Abortion (may contain details that some might find upsetting)

sock puppet

I used to be quite anti-abortion but now I'm not sure. Someone I know very well had an abortion and I don't think any less of her because of it. I suppose I probably lean towards pro-abortion at this stage.

Davidius

Ginja Ninja wrote: »

I'm pro-choice,because the simple fact of the matter is no one has any opinion on what should happen except the mother who is carrying the child and anyone else SHE[no one else] deems to have one.

Peoples attitude towards this are so wrong IMO[not calling anyone out] but when people judge someone on opting for an abortion,simply put:you have no right to an opinion on this and even less of a right to force that opinion on someone who is experiencing the problem first hand.

You can't really tell people they don't have a right to an opinion on the matter if they believe that the death of another human being is involved. In the same vein could you not say that you can't take a view on the execution of a convict because you were not directly involved? To them you are saying that you don't have a right to comment on a murder. I think the flaw in that is that you're not really seeing the reasons as to why somebody would be against abortion (and I mean that in the nicest way possible).

thebman wrote: »

People who want abortions will have abortions. The law just decides if they have them here or not or have them with approved doctors or some dodgy doctor performing illegal abortions which people tend to assume isn't happening in Ireland but I doubt thats the case.

We know its going to happen, people who are against it are just IMO, forcing their views on other people which they know won't wash with those people and those people will go get abortions anyway they can if they want to have them. They do this knowing that it will negatively effect all involved but its the principal that counts right? Not how it pans out in real life for real people.

A lot of illegal activities happen despite the fact that there's laws against them. One could argue that if the state opted to legalise it in order to protect women then they are directly saying that the health of the mother is worth the death of her child. In this case it really is the principle that counts as the state giving the right to a person to kill another against their will leads to a blur in the line.

Last time I posted this my point that it is going to happen anyway just got ignored and they start going on about the rights of the child as usual ignoring that the abortion is going to happen anyway. As long as that is how the discussion is going to go, debate isn't possible IMO. As long as it is about protecting people from their own decisions, we are having the wrong discussion especially when most people involved have never been in the situation.

Well that's what it all comes down to, whether the embryo/foetus can be considered to be alive/human and thus have rights. The fact that it happens anyway would be seen as an issue with enforcement. There's that whole issue of state sanctioned killing again.

KnifeWRENCH

I am pro-choice, and one of the few things I hate about living in Ireland is that abortion is still outlawed here.

Basically, I don't value the "life" of a bunch of cells or an embryo; I don't see why it should be given equivalent human rights when it's not a fully developed human. If a woman falls pregnant and doesn't want the child, she shouldn't have to go through that pregnancy just because a bunch of people who have absolutely fcuk-all to do with her situation label her a murderer.

The "you shouldn't have got pregnant" argument is complete bollocks. Contraception is not always 100% effective and even if contraception was not used, are two people who are irresponsible enough to have unprotected sex really responsible enough to become parents?

As for late term abortions, this is where I'd be of different opinion to most pro-choice people. While it's obviously not the desired outcome, I don't have any problem with them tbh.

And I understand not all pro-life arguments are based on religion, but I have yet to read any pro-life comments (religious or non-religious) that will convince me that abortion is worng.

Fad

Just as an aside, a lot have this has been said before in an early C&H thread "Your most politically incorrect opinion", there are some excellent posts in there (Particularly Piste's comments on the value of life).

Sophsxxx

I don't think there is a right or a wrong when it comes to abortion. It's an individual's choicen as to whether or not they can go through with a pregnancy.
And the 'they shouldn't have been so irresponsible then' argument is complete bull. Everyone makes mistakes....some things just happen that we wish we can change, but can't.
No one should cast judgement on people that have abortions or unprotected sex. It's a highly emotional and scary time in a person's life. Different people have different circumstances and I think their decisions should be respected.

Davidius

KnifeWRENCH wrote: »

Basically, I don't value the "life" of a bunch of cells or an embryo; I don't see why it should be given equivalent human rights when it's not a fully developed human.

By the same token some would argue as to why it shouldn't be given human rights if it's 'human', although one that is yet to be born.

And I understand not all pro-life arguments are based on religion, but I have yet to read any pro-life comments (religious or non-religious) that will convince me that abortion is worng.

