Keep abortion out of Ireland

eviltwin

Prinz have you ever known a woman who had considered or had an abortion? We are normal women. I was a married mother in my 30's. Do you really not think my decision was mine and mine alone to make based on what was best for my life and that of my family ?

prinz

eviltwin wrote: »

Prinz have you ever known a woman who had considered or had an abortion? We are normal women.

Yes I have. She went through with it, she's still a friend. Prior to that I was in a relationship with her, it became an issue with the guy after me.

eviltwin wrote: »

I was a married mother in my 30's. Do you really not think my decision was mine and mine alone to make based on what was best for my life and that of my family?

Honestly, no. Again all the reasons why I have done earlier on the thread.

hattoncracker

prinz wrote: »

They were mentioned... and I responded.

I don't remember seeing anything in your post about how little a percentage of women get abortions because of eye colour or gender when you were responding about them..
And yet you flippantly throw it out there that rape victims to have abortions are in the minority. Funny, that.

eviltwin

Well that I find very hard to understand. I can assure you I didn't go through with it lightly. It was not an easy thing to do. I agonised over it for weeks. The hardest part was being exported to the UK to do it. Ireland's dirty little secret. If we send women overseas then its okay. Well its not. It still happens, we just allow another country to deal with it. But I was lucky I could afford to go. What if I hadn't? Your opinion would have forced me to continue with a pregnancy that was not wanted or take matters into my own hands. I can't get that at all.

prinz

hattoncracker wrote: »

I don't remember seeing anything in your post about how little a percentage of women get abortions because of eye colour or gender when you were responding about them..

I haven't discussed women getting abortions because of eye colour whatsoever.. As for 'because of gender' I was responding to a poster making a claim that it didn't happen. Unfortunately it does, and 0.0000001% is too many IMO.

hattoncracker wrote: »

And yet you flippantly throw it out there that rape victims to have abortions are in the minority. Funny, that.

I didn't flippantly throw it out. See above.. 000000001% is too many so legalising abortion for the sake of a tiny minority is not going to change my position realistically is it?

hattoncracker

prinz wrote: »

Not quite. I think men and women should take equal responsibility in the pregnancy happening, but basically what you are saying is men should share equal responsibility in getting you pregnant, equal responsibility after birth. But during the 9 months of pregnancy shouldn't have a say whatsoever.... or that it would be great in an 'ideal' world. So you want your cake and you want to eat it... and then you accuse others of sexism.

The effects of having a child are a lot more long-lasting than the effects of having an abortion. (ie-you have a child you have to provide for, educate, and it's there for the rest of your life, I'm not talking about the emotional side of it)..

If there is disagreement over something that fundamental in a relationship, then the problems in that relationship need to be addressed before making a life-long commitment to a child. A child deserves to be loved, a child deserves to have the best in life. If you knowingly can't provide it, and the guilt of bringing a child into this world that would not have all that you wanted for it outweighed the guilt of having an abortion, then there should be no argument. This is not a simple decision, it has to be made clinically but from the heart, and the balance of which is very hard to maintain.

hattoncracker

prinz wrote: »

I haven't discussed women getting abortions because of eye colour whatsoever.. As for 'because of gender' I was responding to a poster making a claim that it didn't happen. Unfortunately it does, and 0.0000001% is too many IMO.



I didn't flippantly throw it out. See above.. 000000001% is too many so legalising abortion for the sake of a tiny minority is not going to change my position realistically is it?

Would you legalise abortion for rape victims only?

prinz

eviltwin wrote: »

Well that I find very hard to understand... I can't get that at all.

You see there the difference lies. I try to understand where you're coming from. I do see where you are coming from but just can't say 'abortion is ok afterall'. Other people can't see where I'm coming and prefer to resort to accusations of misogyny etc.

prinz

hattoncracker wrote: »

The effects of having a child are a lot more long-lasting than the effects of having an abortion. (ie-you have a child you have to provide for, educate, and it's there for the rest of your life, I'm not talking about the emotional side of it)..

Adoption?

hattoncracker wrote: »

If there is disagreement over something that fundamental in a relationship, then the problems in that relationship need to be addressed before making a life-long commitment to a child.

