Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

If There Was A Referendum on Abortion Tomorrow, How Would You Vote?

Options
12357…11

Comments

  • Options
    #122
    Prof.Badass
    Registered Users Posts: 2,931 ✭✭✭Prof.Badass


    StormWarrior wrote: »
    It can, if the drug taker needs medical treatment which will be paid for out of taxes and makes others wait longer for treatment, or if the drugs make them violent and they cause harm to others, or they begin stealing to fund their habit.
    I said it does not cause direct harm. None of the you gave involve the drugs themselves causing direct harm to other people.

    Clearly allowing the use of drugs is compatible with the principle of personal liberty. If you value this principle you will allow the use of drugs (that's not to say you can't place legal regulation on it though). If you don't think drugs should be legal, then you clearly think personal liberty is superceeded by something else (which makes your political outlook somewhat authoritarian).

    Using the logic you have just given you could ban anything under the sun.


  • Options
    #123
    Odysseus
    Registered Users Posts: 6,754 ✭✭✭Odysseus


    StormWarrior wrote: »
    It can, if the drug taker needs medical treatment which will be paid for out of taxes and makes others wait longer for treatment, or if the drugs make them violent and they cause harm to others, or they begin stealing to fund their habit.

    The same can be said for alcohol, the Alcohol Services though a different service share the building with the Addiction Services where I work.


  • Options
    #124
    AnimalRights
    Registered Users Posts: 7,067 ✭✭✭AnimalRights


    From the Bullfighting thread.
    AnimalRights wrote: »
    Meat is Murder
    Abortion is Murder
    Bulmers Cider is fine

    TY for your time.


    I also believe the poll is seriously flawed.


  • Options
    #125
    Coriolanus
    Registered Users Posts: 4,879 ✭✭✭Coriolanus


    StormWarrior wrote: »
    It can, if the drug taker needs medical treatment which will be paid for out of taxes and makes others wait longer for treatment, or if the drugs make them violent and they cause harm to others, or they begin stealing to fund their habit.
    All of which happens already with legal drugs. They're not arguements against the legalising of anything else, if all those problems already exist and are ignored. Actually, it's effectively discriminating against anyone who's drug of choice isn't alchohol.


  • Options
    #126
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    I'm pro-abortion. No reasons given against abortion have ever come close to convincing me.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #127
    Hazlittle
    Closed Accounts Posts: 210 ✭✭Hazlittle


    If you believe that an unborn counts as a person, then abortion is murder. Otherwise pro-lifers are just forcing their ideology on others.

    But for me I want my government to consider all human life equal and worthy of protection. So this whole "my body my choice" thing doesnt fly for me. I believe children deserve the same rights as adults. I'm also not a Catholic so I'm not interested in what church says on this issue. I'm not liberal or conservative, I have no desire to impose my ideology on others. However as I have said I consider the unborn to be equal to children.

    Abortion was an offense under Brehon law.


  • Options
    #128
    reallyrose
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,727 ✭✭✭reallyrose


    This is an excellent thread, I didn't think it was possible to have a calm, sane debate on this issue on the internet.

    If it came to a vote, I'd vote yes. I do think it should be a choice. I always feel that those, especially the religious-types seem to react to the idea of legalised abortion as if they would become compulsary!

    There certainly should be better sex-ed and more freely available contraception in Ireland. I've known quite a few girls who played the sperm-lottery for one reason or another, they weren't aware of alternatives to condoms, they didn't want to go to the doctor and just ask for the Pill, etc.

    I don't think I would have one myself, but it is quite easy for me to say that, I've never been in the situation where I would be faced with a choice like that and touch wood (or touch condom :pac:) I never will be.

    Also, guys! Don't be jerks about wearing condoms! Not every woman is strong enough to stand up to her man and say "No entry without a rainjacket".


  • Options
    #129
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    reallyrose wrote: »
    If it came to a vote, I'd vote yes. I do think it should be a choice. I always feel that those, especially the religious-types seem to react to the idea of legalised abortion as if they would become compulsary!

    I think its more that people respect the right to live. That's the primary reason why I oppose abortion-by-choice. It is precisely because I believe the rights of the child are being ignored.

    It would be the same in the case of someone having a gun to someone elses head. I would support them putting away the gun so that the other might continue to live.


  • Options
    #130
    Hazlittle
    Closed Accounts Posts: 210 ✭✭Hazlittle


    Jakkass wrote: »
    I think its more that people respect the right to live. That's the primary reason why I oppose abortion-by-choice. It is precisely because I believe the rights of the child are being ignored.

    It would be the same in the case of someone having a gun to someone elses head. I would support them putting away the gun so that the other might continue to live.

    Agree.

    I think its rather rude for pro-choice people to keep banging on about religion. Their ideology blinds them from a decent debate.