Well they can't really convince that it's wrong if you have a definite stance on the basis of their argument (i.e. you believe embryos aren't entitled to human rights).

On the note of late term abortions, do you believe that it is OK to kill a baby that was born long before it was due yet managed to survive? Would it not be considered similar to aborting a foetus at the same stage?

hitlersson666

People do not need to suffer for there parents mistakes!!! if a condom rippes/pill fails then you get the morning after pill! Thats what it's there for

seanybiker

Ginja Ninja wrote: »

First of all: There was a contraversial argument and no one invited me,WTF?

I'll say now,I've not read all this thread[my internet takes 10 minutes to load a page]

I'm pro-choice,because the simple fact of the matter is no one has any opinion on what should happen except the mother who is carrying the child and anyone else SHE[no one else] deems to have one.

There are enough unwanted children in the world and Life is easy enough to ruin completely even without having a child you're not ready/able to care for.

I'm pro stem cell research as well,but that's a whole other topic.I know it sounds heartless,but I value a life that has experienced the world over one that is still forming.

Peoples attitude towards this are so wrong IMO[not calling anyone out] but when people judge someone on opting for an abortion,simply put:you have no right to an opinion on this and even less of a right to force that opinion on someone who is experiencing the problem first hand.

Hmm you want to make a comment just because its a controversial thread? Ok whatever makes you happy.
You posted your opinion then said that because we havent had this experience ourselves, we have no right to have an opinion. How are we supposed to have a grown up conversation about a topic without having an opinion. You stated you are for stem cell research, you where right though. Thats a different thread altogether, why bring it up then?
Not getting onto you but I a damn well allowed have an opinion on something, as is everyone else in the world. People dont have to agree, thats what makes the world go around. You dont need to have something personally happen to you to be allowed have an opinion. Im against war even though I was never in one.

Boston

hitlersson666 wrote: »

People do not need to suffer for there parents mistakes!!! if a condom rippes/pill fails then you get the morning after pill! Thats what it's there for

Ok. Morning after pill. Explain to me how a minor goes about obtaining the morning after pill? It is a prescription drug after all. So you need your sixy euro doctors fee, if you doctor is even open on Sunday morning. Then you need to find a pharmacy and pay another 20 - 30 euro, on top of that you need to do all this without your parents finding out. So basically you need to pretty well organised to get a morning after pill as a kid.

hitlersson666

You Go to the yhs or a doctor!!! A trip to england costs much more and remember the mental effect a abortion has!!! People dont get over that type of shi t easily!!!

kaki

Long time lurker, first time poster.

hitlersson666 wrote: »

People do not need to suffer for there parents mistakes!!! if a condom rippes/pill fails then you get the morning after pill! Thats what it's there for

Where do you consider that life begins? Because the morning after pill works by preventing implantation, if the embryo has already been created (by fertilisation) technically it is "murdured" (to borrow the words of the pro-life camp), so it's far from a panacea to unwanted pregnancies. By a similiar extension, do you consider sperm an egg cells individually capable of human life? Then, everyone time a woman goes through a menstrual cycle without falling pregnant, has she unwittingly "wasted" that egg, that potential life?

Like many others here, I am pro-choice (and not necessarily pro-abortion). I'd subscribe most to KnifeWRENCH's opinion that a bunch of cells, even whilst they are potentially capable of giving rise to, aren't entitled to the same level of protection/set of human rights as a person with life experience. If I found myself tomorrow in the position of being pregnant, I can't say how I'd handle it. I'd like to think that I would try to keep it...but I'd damn well prefer to have the choice that they have in the vast majority of countries nowadays, rather than have the opinions others forced upon my situation.

sock puppet

kaki wrote: »

Long time lurker, first time poster.



Where do you consider that life begins? Because the morning after pill works by preventing implantation, if the embryo has already been created (by fertilisation) technically it is "murdured" (to borrow the words of the pro-life camp), so it's far from a panacea to unwanted pregnancies. By a similiar extension, do you consider sperm an egg cells individually capable of human life? Then, everyone time a woman goes through a menstrual cycle without falling pregnant, has she unwittingly "wasted" that egg, that potential life?

