Your right to an Abortion

Rothmans

Kimia wrote: »

It's not frivolous in the slightest. I consider someone who disregards all other points and adds their own point without even reading the conversation rude. I also assume that they have nothing of worth to add as they haven't read any of the history of the thread.

I've read six pages, but it was the same thing being thrown back and forth.


Besides, I thought you were scrolling over my posts

philologos

Rothmans wrote: »

They're both very good points. I think any point where life begins is ultimately going to be an arbitrary one, but this is, to my mind, the most sensible one, and the one that is easiest to back up with medical concensus.

I don't see how implantation is any better than conception. Conception being when the embryo first exhibits tangible growth and development. The same life grows from that point and develops right until the point of death in an individual.

Rothmans

Sharrow wrote: »

It's more then discomfort, in some cases it can cost a woman her life.
Pre-eclampsia can and does cos women their lives.

In which case, a termination would be legal with regard to the X case, as I've already pointed out.

beeftotheheels

Rothmans wrote: »

However, such is the design of the human body, that it must be in-utero to survive. But the salient argument to be made, in this regard, is that the child will ultimately survive (in-utero) if uninhibited by external actions ( ie termination)

So then, an expectant mother cannot terminate but can happily do the following which could injure the fetus.

Drink, smoke, do drugs, eat foods with a high risk of listeria or lead, take prescription medications which could damage the child e.g. anti-depressants and that is all fine because the fetus is happily developing, even if abnormally so we're good. The child is surviving in utereo.

Rothmans

philologos wrote: »

I don't see how implantation is any better than conception. Conception being when the embryo first exhibits tangible growth and development. The same life grows from that point and develops right until the point of death in an individual.

With the exception of miscarriage
(procured or otherwise) :

At conception, a life may or may not from

At implantation, a viable life has formed and will come to fruition ( for want of a better word).

Morag

Rothmans wrote: »

In which case, a termination would be legal with regard to the X case, as I've already pointed out.

Legal yes, legislated for not currently and while that has been ignored by successive governments medical professionals can not do what is needed to save women's lives.

WesternNight

Rothmans wrote: »

With the exception of miscarriage
(procured or otherwise) :

At conception, a life may or may not from

At implantation, a potentially viable life has formed and will come to fruition ( for want of a better word).

Fixed that..

Wolfe Tone

Sharrow wrote: »

Legal yes, legislated for not currently and while that has been ignored by successive governments medical professionals can not do what is needed to save women's lives.

That would be political suicide really to go near that.

Rothmans

beeftotheheels wrote: »

So then, an expectant mother cannot terminate but can happily do the following which could injure the fetus.

Drink, smoke, do drugs, eat foods with a high risk of listeria or lead, take prescription medications which could damage the child e.g. anti-depressants and that is all fine because the fetus is happily developing, even if abnormally so we're good. The child is surviving in utereo.

I guess she could, but a doctor would certainly warn her against that. Howver, if she were going to go on and do such things, the advice notwithstanding, to go on doing those things would purely be appaling malicious.

Rothmans

WesternNight wrote: »

Fixed that..

There was no need to, such was the point of the underlined section.

Morag

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

That would be political suicide really to go near that.

I disagree and I think we will see it legislated and policies and proceedures put in place in the next decade or so. Polling among those who are under 30 show a very different attitude to abortion the those who are in their 50s.

philologos

Rothmans wrote: »

With the exception of miscarriage
(procured or otherwise) :

At conception, a life may or may not from

At implantation, a viable life has formed and will come to fruition ( for want of a better word).

As I would see it at conception a life has formed. In the event that it doesn't implant correctly it doesn't continue. I.E - It dies. As such implantation is a critical stage rather than the point in which life begins.

Rothmans

Sharrow wrote: »

Legal yes, legislated for not currently and while that has been ignored by successive governments medical professionals can not do what is needed to save women's lives.

Unfortunately, successive governments have decided to pretend the issue doesn't exist. But, I believe the current government have set up a commission or board to deal with the matter, which hopefully will do something about the situation.

Rothmans

philologos wrote: »

As I would see it at conception a life has formed. In the event that it doesn't implant correctly it doesn't continue. I.E - It dies. As such implantation is a critical stage rather than the point in which life begins.

That's a very interesting interpretation all right, but it would have the effect of making certain contraceptives illegal. Furthermore, there is no intrinsic connection between mother and child at this point.

Wolfe Tone

Sharrow wrote: »

I disagree and I think we will see it legislated and policies and proceedures put in place in the next decade or so. Polling among those who are under 30 show a very different attitude to abortion the those who are in their 50s.

Older people vote more dont they?