Before hopping into bed I'd say.

hattoncracker wrote: »

A child deserves to be loved, a child deserves to have the best in life. If you knowingly can't provide it, and the guilt of bringing a child into this world that would not have all that you wanted for it outweighed the guilt of having an abortion, then there should be no argument. This is not a simple decision, it has to be made clinically but from the heart, and the balance of which is very hard to maintain.

A child deserves to be loved. This question is going to sound cruel and messed up but it's the only way I can think of of phrasing it: do you honestly think had you proceeded with your pregnancy that you would not have loved your child? A child deserves the best you can provide, not the best in life otherwise nobody would be having kids.
Seriously do you think I was raised with everythng my parents would have liked/wanted for me? Were you? There has already been the account earlier on the thread from a pro-choice poster whose friend considered abortion but didn't and is thankful since.. do you think that lady feels more guilt now?

hattoncracker

prinz wrote: »

You see there the difference lies. I try to understand where you're coming from. I do see where you are coming from but just can't say 'abortion is ok afterall'. Other people can't see where I'm coming and prefer to resort to accusations of misogyny etc.

I do see where you're coming from. Growing up, I believed as you believed, was raised as Catholic, went to mass every week with my mum and sister, but then I saw that life is not so black and white, and much as believing as I did would have been a nice way to live, I knew it wasn't an accurate representation of the real world.


I saw sixteen and seventeen year olds in my school get pregnant, and one sat her Leaving Cert two weeks after having her baby.. At the time I just accepted it, but when I go to about 22/23 I used to see them when I visited home and tried to imagine how frightened I'd be a 23 being pregnant, never mind 17. I also saw girls at the other school in my town which was a convent who got pregnant and were kicked out for it. I just thought to myself "what if it was my daughter? or my sister? What if I was the principal of that convent? How could I justify that?"

eviltwin

prinz wrote: »

You see there the difference lies. I try to understand where you're coming from. I do see where you are coming from but just can't say 'abortion is ok afterall'. Other people can't see where I'm coming and prefer to resort to accusations of misogyny etc.

I'm not saying abortion is okay. I am pro choice not pro abortion. I would love nothing more than to live in a world where all pregnancies were wanted but I'm a realist. I think people need support and non biased advice but they should be treated with dignity and allowed to do what they feel is right for them. I wouldn't want any woman to go through what I went through.

prinz

hattoncracker wrote: »

Would you legalise abortion for rape victims only?

I have thought about it.. I just can't see it working in practice, then again I'd see the unborn as the result of rape a victim in the whole ordeal too.

hattoncracker

prinz wrote: »

I have thought about it.. I just can't see it working in practice, then again I'd see the unborn as the result of rape a victim in the whole ordeal too.

Agreed. How would you ever explain that to your child?

prinz

eviltwin wrote: »

I'm not saying abortion is okay. I am pro choice not pro abortion.

If you support the death penalty are you pro-death penalty or pro-choice? It's semantics really, another way people use to disassociate themselves with their actual position.

eviltwin wrote: »

I would love nothing more than to live in a world where all pregnancies were wanted but I'm a realist.

As would I.

eviltwin wrote: »

I wouldn't want any woman to go through what I went through.

hattoncracker

prinz wrote: »

.. and I wouldn't want a foetus lying on a table somewhere struggling for breath but being ignored by doctors and medical staff as they wait for it to die.

Posting stuff like that to someone who's had an abortion shows you have not the slightest idea as to how hard a decision like that is to make. Poor taste and insensitive, prinz. Hate the sin, not the sinner, but don't forget to look past the sin, and SEE the sinner.

prinz

hattoncracker wrote: »

Agreed. How would you ever explain that to your child?

Good question.

hattoncracker

prinz wrote: »

Adoption?

Illegal if you're married. I hope you kept that in mind when you were responding to eviltwin.

Before hopping into bed I'd say.

True, but that's not very realistic in this day and age.

A child deserves to be loved. This question is going to sound cruel and messed up but it's the only way I can think of of phrasing it: do you honestly think had you proceeded with your pregnancy that you would not have loved your child? A child deserves the best you can provide, not the best in life otherwise nobody would be having kids.

Did you at least have four walls and a roof? Because my child wouldn't have? I know I would have loved my child. I am a very loving person, but love doesn't pay for food. But hating the sin and not the sinner, as I have stated before, can make it hard to see the sinner behind the sin. Money is not everything, but the less you have of it the more important it becomes.

