First abortion ad to air next week

Zulu

General Zod wrote: »

I'm in favour of a system where the potential father has the chance to register his opposition and as such relinquish and rights to parentage.

"Registering his opposition" isn't quite the same though. Maybe he just doesn't want to be a father.

I'm in favor of a system where a mother can "register her opposition" and hand over the child once born - but thats not going to keep the pro-abortion lobby happy.

So why should only the woman get the choice. Not very fair to me. Seems like discrimination against the father to be honest.

Sanjuro

Couldn't they just run an ad saying 'fuck off and let each person make a decision for themselves.' Surely nobody could argue with that.

prinz

General Zod wrote: »

The Church's influence on society's "morality" is what I wish to remove.

You do realise that there are many atheists who are also opposed to abortion right?

Min

General Zod wrote: »

a zygote is not a baby.

It is human life, unless you believe I could have killed you at that stage of life and you would still be here posting how it is ok to have an abortion.

Conception onwards is a part of human life just like being born is, just like reaching sexual maturity just like growing old and having a natural death.

Zulu

General Zod wrote: »

The Church's influence on society's "morality" is what I wish to remove. That's the 15th century morality I speak of.

Assuming all poeple against abortion are under the churchs influence of is both wrong and belittling. Can't you discuss the topic without the mud slinging?

Min

prinz wrote: »

You do realise that there are many atheists who are also opposed to abortion right?

Some wish to sweep that under the carpet.

General Zod

Zulu wrote: »

"Registering his opposition" isn't quite the same though. Maybe he just doesn't want to be a father.

I'm in favor of a system where a mother can "register her opposition" and hand over the child once born - but thats not going to keep the pro-abortion lobby happy.

That exists, it's called the Adoption system. and IMO has as much of a psychological impact upon the mother as any onter option.

So why should only the woman get the choice. Not very fair to me. Seems like discrimination against the father to be honest.

She gets to choose wether she wants to have the child. If she wants to go against the fathers wishes than that is her option to raise the child.

Min

IvyTheTerrible wrote: »

Not in Britain though?

Yes, in Britain also as they allow abortions upto 24 weeks and babies can live outside the womb at an earlier age than that.

General Zod

quote is not edit: I'm an idiot.

General Zod

Min wrote: »

It is human life

It's a clump of cells that cannot survive independently. Abortion up to 24 weeks. Minature flags for all.

Stark

Zulu wrote: »

Theirs no consent from at least one party in abortion (possibly 2).

Why not? Because you say so? A zygote is human. So it's down to the defination of a "being". Clearly its a "being" of sorts - it exists. So it is in fact a "human being", just not the type of "human being" you wish to extend any rights to.

It's a "potential" human being, not a human being. Same as your sperm has to potential to one day be part of a human being, but till then, no-one cares if you flush it down the toilet.

prinz wrote:

Is murder ok now then? I'll start drawing up my list.

Is spraying your kitchen counter with disinfectant wrong? Because those are living cells with the potential to grow and reproduce that you're killing. The morning after pill is legal in this country so I guess that means "murder" must be legal.

Min wrote:

It is human life, unless you believe I could have killed you at that stage of life and you would still be here posting how it is ok to have an abortion.

Conception onwards is a part of human life just like being born is, just like reaching sexual maturity just like growing old and having a natural death.

My parents could have made the choice not to have me in the first place. By virtue of the fact that they used contraception unlike my grandparents, I have about 15 potential brothers and sisters who never came into existence. Debating the ethics of denying life to potential human beings is a pointless exercise.

General Zod

Zulu wrote: »

Assuming all poeple against abortion are under the churchs influence of is both wrong and belittling. Can't you discuss the topic without the mud slinging?

Your opinion is wrong. That is my belief. how am I mud slinging, or are you just playing the victim?

You're putting words directly into my mouth. please don't do that. I never said all pro-lifers are so because of the church, nor did I say they are all theists. I said that it's impossible to have the debate without the church, or the pro-lifers who are members of the church saying "God said so".

philologos

General Zod wrote: »

Your opinion is wrong. That is my belief. how am I mud slinging, or are you just playing the victim?

