Your right to an Abortion

seenitall

metrovelvet wrote: »

The only other poster here who I feel anywhere near being on the same hymn sheet here is drkpower and wibbs' first paragraph in a post he made a couple of pages ago.

Maybe that is the ugly truth that most people here are dodging.

Got a bit lost here... who is on the same hymn sheet as who? drkpower, Wibbs and you, or just the two of them with each other?

Who's dodging the ugly truth? I don't see many people on here dodging anything. Everything has been discussed quite reasonably, including the ugly truth of abortion. Disagreeing with something isn't the same as dodging it.

K-9

sambuka41 wrote: »

You don't need to pin yourself down as pro life or pro choice, lots of people throughout the thread are torn. Its seems to be different for everyone.

I see the poster was banned.

Anyway I consider myself "pro life" in that really abortion would be the last choice on my mind when confronted with an unplanned pregnancy. I've been there as a 22/23 year old and a 18/19 year old pregnant mum with all the conservative prejudices from a very Catholic family and prejudging, scoffing Donegal community from the outside.

The thought never crossed my or her mind. We've a 13 year old now and he's a great lad.

A few years later I asked her about what would she do if an unplanned pregnancy happened again and she said she'd abort. I'm still dumbfounded by that one, think there was other stuff going on there, but opinions do change, mines has.

If an unplanned pregnancy happened again I'd do everything I could to make it happen. I don't believe it's a terrible thing. I got over lack of money etc, and managed. Worse things can happen but I understand in a crisis pregnancy that is hard to concentrate on.

I'd be pro life, a baby in a persons life is an amazing thing and the opportunities are boundless but I'm a realist too! Sending 4/5,000 abroad and ignoring it or preaching from a high isn't working, other countries have managed to reduce the rate, even good Catholic countries like Spain.

Ickle Magoo

Who's in denial at life being sacred? Nobody who has ever used a contraceptive that prevents implantation or the MAP considers life sacred. The point of contention is at what point life becomes sacred enough to legally protect, not whether life is sacrosanct or not.

Stheno

Suaimhneach wrote: »

I hear what you're saying, but I'd love to see people "convert" from being anti-choice to pro-choice, being won over with logic and reason, and it being done with kindness and truth of facts.

Rather than being stuck on one side, we should work to convince the opposite that there is another way!

ah but if we all agreed there would be little debate

metrovelvet

seenitall wrote: »

Got a bit lost here... who is on the same hymn sheet as who? drkpower, Wibbs and you, or just the two of them with each other?

Who's dodging the ugly truth? I don't see many people on here dodging anything. Everything has been discussed quite reasonably, including the ugly truth of abortion. Disagreeing with something isn't the same as dodging it.

I was not speaking for either drkpower or wibbs, I was just saying that the only other poster here I feel close [though not exact, to being on the same hymnn sheet here is drkpower.

Ickle, you misread what I said. I said people are in denial that life IS NOT sacred, whether by denying the foetus is human life in the first place, or by claiming lives must be preserved at all costs. Life is cheap nowadays.

seenitall

metrovelvet wrote: »

Life is cheap nowadays.

Nowadays... as opposed to the whole human history of savage political and religious conflicts and wars? Not to mention that abortion is not exactly a new invention (to say the least).

metrovelvet

seenitall wrote: »

Nowadays... as opposed to the whole human history of savage political and religious conflicts and wars? Not to mention that abortion is not exactly a new invention (to say the least).

Ok, not nowadays. Life is cheap full stop.

Ickle Magoo

metrovelvet wrote: »

Ickle, you misread what I said. I said people are in denial that life IS NOT sacred, whether by denying the foetus is human life in the first place, or by claiming lives must be preserved at all costs. Life is cheap nowadays.

I think claiming "most people here" are in denial about anything is an absolute nonsense - what I've read would suggest most people here have both a broad understanding of the issue in terms of legalities and more importantly, practicalities.

Life has always been cheap - in fact it's probably worth more in more countries now than ever before.

seenitall

Well, either that or you're a bit of an idealist, MV

metrovelvet

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I think claiming "most people here" are in denial about anything is an absolute nonsense - what I've read would suggest most people here have both a broad understanding of the issue in terms of legalities and more importantly, practicalities.

Life has always been cheap - in fact it's probably worth more in more countries now than ever before.

You think so? 50 million died in WW2.

Probably more abortions now than in history.

How about the national murder rate?
Suicides?
Terrorism?
Beheadings on the internet?

I dont know if I think its more valuable now than ever before.