Seriously do you think I was raised with everythng my parents would have liked/wanted for me? Were you? There has already been the account earlier on the thread from a pro-choice poster whose friend considered abortion but didn't and is thankful since.. do you think that lady feels more guilt now?

I also believe that if we are talking about the same poster, she said she would have had it if it had been legal here, and her view on that hasn't changed even though she loves her child, if my memory serves correctly.

prinz

hattoncracker wrote: »

Posting stuff like that to someone who's had an abortion shows you have not the slightest idea as to how hard a decision like that is to make. Poor taste and insensitive, prinz.

Perhaps but in a debate about abortion what's the point if you're not able to discuss what some go through, not just women but also the ones who are aborted. There's a tendancy to resort to appeals to emotion here, but when I do the same it's poor taste.

hattoncracker wrote: »

Hate the sin, not the sinner, but don't forget to look past the sin, and SEE the sinner.

I see the sinner.

eviltwin

Prinz if that post was meant to cause upset or distress you wasted your time. As I said earlier I do not regret what I did. But some women and men might find it distressing. Perhaps you should remove it, I know the point you are trying to make.

hattoncracker

prinz wrote: »

Perhaps but in a debate about abortion what's the point if you're not able to discuss what some go through, not just women but also the ones who are aborted. There's a tendancy to resort to appeals to emotion here, but when I do the same it's poor taste.



I see the sinner.

She's a mother, already has children. She already knows what its like to hold her baby in her arms and to feel it move and grow inside her, and that would have made her decision extremely difficult. Do you not think that she must have had a very good reason to give that up, whatever that reason may be?

prinz

hattoncracker wrote: »

True, but that's not very realistic in this day and age.

Why not? It's all well and good talking about ideal world this, ideal world that, but how are you going about trying to get to that point? Does providing abortion services on demand here do anything to improve the situation?

prinz

eviltwin wrote: »

Prinz if that post was meant to cause upset or distress you wasted your time. As I said earlier I do not regret what I did. But some women and men might find it distressing. Perhaps you should remove it, I know the point you are trying to make.

It wasn't, and I have removed it as per your request.

hattoncracker wrote: »

She's a mother, already has children. She already knows what its like to hold her baby in her arms and to feel it move and grow inside her, and that would have made her decision extremely difficult. Do you not think that she must have had a very good reason to give that up, whatever that reason may be?

Perhaps she had a very good reason, perhaps not. There are plenty of good reasons, none that have me convinced yet.

eviltwin

My husband and I actually had our first child in our teens so we had been through the whole crisis pregnancy thing and came out the otherside. Underpinning that though was the fact that we both wanted the baby.

Fast forward 13 years and although we were in a much better place it was an unwanted pregnancy rather than an unplanned one.

I never considered adoption. The pregnancy alone would have caused me huge mental distress and I had a family who needed me. Abortion gave me a closure that I needed at that time.

hattoncracker

prinz wrote: »

Why not?

Because sex is not seen as something exclusively for procreation, and is not seen as being confined to the marital bed anymore. The law does not reflect this at all, as is seen in the illegality of adoption for married couples.

It's down to the individual, and what they find acceptable. But free contraception is not available in this country, again, a law that should be changed.

PDN

eviltwin wrote: »

Prinz if that post was meant to cause upset or distress you wasted your time. As I said earlier I do not regret what I did. But some women and men might find it distressing. Perhaps you should remove it, I know the point you are trying to make.

A Note From a Moderator

Look, if you're going to post on an internet discussion forum then you're going to have to accept that some people will disagree with you.

That particularly applies when you post about abortion on a Christianity Forum, bearing in mind that most Christians consider abortion to be wrong and the snuffing out of an innocent life. In part this stems from a Christian value that we should care for the suffering and the defenceless - and there isn't anybody that is as defenceless as a baby (unborn or newborn).

The mods are trying to facilitate reasoned discussion, and, on what is a very emotive subject, we are aware that feelings can run high. My own opinion, while strongly opposed to abortion, is that many women are pressurised into making desperate decisions at times - decisions that they may come to regret in the longer term. I would be very concerned if people who are raw and vulnerable emotionally feel judged or got at.