You're putting words directly into my mouth. please don't do that. I never said all pro-lifers are so because of the church, nor did I say they are all theists. I said that it's impossible to have the debate without the church, or the pro-lifers who are members of the church saying "God said so".

We've been having it for a few pages now.

prinz

Stark wrote: »

Is spraying your kitchen counter with disinfectant wrong? Because those are living cells with the potential to grow and reproduce that you're killing. The morning after pill is legal in this country so I guess that means "murder" must be legal.

I think you completely misunderstood the point of my post.

General Zod wrote: »

I said that it's impossible to have the debate without the church, or the pro-lifers who are members of the church saying "God said so".

Is there anyone on this thread who based their opposition on "God said so"

Stark

prinz wrote: »

I think you completely misunderstood the point of my post.

That killing cells is "murder". The only difference between a zygote and a bacterium is that the zygote has the "potential" to be a human being if left attached to a mother. Aside from the potential, it's no different to any cell in the human body which carries a full complement of DNA. In the future, we'll be able to take any cell from a human body and implant it into a woman meaning that every cell in your body with have that potential. We've already done that with animals.

prinz

Stark wrote: »

That killing cells is "murder".

Now I know you misunderstood the point to my post. The point was in relation to the cherry picking of morals to suit personal beliefs.

Stark

I re-read it again.

General Zod: "Abortion isn't murder"
prinz: "OK so you are reserving the right to pick and choose which morals you feel like keeping and which you feel like discarding. "

Now General Zod is arguing that killing a zygote isn't murder, whereas you accuse him of cherry picking morals. Therefore you believe that killing a zygote is murder. It's a different matter if you're talking about late term pregnancies, which are illegal to terminate even in countries with liberal abortion laws.

The only reason I'm pro-choice is because the hypocrisy in Ireland's abortion laws means that more women are having abortions after the group of undifferentiated cells has started to mature into a human being due to the delays involved in having to travel to England for one. I would much prefer that abortion was legal up to 7 or 8 weeks here so that we'd be terminating cells and not babies.

General Zod

prinz wrote: »

Now I know you misunderstood the point to my post. The point was in relation to the cherry picking of morals to suit personal beliefs.

you were trying to make a moral equivalency and your tactic was changable based on what my response was.

prinz

Stark wrote: »

Now General Zod is arguing that killing a zygote isn't murder, whereas you accuse him of cherry picking morals. Therefore you believe that killing a zygote is murder.

No General Zod happens to pick and choose which moral standards he upholds.... i.e. some are 15th century and backward.... and others are fine - even though they both may have originated in the same time period and on the same basis. It highlights the ridiculous attempt to paint anyone with different opinions and different moral standards as being medieval.

philologos

There is nothing particularly modern or progressive about permitting abortion. There is record of them from the 1st century AD, and most likely going much further back. If anything it is more progressive to recognise the full rights of the child to survival.

aDeener

i must say i find it strange how people who are pro-choice tend do be extremely opposed to the death penalty. funny one that

General Zod

aDeener wrote: »

i must say i find it strange how people who are pro-choice tend do be extremely opposed to the death penalty. funny one that

once again, murder is not abortion.

Stark

prinz wrote: »

No General Zod happens to pick and choose which moral standards he upholds.... i.e. some are 15th century and backward.... and others are fine - even though they both may have originated in the same time period and on the same basis. It highlights the ridiculous attempt to paint anyone with different opinions and different moral standards as being medieval.

There are many morals from the 15th century that we have thankfully abandoned. You can't argue that morals should be considered absolute and unchangeable for centuries, otherwise we'd still be burning "witches" and heretics.

bebes

Penny Dreadful wrote: »

There isn't a single surgery that looks nice e.g. open heart surgery, a gastric by pass, a face lift, lipsuction, neuro surgery.......they all look horrific to the untrained medical eye.
Perhaps if a full video of childbirth, in all its gorey detail, was shown to kids in sex ed class (for what its worth here anyway) then it may make people learn about their bodies and practice safe sex. Perhaps if they saw what syphillis does to someone they'd use condoms, perhaps if they really understood the consequences of chlymadia they'd practice safe sex.