Theres a reason why this is being avoided by politicians, whichever way they approach it it will piss off a load of people possibly to such a degree that they would never vote for them again.

I dont put much stock in polls tbh, the only ones that matter are referendums.

seenitall

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Older people vote more dont they?

Yeah, they tend to die off more, too...

beeftotheheels

Rothmans wrote: »

I guess she could, but a doctor would certainly warn her against that. Howver, if she were going to go on and do such things, the advice notwithstanding, to go on doing those things would purely be appaling malicious.

No. My point is that any woman who wants to be pregnant will want to do, as far as is possible, right by her unborn child.

Any woman who does not want to be pregnant has no such incentive and it is not malicious to fail to change your life to accommodate a bunch of cells that you don't want. If a depressed woman got pregnant, and didn't want to be/ feel able to be, should she stop taking the anti-depressants which make dealing with life just about bearable because that might be in the short term best interests of those cells? Not necessarily long term best interests if her depression leads to suicide though...

To treat this in terms of hard and fast rules if you can force a woman to remain pregnant against her wishes, then why not also be able to force her to do what is right by the pregnancy?

The answer I think you will find is that none of us are really comfortable with treating a pregnant woman as an incubator, with locking them up to protect the fetus, because that would be a more flagrant abuse of women's rights than any one could stand.

So we settle for the half way house of just trampling on some of her rights while pretending that the fetus has full rights in the right to life, but no right to be protected from anything less than a termination.

metrovelvet

Also the younger ones are emigrating.

philologos

Rothmans wrote: »

That's a very interesting interpretation all right, but it would have the effect of making certain contraceptives illegal. Furthermore, there is no intrinsic connection between mother and child at this point.

I would personally understand a contraceptive as a device that prevents conception. I'm not personally opposed to any device that fits into this definition. Seems logical given that the name splits up as such. Although I am open to being convinced on this one, I don't see a huge difference between the pre and post implantation embryos apart from location.

Fluorescence

metrovelvet wrote: »

Also the younger ones are emigrating.

Embryos these days have no patriotism at all :pac:

seenitall

metrovelvet wrote: »

Also the younger ones are emigrating.

My point was that the biologically brought-about shift in the majority opinion will also eventually lead to relevant changes in legislation; no amount of emigration will be able to stem the shift of attitudes which are decidedly moving away from pro-life in the younger generations.

Wolfe Tone

seenitall wrote: »

My point was that the biologically brought-about shift in the majority opinion will also eventually lead to relevant changes in legislation; no amount of emigration will be able to stem the shift of attitudes which are decidedly moving away from pro-life in the younger generations.

I would question that tbh

seenitall

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

I would question that tbh

That's fine. As the wise man said: "Time will tell."

Fluorescence

I find it amusing that no-one's yet bothered to refute any of my posts on this thread. I wonder what that says? :pac:

Wolfe Tone

fluorescence wrote: »

I find it amusing that no-one's yet bothered to refute any of my posts on this thread. I wonder what that says? :pac:

No one listens to you!

I think at this stage I'm pretty much done here, I've said my piece, been angered, misrepresented, disgusted by some peoples barbaric positions, spent an hour walking the dog thinking about my position (it hasn't changed), think I've had my fill at this stage... Till next time I guess :pac:

Ellis Dee

Rothmans wrote: »

Irish law takes the view that the right to life is more important than 9 months of varying discomfort (and possibly pain).

There's more than a little crap about Irish law and Irish society in general. Our constitution guarantees the life of the "unborn" (what a weird and creepy term!), and the dead have no more problems, but the years in between still need a lot of fine-tuning.:)

We have failed as a society to put in place a lot of things that are taken for granted in places like Sweden - for example excellent universal health care and good schools where education is genuinely cost-free and churches have no say in it - but still some of us still feel free to point the finger at Sweden because it gives women the right to choose and having a termination is no big deal there. :rolleyes:

philologos

Sweden having a great healthcare system doesn't contradict the opinion that abortion-by-choice* is immoral. It just means that they are doing a good job in all legitimate procedures.

I would argue that Sweden also has the most ethical welfare system in the world, along with the most ethical response to prostitution. You're right a lot of things are done very well in Sweden it doesn't mean that one can't criticise the legalisation of abortion-by-choice* though.

* Rather than abortion-by-medical-necessity

Morag

One thing I have noticed over the years is that young idealist young people often change their stance/position once they reach the start of their 20s and experience a pregnancy scare.

Wolfe Tone

Sharrow wrote: »

One thing I have noticed over the years is that young idealist young people often change their stance/position once they reach the start of their 20s and experience a pregnancy scare.

And often they dont.

Morag

In my experience of 20 years of such discussion some don't, but they would be in the minority.