But you and hattoncracker cannot expect emotive language to be a one way street. Once you open the door by saying things like, "You need to think of all the anguish a woman goes through before she has an abortion" then you cannot get all precious because someone else wants to talk about the suffering that they feel is involved for the baby in some (particularly late term) abortions.

If you open that door of emotive language then it stays open. You can't close it again by saying, "How nasty of you to say something that upsets me." That merely derails discussion. If you feel your situation is too delicate and upsetting for people to respond to it, then you really need to ask whether you should be posting about it, and therefore inviting responses, on an internet discussion forum.

hattoncracker

prinz wrote: »

It wasn't, and I have removed it as per your request.



Perhaps she had a very good reason, perhaps not. There are plenty of good reasons, none that have me convinced yet.

That's exactly the point of choice, though. Just because a total stranger has a different view over whether you have an abortion or not, doesn't mean that they should be able to make the choice for you.

doctoremma

prinz wrote: »

I have thought about it.. I just can't see it working in practice, then again I'd see the unborn as the result of rape a victim in the whole ordeal too.

How about in this situation:
A girl is raped by her step-father from the age of 6. At 9 years old, he impregnates her with twins. At four months gestation, she goes to hospital with tummy pains and the pregnancy is discovered. Her mother seeks an abortion for her daughter (I am going to assume consent, although with a 9 year old, it would be a remarkably grey area about whether it would even be needed). The abortion is carried out.

The mother, the daughter, the doctors who performed the abortion are excommunicated by the Catholic church. The raping pedophile of a step-father is not. The Vatican deemed the 9-year old girl's crime more heinous than the stepfather's.

She was 9, carrying twins after rape.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1883598,00.html

Now, what say you?

doctoremma

prinz wrote: »

If you support the death penalty are you pro-death penalty or pro-choice? It's semantics really, another way people use to disassociate themselves with their actual position.

That charge could easily be levelled at the pro-life group, who likely reject the notion that they are anti-choice. Smacks of oppression.

prinz

hattoncracker wrote: »

Because sex is not seen as something exclusively for procreation, and is not seen as being confined to the marital bed anymore..

..and so instead of dealing with that situation, and getting people to learn that can sex lead to procreation and how they should take precautions or be prepared for that we open up abortion clinics? Do you not think it would be better rather to concentrate on helping people to cop on to the fact that as much as sex is a pleasurable thing to do, it has consequences they should be prepared for?

hattoncracker wrote: »

The law does not reflect this at all, as is seen in the illegality of adoption for married couples.

Yes direct adoption from married couples is an issue, an issue that will hopefully be dealt with soon..

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/1228/1224309551121.html

However I think the generally followed course of action is that married couples wishing to give up the child go through the HSE to have it fostered, I'll admit I don't know the ins and outs of the legalities of adoption from married couples. Hardly ideal for sure.

eviltwin

PDN wrote: »

A Note From a Moderator

Look, if you're going to post on an internet discussion forum then you're going to have to accept that some people will disagree with you.

That particularly applies when you post about abortion on a Christianity Forum, bearing in mind that most Christians consider abortion to be wrong and the snuffing out of an innocent life. In part this stems from a Christian value that we should care for the suffering and the defenceless - and there isn't anybody that is as defenceless as a baby (unborn or newborn).

The mods are trying to facilitate reasoned discussion, and, on what is a very emotive subject, we are aware that feelings can run high. My own opinion, while strongly opposed to abortion, is that many women are pressurised into making desperate decisions at times - decisions that they may come to regret in the longer term. I would be very concerned if people who are raw and vulnerable emotionally feel judged or got at.

But you and hattoncracker cannot expect emotive language to be a one way street. Once you open the door by saying things like, "You need to think of all the anguish a woman goes through before she has an abortion" then you cannot get all precious because someone else wants to talk about the suffering that they feel is involved for the baby in some (particularly late term) abortions.

If you open that door of emotive language then it stays open. You can't close it again by saying, "How nasty of you to say something that upsets me." That merely derails discussion. If you feel your situation is too delicate and upsetting for people to respond to it, then you really need to ask whether you should be posting about it, and therefore inviting responses, on an internet discussion forum.