Every woman has the right to decide what happens to her body.

Hi Penny D,

Just to let you know personally I'm pro life but not in the business of telling other people what to do with their lives.

Anyway I really like your idea about showing the kids in school a child birth....I saw it in science class in 1st year and I swear it scared the s**t out of me!...teenagers will never realise how hard it is to be a parent but actually seeing the pain of child birth is a different story! Think your right about taking the same action for STIs too.

To be fair though about your last comment I know you think women should decide what happens to their own bodies and thats fair enough but abortion is killing somebody else's life/body not your own. Also if you don't want your body to have to go through a pregnancy then its pretty easy to stop it from happening in the first place (obviously aside from certain cases).

StormWarrior

Zulu wrote: »

"Registering his opposition" isn't quite the same though. Maybe he just doesn't want to be a father.

I'm in favor of a system where a mother can "register her opposition" and hand over the child once born - but thats not going to keep the pro-abortion lobby happy.

So why should only the woman get the choice. Not very fair to me. Seems like discrimination against the father to be honest.

She is the one who is physically pregnant and gives birth. She's the one who has to undergo the pregnancy/abortion, so it should be her choice whether to do so or not. Saying that the man should have the right to force her to have an abortion is just the same old patriarchal stuff as saying she shouldn't be allowed to have one if she wants. Why should men get to decide what happens to women's bodies? To make it fair to men, a law could be introduced whereby if a man from the very beginning does not want to be a father he can relinquish all rights and responsibilities to the child.

Min

General Zod wrote: »

It's a clump of cells that cannot survive independently. Abortion up to 24 weeks. Minature flags for all.

Get a newborn baby and leave it to fend for itself, does that justify infanticide?

Stark wrote: »

My parents could have made the choice not to have me in the first place. By virtue of the fact that they used contraception unlike my grandparents, I have about 15 potential brothers and sisters who never came into existence. Debating the ethics of denying life to potential human beings is a pointless exercise.

If they are having an abortion it is more than potential human life, it is human life that one is knowingly killing.

MickShamrock

Pro-Abortion. :pac:

prinz

Stark wrote: »

You can't argue that morals should be considered absolute and unchangeable for centuries, otherwise we'd still be burning "witches" and heretics.

I don't.

The 15th century was plucked out of thin air by General Zod for nothing other than it's negative connotations. No basis in reality whatsoever. There was no relevance to the post whatsoever besides 'I believe x, anyone who doesn't is simply stuck in the past'.

StormWarrior

Stark wrote: »

That killing cells is "murder". The only difference between a zygote and a bacterium is that the zygote has the "potential" to be a human being if left attached to a mother.

Bacteria has the potential to evolve over time and eventually become human. So by the logic of some people here, it's wrong to kill abacterium as it has the potential to be human one day in the future.

philologos

Stark wrote: »

It's a "potential" human being, not a human being. Same as your sperm has to potential to one day be part of a human being, but till then, no-one cares if you flush it down the toilet.

I don't see what justification you have for this opinion. There is a human life developing and growing from the point whereby the sperm and the ova fuse to make a zygote. A continuous growth and development until one eventually dies.

That is entirely different to preventing such a formation of human life from beginning. Sperm and ova constitute prerequisites to human life, but not human life themselves, as the sperm and the ova of themselves do not develop into human beings.

Stark wrote: »

Is spraying your kitchen counter with disinfectant wrong? Because those are living cells with the potential to grow and reproduce that you're killing. The morning after pill is legal in this country so I guess that means "murder" must be legal.

Do you regard there to be a difference between human life and other life? Or are they all the same?

If so it wouldn't be morally objectionable for one to prepare a human to eat.

Stark wrote: »

My parents could have made the choice not to have me in the first place. By virtue of the fact that they used contraception unlike my grandparents, I have about 15 potential brothers and sisters who never came into existence. Debating the ethics of denying life to potential human beings is a pointless exercise.