  • Options
    #131
    The_Minister
    Registered Users Posts: 10,255 ✭✭✭✭The_Minister


    bnt wrote: »
    The days of "abortion as contraception" are long gone, so that "loose women" moralistic idea is no longer a factor.

    Actually, there are several countries where abortion is frequently used as contraception: Japan, Russia, Romania etc.

    The only reason everyone has this idea that abortion can't be used as contraception is because it is illegal here - once it becomes legal, attitudes will relax towards it.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #132
    McChubbin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,080 ✭✭✭McChubbin


    I'm personally of the mind where abortion should only be used in the case of a medical emergency or rape. Having said that, over the years, I've come to sympathize somewhat with women who have abortions for reasons other than those. It would be far kinder than bringing a child into a world were its' parents either can't care for it or it will be viewed with resentment.
    HOWEVER, and this is a big HOWEVER, if the only real reason why the woman is considering an abortion is due to "Eh, don't want", then why isn't the option of adoption factored in?

    I know I may come off as biased being an adopted child myself but I personally feel it would be better to give an unwanted child to a family who want it, who can give it all the care and stability in the world than to kill it off senselessly. There are so many people out there who have been trying for decades to have children without sucess so why can't there be more focus on adoption than abortion?

    Yes, I can understand the stigma with unplanned/unwanted pregnancies and how seeing the child grow week by week would mess with an uncertain woman's mind but if there's proper councilling and support in place, why the hell not?

    My own mother lost two of her own children via miscarriage and had my biological mother not gone down the adoption road, my mother would've never been both blessed and cursed with me as a daughter.

    I think abortion outside of rape/medical cases has a tendancy to be viewed as a "quick fix" in this day on age and not enough thought is put into the other options available such as adoption or fostering.

    Say what you will but that's my two cents on the matter...


  • Options
    #133
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Jakkass wrote: »
    I think its more that people respect the right to live. That's the primary reason why I oppose abortion-by-choice. It is precisely because I believe the rights of the child are being ignored.

    The rights of the child? Or the rights of a bundle of cells? I'm confused as to which you are referring.


  • Options
    #134
    Klingon Hamlet
    Registered Users Posts: 2,738 ✭✭✭Klingon Hamlet


    Deleted User wrote: »
    The rights of the child? Or the rights of a bundle of cells? I'm confused as to which you are referring.

    That's the focal point of the whole debate, isn't it? I chose Yes because one way or another, a mother will get an abortion---if not here, then she'll goto UK or Holland.

    The question is, how soon into the pregnancy must the line be drawn between a bundle of cells, and a child? Can we determine consciousness and therefore pain? To my mind if this could be ascertained, then a more humane decision could be made, i.e. if cells become living feeling children 8 weeks in, let the line be drawn at 6 weeks, etc etc...


  • Options
    #135
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Deleted User wrote: »
    The rights of the child? Or the rights of a bundle of cells? I'm confused as to which you are referring.

    You and I are bundles of cells albeit arranged in a complex fashion. Yet I continue to feel that your liberty is worthy of defence. The "it's just a bundle of cells" argument, is a malicious attempt to delegitimise life from my view of it.

    I find the bundle of cells argument to be severely dishonest, and disingenuous.

    The foetus at an early stage is just about what we would expect at human life at that point, pretty much as I wouldn't expect a toddler to be an world renowned expert in theoretical physics. It's based on human views of aesthetics, which are irrelevant in determining what is alive from what is dead.


  • Options
    #136
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Jakkass wrote: »
    You and I are bundles of cells albeit arranged in a complex fashion. Yet I continue to feel that your liberty is worthy of defence. The "it's just a bundle of cells" argument, is a malicious attempt to delegitimise life from my view of it.

    You and I are bundles of cells with a central nervous system. Such is the difference in rigorous terms.


  • Options
    #137
    storm2811
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,183 ✭✭✭storm2811


    Do we really need another abortion thread?

    It's all been discussed enough over in the abortion ad thread!


  • Options
    #138
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Deleted User wrote: »
    You and I are bundles of cells with a central nervous system. Such is the difference in rigorous terms.

    The central nervous system is also present in a foetus after a certain stage of development.

    Even so, a central nervous system doesn't define a human life in pretty much the same way that riding a unicycle while playing an accordion doesn't define a human life.

    It's all semantics if that is the line we are going down.


  • Options
    #139
    Lollipops23
    Registered Users Posts: 5,420 ✭✭✭Lollipops23


    I would vote for legalisation of abortion without a shadow of a doubt-I do accept that not everyone agrees with it but the answer is simple-don't have one.

    It's time Ireland caught up with the rest of the civilised world IMHO.