On the contrary I think I made it clear I wasn't offended. And I didn't think I was being emotive with my experience - thats the reason I left the details of it out.
I am quite happy to continue the discussion. Its been very interesting.

hattoncracker

prinz wrote: »

..and so instead of dealing with that situation, and getting people to learn that can sex lead to procreation and how they should take precautions or be prepared for that we open up abortion clinics? Do you not think it would be better rather to concentrate on helping people to cop on to the fact that as much as sex is a pleasurable thing to do, it has consequences they should be prepared for?



Yes direct adoption from married couples is an issue, an issue that will hopefully be dealt with soon..

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/1228/1224309551121.html

However I think the generally followed course of action is that married couples wishing to give up the child go through the HSE to have it fostered, I'll admit I don't know the ins and outs of the legalities of adoption from married couples. Hardly ideal for sure.

Sex education in this country is absolutely abysmal, as in the UK, which is why for a great number of years they had the highest rate of teen pregnancy in Europe. Improve sex eduacation, give out free contraception, decrease the number of crisis pregnancies. It's a no-brainer.

And do not get me started on the Abstinence brigade in the States. All they teach is 'Just Say No', nothing about condoms, the pill, etc, and they get funding to the tune of one billion dollars a year.

I used to go out with a guy who was fostered because his mother couldn't give him up for adoption, it was not an ideal situation.

eviltwin

As long as people have sex there will be unwanted pregnancies. Things happen, people make mistakes. Honestly I cannot see the difference between abortion for a rape victim and for someone who forgot to take her pill. Its not my place to judge or make decisions for them. They have to live with their choice, let them decide.

prinz

doctoremma wrote: »

Now, what say you?

Firstly the Archbishop didn't pick and choose who to excommunicate. The excommunications are automatic based on your actions (latae sententiae).. and it's possible to 'undo' it as such. Abortion would represent one the of the actions that incurs automatic excommunication. Rape isn't. As such the Archbishop wasn't saying x's crime is more or less heinous than y's, what he did do it state the Catholic Church's position.

Can. 1323 No one is liable to a penalty who, when violating a law or precept: Can. 1323 1° has not completed the sixteenth year of age;

So in regards to the young girl no she wasn't excommunicated. If you paid more attention to the Time article you'll notice there is nothing about the girl being excommunicated so there is no balancing of 'her crime' against that of her rapist.

Of course these excommunications can be lifted by means of going to confession and asking for forgiveness.

Forgot to add that when the Vatican did get involved it was to rap the Brazilian Archbishop over the knuckles somewhat..

http://novantiqua.com/2009/03/20/translation-of-archbishop-fisichellas-intervention-on-the-brazilian-excommunications/

doctoremma

hattoncracker wrote: »

Sex education in this country is absolutely abysmal, as in the UK, which is why for a great number of years they had the highest rate of teen pregnancy in Europe.

Woah there chicken, it's not THAT abysmal. I received a lesson on what a condom was at the age of 10 and received age-appropriate sex education (including contraception and termination), incorporated into Biology, all the way through my secondary - and Catholic -school.

It might not be as progressive as Germny etc, but we also have an extremely generous social security system in place that practically pays young girls to have babies!

prinz

hattoncracker wrote: »

Sex education in this country is absolutely abysmal, as in the UK, which is why for a great number of years they had the highest rate of teen pregnancy in Europe. Improve sex eduacation, give out free contraception, decrease the number of crisis pregnancies. It's a no-brainer. And do not get me started on the Abstinence brigade in the States. All they teach is 'Just Say No', nothing about condoms, the pill, etc, and they get funding to the tune of one billion dollars a year.

Agree with it all, apart from the fact that abstinence is a valid option to be considered, but I agree abstinence-only isn't viable.

hattoncracker wrote: »

I used to go out with a guy who was fostered because his mother couldn't give him up for adoption, it was not an ideal situation.

I agree again.

doctoremma

prinz wrote: »

Firstly the Archbishop didn't pick and choose who to excommunicate. The excommunications are automatic based on your actions (latae sententiae).. and it's possible to 'undo' it as such. Abortion would represent one the of the actions that incurs automatic excommunication. Rape isn't. As such the Archbishop wasn't saying x's crime is more or less heinous than y's, what he did do it state the Catholic Church's position.