That is if we agree that it is a potential human being rather than a growing and developing human being.

If we agree that it is only potential, that argument is acceptable. If we agree that it is actually a human being, your argument is flawed. Indeed, if the premise that it is only a potential human being rather than an actual human being cannot be substantiated, the argument cannot itself hold up to criticism.

Des Carter

WOW I am actually shocked at the poll results and its terrible to think about the number of people who think killing is acceptable.

However Im not going all preechy or whatever just look at this before you make up your mind and THEN tell me its not murder.

http://www.100abortionpictures.com/Aborted_Baby_Pictures_Abortion_Photos/

bebes

StormWarrior wrote: »

She is the one who is physically pregnant and gives birth. She's the one who has to undergo the pregnancy/abortion, so it should be her choice whether to do so or not. Saying that the man should have the right to force her to have an abortion is just the same old patriarchal stuff as saying she shouldn't be allowed to have one if she wants. Why should men get to decide what happens to women's bodies? To make it fair to men, a law could be introduced whereby if a man from the very beginning does not want to be a father he can relinquish all rights and responsibilities to the child.

Des Carter wrote: »

WOW I am actually shocked at the poll results and its terrible to think about the number of people who think killing is acceptable.

However Im not going all preechy or whatever just look at this before you make up your mind and THEN tell me its not murder.

http://www.100abortionpictures.com/Aborted_Baby_Pictures_Abortion_Photos/

Some really shocking pictures there, but I guess there's no denying the truth.

I just think if everyone took responsibility for their own fertility then there wouldn't be a problem!

Think about it ladies, I'm not judging anybody for their choices but at the end of the day this is really not about having the right to decide about your own body. And guys its not about you having no choice at all.

EVERYBODY has a choice when they have sex to be responsible or not! Surely nobody really wants to have abortions they just find themselves in a bad situation. I say stop getting into those situations, its not difficult NOT to get pregnant in the first place people!!!

Forest Master

I'm really liberal with everything, and I honestly don't understand how people think it's okay to kill an unborn baby. It baffles me. The poll results are shocking.

General Zod

Min wrote: »

Get a newborn baby and leave it to fend for itself, does that justify infanticide?

No. because it's an infant. it's not a zygote.

If they are having an abortion it is more than potential human life, it is human life that one is knowingly killing.

It's a zygote.


I've seen lots of gruesome pictures of births, does that mean no woman should should have one?

Nervous Wreck

monkeyfudge wrote: »

I believe the term is 'pro-choice'

I doubt anyone is particularly pro-abortion.

Pity. Coulda saved us the horror:

http://i153.photobucket.com/albums/s208/chibuku23/19-jedward-500.jpg

bonerm

WRT to the advert, It's only abortion for chrisake. Not something disgusting like smoking.

prinz

General Zod wrote: »

It's a zygote.

Correct me if I'm wrong but abortion in the UK is available up to 24 weeks. At 24 weeks "it's" far from being a zygote.

General Zod

prinz wrote: »

Correct me if I'm wrong but abortion in the UK is available up to 24 weeks. At 24 weeks "it's" far from being a zygote.

correct. I still have no problem with 24 weeks.

Min

General Zod wrote: »

Min wrote: »

Get a newborn baby and leave it to fend for itself, does that justify infanticide?

No. because it's an infant. it's not a zygote.



It's a zygote.


I've seen lots of gruesome pictures of births, does that mean no woman should should have one?

Marie Stopes doesn't perform abortions on zygotes just to keep this on topic....

However that 4 day period when we were all a zygote is just as important as any other day in our lives where we try to survive.

Min

General Zod wrote: »

correct. I still have no problem with 24 weeks.

I guess this botched abortion fighter would.....

The 22-week infant died one day later in intensive care at a hospital in the mother's home town of Rossano in southern Italy

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/7646540/Baby-boy-survives-for-nearly-two-days-after-abortion.html

He wanted to live but was left to die.

prinz

General Zod wrote: »

correct. I still have no problem with 24 weeks.