Like many others here, I am pro-choice (and not necessarily pro-abortion). I'd subscribe most to KnifeWRENCH's opinion that a bunch of cells, even whilst they are potentially capable of giving rise to, aren't entitled to the same level of protection/set of human rights as a person with life experience. If I found myself tomorrow in the position of being pregnant, I can't say how I'd handle it. I'd like to think that I would try to keep it...but I'd damn well prefer to have the choice that they have in the vast majority of countries nowadays, rather than have the opinions others forced upon my situation.

What exactly does that mean?

kaki

sock puppet wrote: »

What exactly does that mean?

That, on a societal level I'd like abortion to be an option for whoever needs it.

That, on a personal level, I (at least I say now, from my lofty position on a high horse, with an empty uterus) would not try to use it myself.

That, in general, I should not dictate what the girl/woman next to me chooses to do.

sock puppet

kaki wrote: »

That, on a societal level I'd like abortion to be an option for whoever needs it.

That, on a personal level, I (at least I say now, from my lofty position on a high horse, with an empty uterus) would not try to use it myself.

That, in general, I should not dictate what the girl/woman next to me chooses to do.

Cheers. I've always wondered what people meant when they said that.

Bigdeadlydave

I think its sick that people maintain that fetuses aren't actually babies/alive/human or whatever. I'm sure that the vast majority of couples who are unable to have kids or who have experienced miscarriage would disagree.
Pro-choice? What a joke. People shouldn't be allowed to decide for themselves whats best in some circumstances. Thats why there are laws. If everyone could make up their own minds about everything we would have anarchy. Basically what these people want is the option of weather to blend up their unborn baby or not. Sick. Lets have a referendum on murder too. I would also like the choice of robbing my local bank and hitting biffo a box with no repercussions please!

anneboleyn

Each circumstance is different - in some cases "right" and in others "wrong". Like so many things in life , nothing is black and white and trying to dictate a dogmatic pro life or pro choice stance for every circumstance is just plain wrong.

Konata

hitlersson666 wrote: »

People do not need to suffer for there parents mistakes!!! if a condom rippes/pill fails then you get the morning after pill! Thats what it's there for

Boston already made the points about the cost and availability of the morning after pill. But did you know that it is highly, highly unrecommended to take more than one 'morning-after pill' within a 1 month period? This is something I was unaware of until recently but it makes sense. Emergency contraception contains massive doses of hormones that mess with the body's natural balance. The taken is often left feeling very unwell. The less you use emergency contraception the better, it should never be used as a guaranteed back-up.

Sophsxxx

hitlersson666 wrote: »

People do not need to suffer for there parents mistakes!!! if a condom rippes/pill fails then you get the morning after pill! Thats what it's there for

It's a foetus, a mass of cells, it is not a person. I see where you're coming from but I must say you're being very judgemental. The parents suffer for their mistakes. People don't take the decision to have an abortion light-heartedly. It's one of the hardest decision a person ever has to make!
Yeah, it's fair enough to say it's their fault they're in the position in the first place but unless you are in this horrible position you don't have a clue!
And the morning after pill is not that easily obtainable!

Boston

hitlersson666 wrote: »

You Go to the yhs or a doctor!!! A trip to england costs much more and remember the mental effect a abortion has!!! People dont get over that type of shi t easily!!!

Youth Health Services don't exist for a lot of teenagers. Certainly weren't about in my day which wasn't that long ago. A doctor costs money, may not be available and if they're a family doctor, you parents will find out. Afaik even if they're not, they're duty bound to contact your parents in ireland.

jumpguy

Sophsxxx wrote: »

It's a foetus, a mass of cells, it is not a person. I see where you're coming from but I must say you're being very judgemental. The parents suffer for their mistakes. People don't take the decision to have an abortion light-heartedly. It's one of the hardest decision a person ever has to make!
Yeah, it's fair enough to say it's their fault they're in the position in the first place but unless you are in this horrible position you don't have a clue!
And the morning after pill is not that easily obtainable!

A person is also essentially a group of cells, to be pedantic about it.

