K3

5318008! wrote: »

A fetus in the womb is already on it's way. If you interfere, the fetus dies. If you don't interfere the fetus will most likely go on to live a happy and fullfilled life. By interfering, you are robbing from that fetus what otherwise would most likely have been a great life.

It is physically possible to bring all unwanted newborns in the world to the point of being self concious beings. If you kill a newborn baby you are not killing a self-concious being, but you are robbing from that baby what otherwise would most likely have been a great life.

By that logic, if you have sex wearing a condom, you're robbing life from the fetus that would have been formed otherwise....

netwhizkid

Interesting to see how many people favour the murder of the defenceless. With so many affective contraception options available today it should never ever come down to abortion.

I was born in the middle of the 1980's during that recession and my parents were penniless and broke, the Council mortgage was foreclosing on their home yet they had me and never even contemplated Abortion. My father never shirked his responsibilities and went on not only to save the house and pay the mortgage outright but also support my mother and both I am my sibling turned out very successful and my mother and father live happily today. My arrival during dark days in Ireland gave my parents new hope. There is never an excuse for an abortion and it is only running away from the responsibilities of life that people must face up to.

Abortion is bad for society and has helped cause the decline in Western Europe's birthrate to the point where in less than 100 years the populations will have halved or even quartered because women are not facing upto the reality that everyone must bear at least 3 children if society and civilisation is to grow. Anything less than 2 children represents negative growth and this is leading to the pensions crisis facing Ireland and the west where there are less young productive workers coming onstream to pay taxes and the massive burden faced to the excequer by the greying of Europe. Abortion is contributing to this as millions never get to see the light of day.

5318008!

JC 2K3 wrote: »

By that logic, if you have sex wearing a condom, you're robbing life from the fetus that would have been formed otherwise....

Clearly not. That would be the "every sperm is sacred" view.

By wearing a condom you are not robbing anything of life. That human being is not already on it's way, It is entirely dependant on your actions. If you were to get up and leave, that sperm and ovum would die. If it's going to die anyway why not get some good out of it?

I see no reason as to why wearing a condom would be any worse than abstaining, which is obviously not wrong as it would be physically impossible to bring all sperm and ova to the point of self-conciousness.

ParkRunner

netwhizkid wrote: »

Abortion is bad for society and has helped cause the decline in Western Europe's birthrate to the point where in less than 100 years the populations will have halved or even quartered because women are not facing upto the reality that everyone must bear at least 3 children if society and civilisation is to grow. Anything less than 2 children represents negative growth and this is leading to the pensions crisis facing Ireland and the west where there are less young productive workers coming onstream to pay taxes and the massive burden faced to the excequer by the greying of Europe. Abortion is contributing to this as millions never get to see the light of day.

Could the world survive with an ever increasing population? There could come a point where people would outstrip resources leading to a catastrophe

philologos

5318008! wrote: »

Instead the quiestion should be: "At what point does it become wrong to interfere with the development of a human being?".

From conception IMO. The every sperm is sacred view isn't even relevant to the discussion. Some people seem to think it is despite it being clarified already.

5318008! wrote: »

There's millions of embryos in labs all over the world. To bring them all to term would be physically impossible. If you interfere the embryo dies, If you don't interfere the embryo dies. If, by interfering you can use this embryo (which had 0 chance of becoming a concious being) to do good then surely this is what morality would demand of you.

That doesn't affect the ethics of abortion at all. Just because something exists doesn't mean that it is right.

5318008! wrote: »

A fetus in the womb is already on it's way. If you interfere, the fetus dies. If you don't interfere the fetus will most likely go on to live a happy and fullfilled life. By interfering, you are robbing from that fetus what otherwise would most likely have been a great life.

Indeed. Humans shouldn't interfere.

5318008! wrote: »

Scientific advancement will make it so a baby can be brought to term outside a womb. Where does this leave the "birth argument"?

None should have rights by pro-choice argumentation.

JC 2K3

5318008! wrote: »

I see no reason as to why wearing a condom would be any worse than abstaining, which is obviously not wrong as it would be physically impossible to bring all sperm and ova to the point of self-conciousness.