  • Options
    #140
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Lollipops23 wrote: »
    I would vote for legalisation of abortion without a shadow of a doubt-I do accept that not everyone agrees with it but the answer is simple-don't have one.

    Ah come off it. The issue is about tolerating the denial of human rights, not about it being okay for you, and not okay for me.

    You know that surely?
    Lollipops23 wrote: »
    It's time Ireland caught up with the rest of the civilised world IMHO.

    Many of us don't consider it "civilised" to deny others the right to live. That's why we take the pro-life position. In a sense, I believe this is a way in which we in the West have failed to protect liberty, the liberty we so commonly boast about.


  • Options
    #141
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Jakkass wrote: »
    The central nervous system is also present in a foetus after a certain stage of development.

    Even so, a central nervous system doesn't define a human life in pretty much the same way that riding a unicycle while playing an accordion doesn't define a human life.

    It's all semantics if that is the line we are going down.

    Well, there are no other criteria for a human life apart from the twin criteria of consciousness and belong to the human species.

    It is difficult to ascertain what level of consciousness an embryo has at different stages of it's development, as we know that the central nervous system starts to develop as early in as two weeks, but only the foundation; there aren't even enough cells at that stage to give it even the most primitive form of cognition.

    I don't think abortion before a stage where an unborn can reasonably be expected to have some awareness of it's situation can be condemned. What that stage is will have to be rigorously ascertained.

    Also, I would support abortion in all cases where the mother's life was threatened, or where the mother was raped. Simply put, in a choice between destroying a foetus and destroying a person with experiences and memories, I would always put the person ahead.
    In the case of rape, the child would be brought into the world and it would likely be unloved, uncared for, a victim by virtue of its existence. I wouldn't wish that upon any child.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #142
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Of course there are other criteria for human life.

    The mere existence of growth and development in an organism comprised through the fusion of sperm and ova, which leads right to birth is a striking one.

    Consciousness is something which is gained as the growth and development process, given by life proceeds. It isn't something that defines life itself.

    How can this growth be exhibited in something which is dead?


  • Options
    #143
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Of course there are other criteria for human life.

    The mere existence of growth and development in an organism comprised through the fusion of sperm and ova, which leads right to birth is a striking one.

    Actually, this describes most mammals, not merely humans. If you are a vegetarian, then I can understand where you are coming from with this argument, but if not, then surely abortion then is no worse than killing animals as we do all the time?
    Consciousness is something which is gained as the growth and development process, given by life proceeds. It isn't something that defines life itself.

    How can this growth be exhibited in something which is dead?

    It can't. It also can't be exhibited by a foetus before it is aborted. So your argument here is coming from the 'potential for life' POV here, am I right?


  • Options
    #144
    thee glitz
    Registered Users Posts: 2,294 ✭✭✭thee glitz


    There are moral compasses gone haywire here.

    poll.jpg


  • Options
    #145
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Actually, this describes most mammals, not merely humans. If you are a vegetarian, then I can understand where you are coming from with this argument, but if not, then surely abortion then is no worse than killing animals as we do all the time?

    Indeed, it would if I didn't distinguish between humans or animals, or if I didn't regard humans as being worthy of respect, and indeed having their rights respected.
    Deleted User wrote: »
    It can't. It also can't be exhibited by a foetus before it is aborted. So your argument here is coming from the 'potential for life' POV here, am I right?

    No, not at all. Lacking consciousness is what we can expect from an early life form. Pretty much in the same way as I wouldn't expect a toddler to be a world renowned expert in theoretical physics, or computation. It is when we get into consciousness as a starting point that we deviate from what we can know from a biological point of view, into what is contrived in philosophies that individuals hold.

    It is alive, it isn't potentially alive.


  • Options
    #146
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Indeed, it would if I didn't distinguish between humans or animals, or if I didn't regard humans as being worthy of respect, and indeed having their rights respected.

    Well then, that qualifies what I said; that being a member of the human species seems to be one of these criteria for being considered to have a special right to live.
    No, not at all. Lacking consciousness is what we can expect from an early life form. Pretty much in the same way as I wouldn't expect a toddler to be a world renowned expert in theoretical physics, or computation. It is when we get into consciousness as a starting point that we deviate from what we can know from a biological point of view, into what is contrived in philosophies that individuals hold.

    It is alive, it isn't potentially alive.

    It is alive. Bacteria are also alive. When it is born, it will certainly be human. Before then, well... it is a living cluster of cells. I don't equate an embryo or foetus as having equal rights as full human beings, any more than I would equate sperm as having equal rights.


  • Options
    #147
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Well then, that qualifies what I said; that being a member of the human species seems to be one of these criteria for being considered to have a special right to live.

    Amongst our species yes. Although I am sure one of the local vegetarians and vegans would be willing to argue against such a position.