JamJamJamJam

metrovelvet wrote: »

Ok, not nowadays. Life is cheap full stop.

Sorry, I don't quite see what your point is? Is it that abortion is less significant than some people perceive it to be since life is very often expended almost without thought?

metrovelvet

JamJamJamJam wrote: »

Sorry, I don't quite see what your point is? Is it that abortion is less significant than some people perceive it to be since life is very often expended almost without thought?

Maybe that is what it comes down to.

But Im not sure which is the chicken and which is the egg. Either the cheapness of life has made the significance of abortion less, or the commonness of abortion has cheapened life.

K-9

metrovelvet wrote: »

I was not speaking for either drkpower or wibbs, I was just saying that the only other poster here I feel close [though not exact, to being on the same hymnn sheet here is drkpower.

Ickle, you misread what I said. I said people are in denial that life IS NOT sacred, whether by denying the foetus is human life in the first place, or by claiming lives must be preserved at all costs. Life is cheap nowadays.

I believe it is sacred but then I've been faced with the possibility of my opinion not mattering much and seeing as that is the reality, you have to deal with it.

It's fine arguing with possibilities as drkpower does very well or a pro life mother like yourself MV, but as a father faced with a strong minded mother insistent on abortion, there isn't a lot you can do.

The other way round, I'm sure the same.

metrovelvet

K-9 wrote: »

I believe it is sacred but then I've been faced with the possibility of my opinion not mattering much and seeing as that is the reality, you have to deal with it.

It's fine arguing with possibilities as drkpower does very well or a pro life mother like yourself MV, but as a father faced with a strong minded mother insistent on abortion, there isn't a lot you can do.

The other way round, I'm sure the same.

I am neither pro life or pro choice.

Im not pro life because Im on the fence about euthanasia. Im not a pacifist either. I think sometimes war is a necessary evil.

I also think pro lifers spend a lot of time campaigning when they should be helping struggling mothers and get their hands dirty on the front line with the women who made brave choices.

Im not pro choice because I think a lot of the reasons middle class and above women have abortions are ridiculous, and somehow they are above judgement for it. I hate that they go away thinking it was just a bunch of cells. No it isnt. You ended a human life. At least be honest about it.

k-9, there is the rub, there isn't a whole lot you can do as the man. I think its very sad for the men in that position, sad for the woman and the child tbh.

If I found myself suprised pregnancy tomorrow, Id be facing another c section, more kidney failure, another blood transfusion, on top of a four year old im raising alone, and it could quite possibly send me straight into the nearest river. But then having an abortion might do the same to me. It's a terrible choice for anyone to have to make. People praise choice all the time. Sometimes choice is not so much fun, especially making them alone.

Morag

seenitall wrote: »

Nowadays... as opposed to the whole human history of savage political and religious conflicts and wars? Not to mention that abortion is not exactly a new invention (to say the least).

As long as there has been sex there has been unwanted pregnancies.
There are instructions which were used to kill a child before it drew it's first breathe which was ok by christian doctrine at the time. As it was believed that was when the soul entered.

And at one stage the church had two different date by which it was ok to have an abortion, one for boys and one for girls, it was then after that believed that until the baby moved inside a woman it didn't have a soul and abortion was ok.

But there have always been means and ways to end a pregnancy.
Be it by inserting thing into the womb as detailed in egpytian medical papyrus
or the herbal remedies which Culpepper published as part of his book, with pictures of what all the different herbs look like and alter names for them.

There has always been abortion it's nothing new.

What has changed is that it's been made safe and legal in a lot of countries so that women no longer die from it or have their fertility destroyed.
Anyone who thinks abortion is "new" and hasn't always been a part of life for women going back generations indeed millennia needs to have a proper think about it.

Ickle Magoo

metrovelvet wrote: »

You think so? 50 million died in WW2.

Probably more abortions now than in history.

How about the national murder rate?
Suicides?
Terrorism?
Beheadings on the internet?

I dont know if I think its more valuable now than ever before.

And how many perished in the crusades? During slavery? Before medicine and anti-biotics? In childbirth alone? The likelihood of getting through delivery and then surviving to see your grandchildren has improved exponentially.

metrovelvet

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

And how many perished in the crusades? During slavery? Before medicine and anti-biotics? In childbirth alone? The likelihood of getting through delivery and then surviving to see your grandchildren has improved exponentially.

The Twentieth Century has proved to be one of the most evident of Europe's bloodthirst.

Ilness, childbirth are natural causes of death.