I don't much like the idea of abortion. I think these things should be done only if there is a good reason, one of the biggest problems I think it that people will start seeing it as a back-up, and not something to be done in the most extreme cases. Have unprotected sex with the BF you've known for two weeks? Awwh, tough, but the child doesn't have to suffer. I know it's easy saying this in this situation though, and I can understand where people are coming from, as in it'll cut-down on badly raised kids, and hence future burdens to society...

But I think if it ever comes down to it, it should be a hard and regrettable decision for anyone to make, and not an aul thing just like another form of contraception. I think it'll herald abit of moral detachment from human life...which is quite prevalent already in society.

alex73

D4RK ONION wrote: »

Pro-choice also. It's your own body

A Child is never YOUR body, he/she is a person. Since when does a life of an innocent person depend on the whim of anothers.?

Davidius

I'd actually be interested in knowing the situation of the majority of women who opt for abortion. Would also like to see how big the proportion of well-off women is to the overall population as I don't think the procedures come cheap.

Boston

An Irish woman can travel to England for an all inclusive abortion costing as little as a few hundred Euro. I'd imagine the majority are young without much personal wealth.

kaki

alex73 wrote: »

A Child is never YOUR body, he/she is a person. Since when does a life of an innocent person depend on the whim of anothers.?

That's your opinion. Others believe that the embryo/foetus in question is not yet a person, neither a child. It has the potential to develop into a child, but that's pretty different.

Fad posted a link to a really interesting thread a while back, in particular one of Piste's posts (hope she doesn't mind me quoting her here):

My angle on abortion is a life only has value if it is valued- ie. it doesn't have an innate value. An unwanted foetus has no value as its parents don't want it and it isn't sentient so doesn't value its own life.

From the point of view of the woman, an embryo could be seen as a paraistic alien in one way - pregnancy means exposure to a whole new array of crazy horror-moans that **** with the mind and body. Symptoms to be enjoyed during these 9 months may include severe relentless nausea, backpain (PSD can be excruciating as the pelvis widens to allow for birth), constipation, piles, fainting spells, as well as the fun and games of the birth itself. Damn right it's her body, her choice.

thebman

Davidius wrote: »

A lot of illegal activities happen despite the fact that there's laws against them. One could argue that if the state opted to legalise it in order to protect women then they are directly saying that the health of the mother is worth the death of her child. In this case it really is the principle that counts as the state giving the right to a person to kill another against their will leads to a blur in the line.

Not really the state can easily take the position that it neither approves or disapproves and that it is the individuals choice and none of the states business. They can say that they are setting out standards for the health facilities same as any other health facilities in the state.

Just because the state says something is no longer illegal does not mean they are saying it is okay. This is not a nanny state. The state allows people to buy cigarettes while acknowledging they are not good for people. Same with alcohol.

Same reason Canabis should be legalised TBH and some other drugs. Its a persons personal choice and the state does not have the means to police it even if they wanted to and they demonstrate this inability on many occassions.

Since the state can't stop abortions taking place in poor conditions, it should legalise it so that when it does occur, we can guarantee the safety of the people involved. The topic being abortion is pretty irrelevant as it is going to happen either way. The choice is in a known clean facility or in a backalley butchers.

Of course those that afford it will go abroad although this brings its own additional stress compared to having healthcare treatment in a local facility with your family being close by. Also, one must ask do we want to trust the welfare of our citizens to another state? Seems irresponsible to me.

Again though the issue is do we want to look after our citizens or leave them in unknown circumstances as the abortion will happen either way.

Feeky Magee

I am pro-choice. In my opinion, something cannot be called a human life until it is at least aware of its surroundings and not just living off instincts. As regards to the people 'horrified' about the exact details of the abortion operation earlier in the thread, I'm sure a piece could be written about swatting a fly to death like as follows:

"As the giant metal instrument of murder, over 10 times the size of the fly, viciously swoops down on what was seconds before a living, functioning being, his/her wings are crushed as its body is mashed like a pulp into the surace where it was resting. The fly lies in a pool of its own blood and organs until it is tossed without a care into the bin, stone cold dead."