    We share a common likeness as human beings, that gives us in a sense a responsibility to look out for one another. At least as far as I'm concerned. Any destruction of this common likeness, or this empathy we have together as human beings, is a destruction of our moral willingness to care for one another. That's how I would see it anyway.
    Deleted User wrote: »
    It is alive. Bacteria are also alive. When it is born, it will certainly be human. Before then, well... it is a living cluster of cells. I don't equate an embryo or foetus as having equal rights as full human beings, any more than I would equate sperm as having equal rights.

    Yes, it is alive as bacteria is alive. However, you are ignoring the fact that this life is human and by virtue of being human, it is one of us. By being one of us, we have a responsibility to defend the rights that are rightly given to it. Otherwise, as far as I'm concerned the case for defending all other rights including your own ends at least on a consistency level.

    If one is not willing to consider the rights of others, why on earth should others be willing to consider you to have rights?

    The sperm argument is lacking. As is the cluster of cells argument. I've already been through that you and I are clusters of cells, and that such an argument is based on mere aesthetics rather than on real substance.

    The sperm argument is lacking as growth isn't exhibited until the sperm and ova fuse to form a zygote. A sperm in and of itself does not develop and grow as is normal for a foetus to, and indeed as it is normal for a child to do.

    Your equation, or lack of equation should have no relevance as to where the law stands on defending another's rights. Your argument has been used in the past by various other groups to deny rights to other demographics, in this case it is the unborn, in the past it was blacks, Jews, and so on.


  • Options
    #148
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Jakkass wrote: »
    The sperm argument is lacking as growth isn't exhibited until the sperm and ova fuse to form a zygote. A sperm in and of itself does not develop and grow as is normal for a foetus to, and indeed as it is normal for a child to do.

    Growth seems an arbitrary distinction. There is nothing special about organisms which grow.
    Your equation, or lack of equation should have no relevance as to where the law stands on defending another's rights. Your argument has been used in the past by various other groups to deny rights to other demographics, in this case it is the unborn, in the past it was blacks, Jews, and so on.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_Law


  • Options
    #149
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Irrespective of Godwin's Law (although there were many cases of anti-Semitic attacks before and after the Nazi regime), it is a valid point that needs to be considered.

    How is growth an arbitrary distinction? - I didn't say that there was "anything special" in things that grow. Indeed "anything special" is irrelevant. What we are talking about is being alive. Life is intrinsic to growth in organisms, organisms comprised of human biological prerequisites (sperm and ova) begin a growth, and development process until death.


  • Options
    #150
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Irrespective of Godwin's Law (although there were many cases of anti-Semitic attacks before and after the Nazi regime), it is a valid point that needs to be considered.

    I don't know when this line of argument has been used to discriminate. It was valid reasoning. We are trying to classify what should constitute as 'murder' in essence. I was suggesting that based on your criteria before your last post (you've since elaborated), killing bacteria would come under the blanket of creatures that we 'murder' rather than 'kill'.
    How is growth an arbitrary distinction? - I didn't say that there was "anything special" in things that grow. Indeed "anything special" is irrelevant. What we are talking about is being alive. Life is intrinsic to growth in organisms, organisms comprised of human biological prerequisites (sperm and ova) begin a growth, and development process until death.
    We've been here before so I think I may stop arguing after this post since it doesn't appear we will agree.
    This is the synopsis of our argument:
    Where you and I differ is that you consider the foetus to have the same rights as a human because you consider it to be a human, being born of the fusion of two human gametes.
    I disagree and argue that the criteria for distinguishing between what is 'murder' and what isn't shouldn't be on whether that was born of the human race, but a mixture of humanity and cognition.
    My stance on that point won't change, as yours won't.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #151
    Prof.Badass
    Registered Users Posts: 2,931 ✭✭✭Prof.Badass


    Klingon Hamlet wrote: »
    The question is, how soon into the pregnancy must the line be drawn between a bundle of cells, and a child? Can we determine consciousness and therefore pain? To my mind if this could be ascertained, then a more humane decision could be made, i.e. if cells become living feeling children 8 weeks in, let the line be drawn at 6 weeks, etc etc...

    Why is that at all relevant?

    Would it be ok for me to kill you painlessly in your sleep (you'd never know)?

    Whichever way you answer it will expose the flaw in your logic.
    bnt wrote: »
    The bit that gets my goat is how some people think they have moral authority over other people. You don't. Stay out of it.

    I agree. However the government also has a duty to protect people from being harmed by others. The issue of abortion has absolutely nothing to do with the debate on personal liberty. It is a seperate issue involving the rights of the unborn. Please stop confusing the issue by making the abortion debate look like it's about personal liberty. It's not.

    As a libertarian who does not support the legalisation of abortion this kinda **** really annoys me :mad:.


Advertisement