Ickle Magoo

metrovelvet wrote: »

The Twentieth Century has proved to be one of the most evident of Europe's bloodthirst.

Ilness, childbirth are natural causes of death.

Not when the disease is caused by over-crowding and poverty - the plague alone is estimated to have caused 200 million deaths to date.

And thanks to the blood thirsty twentieth century, neither disease nor childbirth claims anywhere near as many lives...

JamJamJamJam

metrovelvet wrote: »

Maybe that is what it comes down to.

But Im not sure which is the chicken and which is the egg. Either the cheapness of life has made the significance of abortion less, or the commonness of abortion has cheapened life.

Okay, well while I agree with your logic here, I think it's fair for people who are anti-abortion to argue against it in favour of life, if that's where they place their values, as many do.

For me, life is certainly not cheap. (I'm not anti-abortion, mind you). Shakespeare (here we go :rolleyes:) sums it up using a wonderful display of irony in Hamlet:

King: For what we know [death] must be, and is as common
As any the most vulgar thing to sense -
Why should we in our peevish opposition
Take it to heart? Fie, 'tis a fault to heaven,
A fault against the dead, a fault to nature,
To reason most absurd; whose common theme
Is death of fathers, and who still hath cried
From the first corse till he that died today,
'This must be so.'

Claudius reiterates a sentiment not too far from your argument: since death occurs so commonly, why should we take it to heart? However, the question answers itself. We should take it to heart for the very reason that it is common. And if we, like Claudius, fail to recognise the (undervalued) value of life, then we may struggle to achieve real peace as a community/race/group-thing. Tragedy ensues!!

Sorry. I'm still in Leaving Cert mode...

My point is that, well, imagine (just to demonstrate it) if everyone everywhere embraced the idea that life is cheap. The outcome could be horrible.

Which is all very, very relevant to a woman's right to abortion...

K-9

Sharrow wrote: »

As long as there has been sex there has been unwanted pregnancies.
There are instructions which were used to kill a child before it drew it's first breathe which was ok by christian doctrine at the time. As it was believed that was when the soul entered.

And at one stage the church had two different date by which it was ok to have an abortion, one for boys and one for girls, it was then after that believed that until the baby moved inside a woman it didn't have a soul and abortion was ok.

I don't really care what the Church thinks now or did in the past. I'm aware of the influence it had and was affected by it but all it is what some group of men think. My mother didn't go to my sons christening because of guilt, TBh, she was more concerned about the neighbours and the family members also having a christening in the same church on the same day, the shame, rather than what the CC wanted. If the Govt. had the same view she'd have been the same.

I'm able to make my mind up, thank you very much.

metrovelvet

JamJamJamJam wrote: »

Okay, well while I agree with your logic here, I think it's fair for people who are anti-abortion to argue against it in favour of life, if that's where they place their values, as many do.

For me, life is certainly not cheap. (I'm not anti-abortion, mind you). Shakespeare (here we go :rolleyes:) sums it up using a wonderful display of irony in Hamlet:

Claudius reiterates a sentiment not too far from your argument: since death occurs so commonly, why should we take it to heart? However, the question answers itself. We should take it to heart for the very reason that it is common. And if we, like Claudius, fail to recognise the (undervalued) value of life, then we may struggle to achieve real peace as a community/race/group-thing. Tragedy ensues!!

Sorry. I'm still in Leaving Cert mode...

My point is that, well, imagine (just to demonstrate it) if everyone everywhere embraced the idea that life is cheap. The outcome could be horrible.

Which is all very, very relevant to a woman's right to abortion...

It's ok. Hamlet is a very long debate on the whole value of life. And I am a big Shakespeare fan.

I agree that the commonality of something certainly does not minimise its impact. It is not a perspective I adopt myself, but many many people do, and that is more what I was saying, that with its become more and more common, the deliberate strategies for ending life [what I mean by that is man made means of it - not natural disasters like Tsunami's and the Plague and things like that] becoming more available, with gun ownership, abortion, hijacking planes, suicide assistance, etc, that it becomes familiar, and the more familiar the more normal, and the more normal, and abortion is part of this, abortion, while you may think it is a right, the price for that right is that life itself is devalued.

metrovelvet

K-9 wrote: »

I don't really care what the Church thinks now or did in the past. I'm aware of the influence it had and was affected by it but all it is what some group of men think. My mother didn't go to my sons christening because of guilt, TBh, she was more concerned about the neighbours and the family members also having a christening in the same church on the same day, the shame, rather than what the CC wanted. If the Govt. had the same view she'd have been the same.

I'm able to make my mind up, thank you very much.