Even though there would alreade by organs, a skeleton forming, eyebrows, fingerprints etc.... it's still only a ball of worthless cells?

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/156236/worlds_youngest_premature_baby_survives.html?cat=25

Stark

Min wrote: »

However that 4 day period when we were all a zygote is just as important as any other day in our lives where we try to survive.

So I'm guessing morning after pills and contraceptive coils are murder then.

General Zod

this is completely pointless, especially now that the youth defence crack web response squad have turned up.

Enjoy perning in a gyre, all.

bebes

prinz wrote: »

Correct me if I'm wrong but abortion in the UK is available up to 24 weeks. At 24 weeks "it's" far from being a zygote.

You're exactly right. I think the cells are initially a zygote, then progresses to an embryo until it develops into a foetus approximately around the 10 week mark so by 24 its a million miles away from a zygote.

By the 24 weeks mark the mother can usually feel it moving around.

Min

Stark wrote: »

So I'm guessing morning after pills and contraceptive coils are murder then.

If you have human life and you kill it......

Stark

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't see what justification you have for this opinion. There is a human life developing and growing from the point whereby the sperm and the ova fuse to make a zygote. A continuous growth and development until one eventually dies.

That is entirely different to preventing such a formation of human life from beginning. Sperm and ova constitute prerequisites to human life, but not human life themselves, as the sperm and the ova of themselves do not develop into human beings.

Masturbation was once considered murder because you were "spilling the seed". These days, we're not so morally absolute regarding sperm and the potential for human life it represents.

General Zod

is motorboating better or worse than contraception?

Zulu

General Zod wrote: »

That exists, it's called the Adoption system.

Indeed - but it's not suitable is it? Case & point?

She gets to choose wether she wants to have the child. If she wants to go against the fathers wishes than that is her option to raise the child.

And yet he'll be legally obliged to provide her with maintence. Hardly fair on an economic basis is it? Equality my arse.

General Zod wrote: »

It's a clump of cells that cannot survive independently.

The same can be said of a two year old, or a person with a disability. The Spartans had a similar approach to controling society. Hardly a progressive approach to social inclusion or equality.

StormWarrior wrote: »

She is the one who is physically pregnant and gives birth. She's the one who has to undergo the pregnancy/abortion, so it should be her choice whether to do so or not.

So it's ok then for the father to refuse paying any maintence?

Saying that the man should have the right to force her to have an abortion is just the same old patriarchal stuff...

And saying he should not get any choice in the matter but forcing him to maintence is unconsidered codswallop of the highest order. (I accept you personally feel that men should have a financal out.)

Why should men get to decide what happens to women's bodies?

Why should women get to decide what happens to men?
Why should she have the power to make him a father at her whim alone.

philologos

Stark wrote: »

Masturbation was once considered murder because you were "spilling the seed". These days, we're not so morally absolute regarding sperm and the potential for human life it represents.

I would view people who have argued such a position to be mistaken, just as I view your position to be mistaken. For me it isn't about these days, because I never held the belief system you describe, and I don't know of anyone who holds such a position.

The human life doesn't exhibit growth until the point of contraception. The human life cannot exist without a sperm or an ova. The sperm and the ova cannot themselves individually constitute human life.

Therefore I would argue that there is a distinct difference between any given sperm and ova, and a zygote. I think most people would too.

Stark

Zulu wrote: »

The same can be said of a two year old, or a person with a disability. The Spartans had a similar approach to controling society. Hardly a progressive approach to social inclusion or equality.

A two year old is more than a clump of undifferentiated cells, as is someone with a disability. They both have well formed central nervous systems and are concious and aware. No-one's a murderer for ex-foliating their skin, despite the death that represents to the skin cells that are separated from the body.

Jakkass wrote:

Therefore I would argue that there is a distinct difference between any given sperm and ova, and a zygote. I think most people would too.

A zygote cannot survive and grow until it implants itself in the mother's placenta. So it could be argued that human life starts at implantation, rather than fertilization.