Contraception interferes with the act of sex, stopping the possibility of reproduction.
Abortion interferes with pregnancy, stopping the possibility of reproduction.

Why should there be an obligation on us to bring every fertilised ovum to the point of self consciousness as long as it is feasible to do so?

netwhizkid

EF wrote: »

Could the world survive with an ever increasing population? There could come a point where people would outstrip resources leading to a catastrophe

The world could easily support anywhere upto 10 or 15 billion people if resources were managed properly and new more efficient technologies brought onstream. At the moment Europe and the "West" is seeing its population die as not alone is it not growing it is not even renewing itself. The only growth recorded is from inward migration and this brings its own challenges and sets of problems, if current Demographic trends continue Europeans will be minorities in their own continent due to unrestricted immigration and low birth rates.

This will have disastrous results for our culture and way of life. Ancient Rome and most other major civilisations say their decline begin with low birth rates. High birth rates are the engine that powers an economy and keeps sustaining growth.

Ireland has one of the highest birthrates in the EU and when I was in Germany recently I was shocked at how little Children I saw, in Ireland it is common to see the "yummy mummy" and SUV full of kids and women pushing prams and going about their business. In Germany it was an ocean of young professionals going about their business with Military subatomic precision and there seemed to be no families or no time for Children. This will lead to their downfall as we all begin as Children and like it or lump it we will all some day face the cold earth from whence forward we came. The lord said go forth and multiply and even the most anti religious should take this statement more seriously.

JC 2K3

Forcing women to go through with unwanted pregnancies is not the way to solve a population crisis.

Uncle Arthur

JC 2K3 wrote: »

Thought experiment:

Scientists come up with a way to undo the fusion process and separate a zygote back to the sperm and ovum it began as. Is this murder, given that they can refuse and become the exact same person again? If it is not, then does it not show that sperm and ova have more significance than you're attributing to them?

thought experiment:
would it be alright to murder someone if scientists had the ability to bring people back from the dead?

Uncle Arthur

JC 2K3 wrote: »

Forcing women to go through with unwanted pregnancies is not the way to solve a population crisis.

what about fathers should they not have equal say seing as they are equally responsible for the pregnancy??

philologos

JC 2K3 wrote: »

Forcing women to go through with unwanted pregnancies is not the way to solve a population crisis.

Forcing the unborn to die is not the way to deal with anything.

bronte

Uncle Arthur wrote: »

what about fathers should they not have equal say seing as they are equally responsible for the pregnancy??

Certainly if they take half the responsibility for carrying the child.

Galvasean

netwhizkid wrote: »

Abortion is bad for society and has helped cause the decline in Western Europe's birthrate to the point where in less than 100 years the populations will have halved or even quartered because women are not facing upto the reality that everyone must bear at least 3 children if society and civilisation is to grow. Anything less than 2 children represents negative growth and this is leading to the pensions crisis facing Ireland and the west where there are less young productive workers coming onstream to pay taxes and the massive burden faced to the excequer by the greying of Europe. Abortion is contributing to this as millions never get to see the light of day.

Abortion is responsible for the economic crisis? Uh huh...
While you rave on about abortion being the cause for a decline in the young population in the western world, you totally miss the far more contributing factors of increased awareness of/access to contraception (condoms, the pill etc.) and simple family planning practices.

5318008!

JC 2K3 wrote: »

Contraception interferes with the act of sex, stopping the possibility of reproduction.
Abortion interferes with pregnancy, stopping the possibility of reproduction.

Why should there be an obligation on us to bring every fertilised ovum to the point of self consciousness as long as it is feasible to do so?

Embryo in a lab. You run away, it dies.
Sperm / Ova, before sex. You run away, they die.
Fetus in womb. You run away, it lives.

A developing fetus is already set on a path that will see through to birth without any need for human interferance (at which stage i hope you'd agree we should bring it to the point of it being able to look after itself).

Personally, I don't think birth is the clear cut off point some people view it as (especially given somewhat recent medical advances).