Indeed. The Irish church also thought it was ok to rape little boys and rip open pregnant single women without anesthetic so I'd take all that with a siberian sized grain of salt.

Ickle Magoo

metrovelvet wrote: »

- not natural disasters like Tsunami's and the Plague and things like that

But it's still man taking control of life and death - it's the flip side of the abortion/euthanasia coin. Billions of people are alive that wouldn't have been otherwise thanks to man artificially extending and protecting their lives. Surely, that is deeming life as precious?

metrovelvet

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

But it's still man taking control of life and death - it's the flip side of the abortion/euthanasia coin. Billions of people are alive that wouldn't have been otherwise thanks to man artificially extending and protecting their lives. Surely, that is deeming life as precious?

I dont know Ickle. Maybe. But Im more likely to see man's intervention co inciding with things like abortion, hunting, pesticides, animal farming, fishing, air conditioning, I could go on, as our struggle against mastery over nature.

K-9

metrovelvet wrote: »

Indeed. The Irish church also thought it was ok to rape little boys and rip open pregnant single women without anesthetic so I'd take all that with a siberian sized grain of salt.

Well I wouldn't go that far. To my Mum marrying a Protestant was wrong 20 years ago.

She's adapted, took a while, funny thing is for her time which was 50/60's Ireland, very independent and ahead of her time, no Mammy's boys there!

Just the social and political attitude constricted her. Divorce was a new concept in 1980's Ireland and was defeated, passed by about .2% in 1995, wife swapping sodomites we were.

I can't think of another "modern" country that has gone under the amount of change socially Ireland has done in the last 30 years.

metrovelvet

K-9 wrote: »

Well I wouldn't go that far. To my Mum marrying a Protestant was wrong 20 years ago.

She's adapted, took a while, funny thing is for her time which was 50/60's Ireland, very independent and ahead of her time, no Mammy's boys there!

Just the social and political attitude constricted her. Divorce was a new concept in 1980's Ireland and was defeated, passed by about .2% in 1995, wife swapping sodomites we were.

I can't think of another "modern" country that has gone under the amount of change socially Ireland has done in the last 30 years.

Ireland never had a transition time. The US had the 1960s. Ireland went from one extreme to another without the transition. So you have this generation of people whose world is upside down.

Ickle Magoo

K-9 wrote: »

Well I wouldn't go that far. To my Mum marrying a Protestant was wrong 20 years ago.

I had somebody ask me in a pub here a couple of years ago what it was like being in a mixed marriage... :pac:

seenitall

metrovelvet wrote: »

Im not pro choice because I think a lot of the reasons middle class and above women have abortions are ridiculous, and somehow they are above judgement for it. I hate that they go away thinking it was just a bunch of cells. No it isnt. You ended a human life. At least be honest about it.

They are above judgment for it? Whose judgment? Why do you feel you have the right to judge them? Because they refuse to be a host to the growing life inside them? It's only murder/killing in your opinion, in theirs it is not so, and I suspect nothing you say or do will make a difference to their opinion, nor should it. They should be able to think for themselves and make a choice, however deluded in your opinion. At the end of the day, what does it matter whether they feel it is human life or not? You think they wouldn't go through with the procedure if they were thinking "It's a life" instead of "It's a bunch of cells"? C'mon. Everyone capable of understanding some basic biology knows exactly what's at stake here, whatever you name it. Naming it "life" or "cells" is not the crux of the matter, the crux is, as was already indicated a few pages ago, the location of the organism.

iguana

Wibbs wrote: »

As far as cognition goes a clever adult border collie is arguably more aware and conscious than a newborn.

OT but your average adult dog has similar awareness and intelligence to that of your average human toddler. It doesn't even need to be a border collie, you have smarter dogs and dogs which aren't so smart but the same is also true for toddlers. Dogs and toddlers have very similar abilities in terms of understanding communication, (word recognition and physical cues including facial expression). They can perform similar tasks on command and have similar empathic awareness. Obviously toddlers learn at an incredibly rate and will quickly surpass dogs in all areas where they are similar. (On the other hand dogs have other talents which the toddlers will never be able to mimic either, like hunting and rearing young.)

K-9

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I had somebody ask me in a pub here a couple of years ago what it was like being in a mixed marriage... :pac:

And I gave her a whole load of lip over similar attitudes.

She adapts very well and laughs at "young ones these days" and sure that's the way it is now.

She'd be quite the liberal at the current time given similar attitudes.

Probably a feminazi!

Some woman and I say that as a compliment.