Abortion

Irishchick

AnonoBoy wrote: »

Lovely stuff.

You should go and show those images to some of the women who have to travel abroad to have a termination because their child will not live outside the womb. I'm sure they'll appreciate your "raw truth".

the circumstances will not change how an abortion is carried out and what the result will look like.

If you are will do go through with these procedures you should be able to accept the reality of what you are doing.

eviltwin

If you read back over the thread you will see posts from women who have travelled. Some are having a hard time coming to terms with it. The last thing they need is your prolife images.

AnonoBoy

Irishchick wrote: »

the circumstances will not change how an abortion is carried out and what the result will look like.

There are different ways to carry out terminations so yes, circumstances can change that.

But don't let actual facts get in the way of your "I'M RIGHT AND I WILL SHOUT AND SHOVE THINGS IN PEOPLE'S FACE UNTIL THEY ACCEPT THIS" style of arguing though.

People like you are seriously lacking in compassion towards people who have had to make a terribly terribly tough decision. I actually pity you.

Irishchick

eviltwin wrote: »

If you read back over the thread you will see posts from women who have travelled. Some are having a hard time coming to terms with it. The last thing they need is your prolife images.

this thread is about abortion so you hardly think its going to be one sided. The women are having trouble coming to terms with it because they know what they've done and they are regretting it now. Its what happens. Some women need counselling for years to deal with an abortion. Its damaging. There is nothing positive about it.

hattoncracker

Irishchick wrote: »

KeithM89 wrote: »

Mod

Please dont post those images again!!

Give a good reason why? Those pictures show the truth of abortion.

People have this fairytale image of just removing a bunch of cells from a woman when it involves cutting up a foetus inside the womb and removing the pieces
one by one.

People also have this fairytale notion that a choice for abortion is easy...

But good going, you've lowered the tone of your own argument..

K-9

Irishchick wrote: »

this thread is about abortion so you hardly think its going to be one sided. The women are having trouble coming to terms with it because they know what they've done and they are regretting it now. Its what happens. Some women need counselling for years to deal with an abortion. Its damaging. There is nothing positive about it.

Youth Defence have tried this tactic for years and it doesn't work.

eviltwin

Irishchick wrote: »

this thread is about abortion so you hardly think its going to be one sided. The women are having trouble coming to terms with it because they know what they've done and they are regretting it now. Its what happens. Some women need counselling for years to deal with an abortion. Its damaging. There is nothing positive about it.

You can make a point without resorting to that rubbish, plenty of others have. And not all women regret abortion.

Irishchick

AnonoBoy wrote: »

There are different ways to carry out terminations so yes, circumstances can change that.

Yes , but they all involves removing the foetus through the cervix and vagina.
Depending on the size of the baby it is either:

Cut up and removed piece by piece,
The baby is decapitated, the body removed and the skull crushed and removed,
If the foetus is small enough it can be suctioned whole or in pieces

The end result is still the same: Dead butchered infant

Seachmall

partyatmygaff wrote: »

You're a "cellular structure" in a certain manner of speaking.

I know, but I was using "cellular structure" as a non-specific term for either tissues, clumps of cells, etc.

As for the exact meaning of an organism, even a single celled amoeba is an organism. An organism isn't defined by the number of cells it has.

I've always understood a multi-cellular organism to be a series of organ systems working cooperatively to provide the defining functions of life (reproduction, response, etc.)

All that an organism is is a single individual life form. A gastrula certainly meets that definition as does a newborn baby.

Can you provide a definition of an organism? I've always roughly worked off the one above, which is a bastardisation of one I learned many years ago.

Irishchick

hattoncracker wrote: »

People also have this fairytale notion that a choice for abortion is easy...

But good going, you've lowered the tone of your own argument..

I never said it was easy. Doing the right thing seldom is.

partyatmygaff

As real and as terrible as the photos may be, they're not the best way of arguing against elective abortion.

Shocking photos just shock and horrify people. They're not the best way to get people to reconsider their position.