Now after reading that you could be forgiven for thinking that what just happened was a horrific murder of a sentient being. No, it wasn't. It was a fly being swatted. And like the fly, the foetus cannot feel pain or is not a sentient being. Now I am not for a second equating swatting a fly with aborting a baby, of course abortion is a hugely emotional thing, and quite possibly the biggest decision a woman will make in her entire life. But pieces written with the express intent of making the reader be horrified at what is being done to the fetus during abortion. Because inevitably, the picture in the minds of people imagining the operation will be of a normal baby, post-pregnancy (I know I pictured this at least). And not of what it actually is: an embryo, or an advanced form of an embryo.

It's not as if there is a lack of children in the world. With ever expanding population rates, especially in the Third World, it is important that the children that are being born, are being born into a family/to a parent that can provide for it and is in the right state of mind to care for it emotionally.

I'm sure even some pro-life people would appreciate that the current situation in Ireland is unacceptable. If I recall correctly, if a woman/girl is raped and becomes pregnant, she can only get an abortion in Ireland if there is a risk of her committing suicide. This is archaic, and wrong.

Not for a second do I wish for what some pro-life people claim would happen as a result of abortion coming into practise - that our daughters would suddenly start to have massive amounts of unprotected sex and "sure feck it if I get pregnant I'll pop in for an ol' abortion in the morning". But I do think that a pregnant mother should have the right to choose whether or not it is the right time and situation to being a being into the world. Because, in my opinion, it is only a human being when it emerges at birth. Don't forget that most pro-choicers are just as concerned about the baby as pro-lifers. We just place more concern on its wellbeing after it comes into the world.

seanybiker

i like the way the last poster is pro choice and then called the fly swot an instrument of murder. Good post.

Ginja Ninja

I'll rephrase what I said earlier.[it's times like this I wish I was better at clarifying a point]

It' not that they don't deserve an opinion,everyone does.I meant that the one's that reallly matter in the long run is that of the mother going through the ordeal and that THEY should make the decision not have the option closed to them on someone else's beliefs,if you don't believe in abortion,that's good for you,stick with it,but don't force more hardship on someone in a vulnerable situation,leave the choice up to them.


and no I'm not just posting because it's contraversial,most people that know me know I've strong beliefs on topics like this

Feeky Magee

seanybiker wrote: »

i like the way the last poster is pro choice and then called the fly swot an instrument of murder. Good post.

The piece in italics was not intended to be my opinion. I'm sorry if that went over your head.

D4RK ONION

kaki wrote: »

That, on a societal level I'd like abortion to be an option for whoever needs it.

That, on a personal level, I (at least I say now, from my lofty position on a high horse, with an empty uterus) would not try to use it myself.

That, in general, I should not dictate what the girl/woman next to me chooses to do.

Well explained, I too have wondered as to what people meant by this.

alex73 wrote: »

A Child is never YOUR body, he/she is a person. Since when does a life of an innocent person depend on the whim of anothers.?

kaki wrote: »

That's your opinion. Others believe that the embryo/foetus in question is not yet a person, neither a child. It has the potential to develop into a child, but that's pretty different.

Was going to answer similarly, but I was beaten to it. I do not consider a lump of cells as another "person" and as such, it is YOUR body and it your choice.

I think what annoys me most about the pro-life camp is that they feel the need to push their opinions on others. Not pointing this at you Alex but the fact that, in general this country's stance is that of pro life. That irritates me.

almostnever

My opinions on abortion are really,really complex,and mostly contradictory. Plus,I don't have a lot of time to write this post, so I'll be brief.

I'm pro choice. I know that I could never have an abortion myself, though.


My main issue with abortion, and again,this is from the pro-choice side, is the lack of input from the father. I think that it's a dangerous line to cross. I'm not really sure how much of a say I'd like the father to have, I think it depends on the situation. That can get really complex too. But I mean, what if I got pregnant and wanted an abortion, and the baby's dad wanted me to have it? Say he valued the baby and I didn't, could I go through with what in his eyes is killing his baby? Nobody else's opinions matter,in practice. If society at large say it's murder, it would make little difference to me personally, especially if I didn't see it as such. But even if I thought to myself "it's only a bundle of cells" or whatever, and he thought of it as his baby...I think, generally speaking, it's wrong.* I do think there are circumstances that are different but yeah, it makes me feel uneasy. I think in general fathers have so little say and it's terrible. I'm articulating this so badly.

I'll contribute some more of my thoughts later, when I have time/ figure out what I'm trying to say.