So in regards to the young girl no she wasn't excommunicated. If you paid more attention to the Time article you'll notice there is nothing about the girl being excommunicated so there is no balancing of 'her crime' against that of her rapist.
Of course these excommunications can be lifted by means of going to confession and asking for forgiveness.

Apologies if my question wasn't direct enough (assuming this to be the case as you haven't addressed it). Let me clarify.

Do you think a 9 year old girl who has been routinely raped by her step-father such that she eventually becomes pregnant with twins has the right to access an abortion?

If we're allowing full on emotion, what would you if you were her father?

hattoncracker

doctoremma wrote: »

hattoncracker wrote: »

Sex education in this country is absolutely abysmal, as in the UK, which is why for a great number of years they had the highest rate of teen pregnancy in Europe.

Woah there chicken, it's not THAT abysmal. I received a lesson on what a condom was at the age of 10 and received age-appropriate sex education (including contraception and termination), incorporated into Biology, all the way through my secondary - and Catholic -school.

It might not be as progressive as Germny etc, but we also have an extremely generous social security system in place that practically pays young girls to have babies!

Really? I got nothing.. It started the year after I finished primary school in 1999 and I got nothing in secondary school!

doctoremma

hattoncracker wrote: »

Really? I got nothing.. It started the year after I finished primary school in 1999 and I got nothing in secondary school!

Apologies again for my lack of clarity, I'm not doing well tonight. I now also feel guilty about those who thanked my post.

I am in the UK.

prinz

doctoremma wrote: »

Apologies if my question wasn't direct enough (assuming this to be the case as you haven't addressed it). Let me clarify. Do you think a 9 year old girl who has been routinely raped by her step-father such that she eventually becomes pregnant with twins has the right to access an abortion?

Probably yes.. lesser of two evils in that case. I'd imagine carrying twins at that age would seriously endanger her life.

doctoremma wrote: »

If we're allowing full on emotion, what would you if you were her father?

prinz

doctoremma wrote: »

Apologies again for my lack of clarity, I'm not doing well tonight. I now also feel guilty about those who thanked my post.
I am in the UK.

Well I got plenty of sex ed in schools from the time I was about 10 (last two years of primary and all through secondary), then again I wouldn't blame the schools entirely, parents should be taking the lead in my view. Seems like there is too much room for schools to pick and choose.

eviltwin

It should be parent led but supported by schools but then you're depending on parents to do right by their kids and I think some very religious parents would do them a disservice....if they are anything like my parents they would grow up with all sort of rubbish in their heads.

prinz

eviltwin wrote: »

It should be parent led but supported by schools but then you're depending on parents to do right by their kids and I think some very religious parents would do them a disservice....if they are anything like my parents they would grow up with all sort of rubbish in their heads.

I don't know about that, the let's say 'most religious' parents I know would be my parents-in-law and let's just say nothing is left to the imagination when it comes to discussing sex with them shocked my innocent Irish heart it did.:pac: I've known them about 8 years now and it still comes as a bit of a shock, my own parents were fairly open but blimey.

I think ignorant parents would do their kids a disservice. Religious or otherwise.

dj357

The case of the suicide bomber in one's sights and the choice to kill him or do nothing is an interesting one. Until the suicide bomber actually goes through with his act he is (presumably) up to that point innocent, and yet the taking of his life is carried out unflinchingly and it's never called murder. If you can justify that death by virtue of the prevention of suffering, why do you discard this logic when faced with the case of an unwanted pregnancy?

On a second issue, it's been mentioned that suppose we agree to abortion on demand up to week X and a woman comes along at week X+1, at that point we're back to the self-same discussion as before. I would disagree with this. Why can we not simply agree on a certain point past which abortions would not legally be provided for (unless the life of the mother was at risk)

Why should it matter if women in the UK are having multiple abortions if they occur in the 1st trimester before anything remotely resembling a brain and nerves truly forms? Why should it be an issue to provide access to a chemical abortion? Why can we not agree to allow abortions up to the point at which reasonable people on both sides of the debate are unable to point and say that is or is not a baby, and no longer a clump of unfeeling cells?

dj357

eviltwin wrote: »

It should be parent led but supported by schools but then you're depending on parents to do right by their kids and I think some very religious parents would do them a disservice....if they are anything like my parents they would grow up with all sort of rubbish in their heads.