Knasher

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Two points:
1. Neurulation (Formation of the neural tube) occurs almost simultaneously with gastrulation

I'll have to read up a bit on that before I would be willing to say if I would consider that enough, wikipedia says that the neural tube "will later differentiate into the spinal cord and the brain", so it sounds a little premature to me. But for the sake of argument lets say I agree that the right to life should be extended all the way back to neurulation, it wouldn't change my pro-choice stance. Your right to life is contingent on your ability to practice it without violating the rights of others.

partyatmygaff wrote: »

2. What about people in comas? Are they no longer alive too?

I'm not a doctor or a biologist so I don't want to speak authoritatively. All I'm willing to say is if I were in a coma and my doctor decided to a reasonable degree of certainty that I wouldn't recover. Then at that point I (figuratively speaking of course) would consider myself dead. That being said, I appreciate that I mightn't be willing to draw such a harsh line if someone I loved were in the same situation.

AnonoBoy

Irishchick wrote: »

Yes , but they all involves removing the foetus through the cervix and vagina.
Depending on the size of the baby it is either:

Cut up and removed piece by piece,
The baby is decapitated, the body removed and the skull crushed and removed,
If the foetus is small enough it can be suctioned whole or in pieces

The end result is still the same: Dead butchered infant

Such compassion. People know what's involved. Especially someone who has gone through a termination.

Your style of 'debate' doesn't even touch the realm of intelligent discussion. It's all hyperbole and hatred from people like you. Do you not have an ounce of compassion in you?

hooradiation

Irishchick wrote: »

Why did you delete the images? That is the raw truth of abortion.

Are people so sheltered that they cant deal with truth now??

If surgical procedures that look 'gross' is the standard we're setting for which procedures we should or shouldn't allow then we're going to have a lot of very dead people very quickly.

partyatmygaff

Seachmall wrote: »

I know, but I was using "cellular structure" as a non-specific term for either tissues, clumps of cells, etc.I've always understood a multi-cellular organism to be a series of organ systems working cooperatively to provide the defining functions of life (reproduction, response, etc.)

Well that is precisely what a gastrula is. A group of cells (That have begun to differentiate) that make it living. They're capable of movement, they're capable of reproducing, they're capable of responding to external/internal stimuli, they're capable of nutrition and all the other factors that define a living organism.

Can you provide a definition of an organism? I've always roughly worked off the one above, which is a bastardisation of one I learned many years ago.

http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Organism

Simple and more or less precise.

KeithM89_old

Irishchick wrote: »

Give a good reason why? Those pictures show the truth of abortion.

People have this fairytale image of just removing a bunch of cells from a woman when it involves cutting up a foetus inside the womb and removing the pieces
one by one.

Its against site rules to post shocking images, and in future PM me instead of dragging it up on thread.

micropig

*slowly exits thread:D

K-9

AnonoBoy wrote: »

Such compassion. People know what's involved. Especially someone who has gone through a termination.

Your style of 'debate' doesn't even touch the realm of intelligent discussion. It's all hyperbole and hatred from people like you. Do you not have an ounce of compassion in you?

This is what I don't get, if what irishchick says is true and so many women regret abortions, why would she post up images like that? Seems a tad self serving "compassion".

eviltwin

And she didn't have so much as a warning or an apology to anyone who might be upset by them.

Some of these people should take some of that compassion they feel for the unborn and use it in how they deal with the living.

partyatmygaff

Knasher wrote: »

I'll have to read up a bit on that before I would be willing to say if I would consider that enough, wikipedia says that the neural tube "will later differentiate into the spinal cord and the brain", so it sounds a little premature to me. But for the sake of argument lets say I agree that the right to life should be extended all the way back to neurulation, it wouldn't change my pro-choice stance. Your right to life is contingent on your ability to practice it without violating the rights of others.

A mother doesn't have the right to kill her children just because she resents or doesn't want them though. It's not their fault. But if her child is going to kill her, then (To put it in a pretty horrible way) it would be ok for her to choose to kill the child in self-defence.