*Not using "I" as just what I think, using it in general.

Pygmalion

D4RK ONION wrote: »

I think what annoys me most about the pro-life camp is that they feel the need to push their opinions on others.

If they believe it to be murder it's very understandable that they try to push the opinion on others.
If you knew that murder was going on would you just sit back and say "Oh, it's horrible but sure it doesn't affect me, I'll just let them carry on"? I doubt it.

Not saying that it IS murder, but if they consider it murder you can hardly accuse them trying to push their opinion on others as being the wrong thing to do.

esio trot

Personally I believe abortion should only be considered if the birth may prove particularly detrimental to the mothers health or if the child was conceived through rape or incest and the issue is overwhelmingly traumatic for those involved. Civil liberties and basic human rights are our most treasured possessions and while I hold my opinions to be quite liberal, I fully support the close monitoring of abortions. Adoption is always a perfectly suitable method of relieving oneself from the socio-economic issues of raising a child and it would be a tremendous injustice if a life were to be denied just because it did not fit ones lifestyle. For those of you who say the abortee is non sentinent, thus no life is being taken, this may be true. Life may not be taken but it is being prevented.

D4RK ONION

Pygmalion wrote: »

If they believe it to be murder it's very understandable that they try to push the opinion on others.
If you knew that murder was going on would you just sit back and say "Oh, it's horrible but sure it doesn't affect me, I'll just let them carry on"? I doubt it.

Not saying that it IS murder, but if they consider it murder you can hardly accuse them trying to push their opinion on others as being the wrong thing to do.

But it's not clear cut murder no matter how much they might like to phrase it as such. It is not taking a knife to an infants neck. It is as blurry a line that you could legally have. I see what you're trying to say, but I completely disagree with such an argument.

seanybiker

Feeky Magee wrote: »

The piece in italics was not intended to be my opinion. I'm sorry if that went over your head.

im on mobile boards. All the text is the same for me. Its easy to make things sound bad if your explaining someone else's opinion though. Try harder next time to make a point

dublingal80

i believe in pro-choice too. medication i take im told not to get pregnant as there is a very high risk for an abnormal fetus or miscarriage. so myself and my oh always use condoms. one time it broke. we went straight to my gp, got the morning after pill, which didnt work. so that left me with such a tough decision, especially having just lost a family member a couple of months previously, i didnt know what to do. my doctor told me there was a very high risk for an abnormal fetus so I didnt know if i should go for a termination or decide to keep it, end up growing attached to what was growing inside of me and for it to die a few months before birth or shortly after birth as the complications were so high. but mother nature took the decision out of my hands and i ended up miscarrying

phlegms

Find it hard to believe that anyone could be anything other than pro-choice tbh.
While you may not agree with the ethical connotations of an abortion, surely you should at the very least respect someones right to choose to have one.

Noodleworm

I'm gonna say I'm pro choice Even though I really think this isn't a black and white argument.
If I found myself somehow pregnant right now, Id get an abortion. Id hate myself and probably feel guilty for the rest of my life but at least I know I wouldn't be giving another child a crappy life. I can't afford my own place, I've never had a proper job,my parents can't help.If I had a kid I'd have to drop out of college and live off the government, which defiantly isn't something this country needs.

I think if possible they should be done as soon as possible, to avoid any suffering.
I mean , I really hate the idea of people just casually getting abortions when they feel like them but I'm pretty sure everyone realises the seriousness of the situation and it wouldn't be the case.

Aoibheann

phlegms wrote: »

Find it hard to believe that anyone could be anything other than pro-choice tbh.
While you may not agree with the ethical connotations of an abortion, surely you should at the very least respect someones right to choose to have one.

I 100% agree. As I said, while I have my own personal choices, it's not for me to decide whether other people have one or not. We can't judge a person for having one, we don't know the circumstances or the reasons behind it. I have to say, I find the "pro-lifers" campaigns to be utterly sickening at times.

(The one provision I put against this is in the case of seriously late-term abortions. Some countries allow terminations in the third trimester and considering babies are well capable of surviving at that point these days, I also find that quite sickening too. I think there should really be a timescale unless specific issues come into play.)