Given that schools are generally where our children go to learn about the world it should be an integral part of a national curriculum and should be detailed and frank. More sex education and better sex education can only have positive results.

prinz

dj357 wrote: »

The case of the suicide bomber in one's sights and the choice to kill him or do nothing is an interesting one. Until the suicide bomber actually goes through with his act he is (presumably) up to that point innocent, and yet the taking of his life is carried out unflinchingly and it's never called murder.If you can justify that death by virtue of the prevention of suffering, why do you discard this logic when faced with the case of an unwanted pregnancy?

Who says? I'd still have to answer for the death some way. Either way it's not really relevant as I have already stated that where the foetus presents a real danger to the life of the mother then saving one is acceptable to me. I don't see money problems etc in the same vein as life threatening ones. Also let's say I killed someone in self defence? It would still be examined and investigated and if there was a case to answer I'd have to answer it in court. I wouldn't expect to walk away no questions asked.

dj357

prinz wrote: »

Who says? I'd still have to answer for the death some way. Either way it's not really relevant as I have already stated that where the foetus presents a real danger to the life of the mother then saving one is acceptable to me. I don't see money problems etc in the same vein as life threatening ones. Also let's say I killed someone in self defence? It would still be examined and investigated and if there was a case to answer I'd have to answer it in court. I wouldn't expect to walk away no questions asked.

I didn't specifically mention money problems. The point is who knows what kind of consequences it would lead to. In the example, you don't know if it will or won't kill everybody, you don't know if he'll be spotted by someone in the crowd and stopped, you don't know what would happen if you did nothing and so you take the life to prevent potential suffering (of whatever kind). How can you justify that, regardless of the consequences you would personally have to endure, and then deny that logic to the case of abortion?

prinz

dj357 wrote: »

I didn't specifically mention money problems. The point is who knows what kind of consequences it would lead to. In the example, you don't know if it will or won't kill everybody, you don't know if he'll be spotted by someone in the crowd and stopped, you don't know what would happen if you did nothing and so you take the life to prevent potential suffering (of whatever kind). How can you justify that, regardless of the consequences you would personally have to endure, and then deny that logic to the case of abortion?

It was a very specific example of a suicide bomber in a crowded street. You were to assume that they weren't there for window shopping or enjoying the sun... but in a way you are correct, if I pulled the trigger and it turns out that the bombs were fake or some such I would have to answer for that as I said. If I'd make a mistake I'd be up on charges on murder or manslaughter.

The same logic doesn't apply to abortion because you don't have to answer for it afterwards if you abort for potential suffering either way. The two scenarios don't cross over, the same logic doesn't apply.

Festus

qrrgprgua wrote: »

Abortion IS sweeping a problem under the carpet. I know many women who will talk about miscarriages and how they suffered. I know not one single women who has ever talked about having an abortion. Why? Probably something they are ashamed of.. probably because they know it was a wrong thing to do. But its not a topic they bring up.

Bear in mind how women deal with certain situations. A woman who wants a baby and finds herself pregnant usually can't wait to tell people she is pregnant. If she then loses the baby, talking or not talking about it is up to her but most find that they do need to talk to someone.

For women who have abortions usually the pregnancy is something they keep secret because it is not "wanted".

When a woman suffers a miscarriage deep down she knows it wasn't her fault. However she still has to deal with the loss.

Women who have abortions know deep down that it was their child that was killed. Women who have abortions can and do talk but amongst themselves. There are help groups for women who have had abortions. Many convince themselves that it wasn't really a child but they can't keep that lie up forever.

I do however know women who have had abortions, and some don't have an issue talking about it openly. Unfortunately there are some who talk about it in the presence of women of have suffered miscarriages or stillbirths.

doctoremma

Festus wrote: »

Women who have abortions know deep down that it was their child that was killed. Women who have abortions can and do talk but amongst themselves. There are help groups for women who have had abortions. Many convince themselves that it wasn't really a child but they can't keep that lie up forever.

Are you female? Can you read the minds of others?

Festus

doctoremma wrote: »

Are you female? Can you read the minds of others?

I am a parent who can read and hear.