The fact that so many people who are pro-abortion are against late term abortions would lend to this.

Personally, I think i've found a nice clear cut off point that works for me. You may dissagree and that's your opinion (maybe birth is the best of a bad bunch). I'd love to debate this out, but i really need to cram for exams and I could easily end up posting here till 4am, which would make me fail. See ya .

Censorsh!t

I'm pro choice, but I wouldnt take any chances in getting pregnant in the first place! And if I did get pregnant, I'd make sure to carry out an abortion early.

Besides, too many people in the world:p

ParkRunner

Would those in favour of preserving the life of the unborn child be of the opinion that a woman found travelling to England, for the purposes of having an abortion, should be treated as a criminal and prevented from travelling?

philologos

EF: It's hard to enforce unless the British come to a mutual agreement with the Republic of Ireland not to allow Irish people to receive abortions in British hospitals.

Nevyn

Fetuses, fetuses get your deep fried fetuses here.
You want sweet chili dip with that or not?

ParkRunner

Jakkass wrote: »

EF: It's hard to enforce unless the British come to a mutual agreement with the Republic of Ireland not to allow Irish people to receive abortions in British hospitals.

True so we are stuck with a situation where there are approximately 5,000 Irish women a year travelling to England to have the procedure carried out and to reflect this reality I think they should be allowed to access proper medical treatment and support in this country to reduce the possible adverse physical and mental affects of having an abortion.

All we are doing by keeping abortion illegal here is we are forcing women to delay having an abortion, which they are going to have anyway and surely public policy should be to encourage early as opposed to later abortion..where the unborn child is going to be aborted anyway.

joanbrent

Abortion is a highly personal decision that many women are sure they'll never have to think about until they're suddenly faced with an unexpected pregnancy.

ParkRunner

Thaedydal wrote: »

Fetuses, fetuses get your deep fried fetuses here.
You want sweet chili dip with that or not?

Not really apt for a moderator of the personal issues forum in fairness!

4zn76tysfajdxp

Thaedydal wrote: »

Fetuses, fetuses get your deep fried fetuses here.
You want sweet chili dip with that or not?

Ew, Thaedydal, that's sick... I would've expected better from an established poster such as yourself.

BBQ sauce please.

philologos

EF wrote: »

True so we are stuck with a situation where there are approximately 5,000 Irish women a year travelling to England to have the procedure carried out and to reflect this reality I think they should be allowed to access proper medical treatment and support in this country to reduce the possible adverse physical and mental affects of having an abortion.

If you are talking about the after effects of abortion, that is fine. They should get support from trauma and other things. It doesn't mean that we should encourage abortion to be legalised here. I don't consider having an abortion to be "medical treatment", but mere barbarism.

EF wrote: »

All we are doing by keeping abortion illegal here is we are forcing women to delay having an abortion, which they are going to have anyway and surely public policy should be to encourage early as opposed to later abortion..where the unborn child is going to be aborted anyway.

I don't see why we should legalise it at all. Our government has promised to support the rights of the unborn. We should be the most progressive country in Europe by respecting that the unborn has rights too and we need to consider them legally. As I say, I have no problem with encouraging adoptive services for mothers, but abortion is too far. Abortion should not be encouraged at all except in situations where fatality is likely to the mother.

Nevyn

EF wrote: »

Not really apt for a moderator of the personal issues forum in fairness!

Encase you didn't notice this isn't personal issues or parenting, if you have an issue with my post report it.

Peyton Thoughtless Armband wrote: »

Ew, Thaedydal, that's sick... I would've expected better from an established poster such as yourself.

No one who knows me would be shocked by that.

Peyton Thoughtless Armband wrote: »

BBQ sauce please.

Unlike that, I mean really BBQ no way dude, seriously try hon sin instead.

orestes

Looks like Thaed has killed this thread off early, and it never had a chance to develop to fruition, murderer

Nevyn

/hides wire coat hanger and crochette hook behind her back and knocks over the cup of yarrow and raspberry leaf tea.