Boston

phlegms wrote: »

Find it hard to believe that anyone could be anything other than pro-choice tbh.
While you may not agree with the ethical connotations of an abortion, surely you should at the very least respect someones right to choose to have one.

Why? why do people have a right to choose in this matter when they've no such rights in other area, areas which only affect them?

Pygmalion

phlegms wrote: »

While you may not agree with the ethical connotations of an abortion, surely you should at the very least respect someones right to choose to have one.

Aoibheann wrote: »

We can't judge a person for having one, we don't know the circumstances or the reasons behind it.

Again, for people who believe that abortion is murder those arguments don't apply, they would see it as respecting someone's right to choose to take a life.

Aoibheann

Pygmalion wrote: »

Again, for people who believe that abortion is murder those arguments don't apply, they would see it as respecting someone's right to choose to take a life.

And I can see that side of things too, though it's almost always argued poorly. Like I said, it's not something *I* could personally do because I don't feel we do have enough information or knowledge as to when life actually does start. For now, everyone has completely different definitions so I can see why some people cry murder and some don't think the foetus has any rights.

Right now, we don't have enough information IMO to make wild accusations towards either side.

phlegms

Boston wrote: »

Why? why do people have a right to choose in this matter when they've no such rights in other area, areas which only affect them?

Why wouldn't people be given the fundamental right to chose?

Boston

Why are rights of individuals ever restricted? For the social good.

Aoibheann

phlegms wrote: »

Why wouldn't people be given the fundamental right to chose?

[devils advocate]And right there, in kicks the argument about the right of a foetus to live. [/devils advocate]

Edit: Or what Boston said works!

phlegms

At this point I have now fully accepted the pointlessness of this thread and am going to abstain from further discussion until I have this History essay finished.

Davidius

thebman wrote: »

Not really the state can easily take the position that it neither approves or disapproves and that it is the individuals choice and none of the states business. They can say that they are setting out standards for the health facilities same as any other health facilities in the state.

Just because the state says something is no longer illegal does not mean they are saying it is okay. This is not a nanny state. The state allows people to buy cigarettes while acknowledging they are not good for people. Same with alcohol.

The state may not claim that cigarettes or alcohol are beneficial but it does acknowledge that you should be allowed to do with yourself as you please so long as others are not affected. Hence if a foetus is considered to be human, abortion becomes something that directly affects another person and infringes upon their rights. The state can't simply ignore such occurences.

Boston

phlegms wrote: »

At this point I have now fully accepted the pointlessness of this thread and am going to abstain from further discussion until I have this History essay finished.

Good call. I will say one think, be careful when you talk about rights and if you really agree with people having them. Fair enough if you believe someone should be able to do something, but having an absolute irrefutable right is a completely different ball game. Think about all the possible implication making something a right has.

A Neurotic

I'm reluctant to wade into this, because I'm pretty anti-abortion but don't really have the wherewithal to back up my feelings.

One thing I'll never understand is people trying to justify abortions for the foetus/child/whateveryouwanttocalit's sake. "Sure it'll only grow up unwanted and stuff".

So we'll just kill it instead, in case it has a hard life. You never know like.

In religion class in school, we were given a scenario with a pregnant woman who already had several blind/deaf/otherwise disabled children. Many in the class were comfortable with justifying an abortion on the grounds that the next child would be likely to be born blind or deaf and therefore wouldn't have a life worth living anyway. Jesus Christ...

thebman

esio trot wrote: »

Life may not be taken but it is being prevented.

There is potential for life to be created everytime someone has sex. Should people not be allowed to refuse to have sex as it is preventing the potential for life?

Potential to become life is very different to life.

Davidius wrote: »

The state may not claim that cigarettes or alcohol are beneficial but it does acknowledge that you should be allowed to do with yourself as you please so long as others are not affected. Hence if a foetus is considered to be human, abortion becomes something that directly affects another person and infringes upon their rights. The state can't simply ignore such occurences.

The states firstmost obligation is to protect its citizens. An unborn child be it a child or not is not a citizen and so in the eyes of the state, the rights of the citizen should come first. The state can just as easily state that it does not specify when an unborn baby becomes a living being but that it is up to the individual to decide but that it will ensure that every citizen has the right to choose in this very personal area which is the state has no business being involved in.