Seachmall

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Well that is precisely what a gastrula is. A group of cells (That have begun to differentiate) that make it living. They're capable of movement, they're capable of reproducing, they're capable of responding to external/internal stimuli, they're capable of nutrition and all the other factors that define a living organism.


http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Organism

Simple and more or less precise.

I guess I've found my point at which I disagree with abortion, days 7 to 10, which doesn't exactly leave much room for me calling myself pro-choice :pac:.

I think my problem was I was defining organs, and organ systems, based too much on ones I recogonise and not leaving myself for simpler, more basic ones.

Also, I appreciate the explanations, as oppose to just dismissing my objections (which no doubt would've been easier).

partyatmygaff

partyatmygaff wrote: »

A mother doesn't have the right to kill her children just because she resents or doesn't want them though. It's not their fault. But if her child is going to kill her, then (To put it in a pretty horrible way) it would be ok for her to choose to kill the child in self-defence.

Killing your children and preventing their birth are two different things.

partyatmygaff

Seachmall wrote: »

I guess I've found my point at which I disagree with abortion, days 7 to 10, which doesn't exactly leave much room for me calling myself pro-choice :pac:.

I think my problem was I was defining organs, and organ systems, based too much on ones I recogonise and not leaving myself for simpler, more basic ones.

Also, I appreciate the explanations, as oppose to just dismissing my objections (which no doubt would've been easier).

Not a problem

partyatmygaff

true-or-false wrote: »

Killing your children and preventing their birth are two different things.

Not really.

Birth is inevitable. Whether or not the child comes out alive is another question.

Knasher

partyatmygaff wrote: »

A mother doesn't have the right to kill her children just because she resents or doesn't want them though. It's not their fault.

I'm not assigning blame on anyone. It's not the fault of the people who need marrow transplants, that they need the transplant. But we don't force the available donors (even if there is only one) to donate, because the right to life doesn't trump the right to bodily autonomy of another individual.

Seachmall

Seachmall wrote: »

I guess I've found my point at which I disagree with abortion, days 7 to 10, which doesn't exactly leave much room for me calling myself pro-choice :pac:.

I think my problem was I was defining organs, and organ systems, based too much on ones I recogonise and not leaving myself for simpler, more basic ones.

Also, I appreciate the explanations, as oppose to just dismissing my objections (which no doubt would've been easier).

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Not a problem

Just a note, I'm reading through this paper [PDF] on the growth of a life. Going through it, and with some Googling, organogenesis seems to fit my own conditions for "human life" better. It might be an arbitrary distinction on my part but it sits better with me.

Just thought I'd mention that for completion or whatever.

Thanks again for the replies.

partyatmygaff

Knasher wrote: »

I'm not assigning blame on anyone. It's not the fault of the people who need marrow transplants, that they need the transplant. But we don't force the available donors (even if there is only one) to donate, because the right to life doesn't trump the right to bodily autonomy of another individual.

That's not a perfect analogy. The person's disease didn't come about as a result of the donor. The donor has nothing to do with their disease and is donating bone marrow solely out of kindness.

As far as i'm concerned, if you bring a child in to the world, you should do your best to give it a good life. Whether that is by parenting the child yourself or (worst case scenario) putting them up for adoption it doesn't matter hugely. Just killing it and treating if as it was a parasite that infected your body and started to reproduce is nothing short of unjust.

partyatmygaff

Seachmall wrote: »

Just a note, I'm reading through this paper [PDF] on the growth of a life. Going through it, and with some Googling, organogenesis seems to fit my own conditions for "human life" better. It might be an arbitrary distinction on my part but it sits better with me.

Just thought I'd mention that for completion or whatever.

Thanks again for the replies.

You'll be happy to know organogenesis begins immediately during and after gastrulation :P

Seachmall

partyatmygaff wrote: »

You'll be happy to know organogenesis begins immediately during and after gastrulation :P

Ah, I'm so confused!!

WatchWolf

So, you want proof abortion should be legal?

Knasher

partyatmygaff wrote: »

That's not a perfect analogy. The person's disease didn't come about as a result of the donor. The donor has nothing to do with their disease and is donating bone marrow solely out of kindness.

Some people have a genetic predisposition towards developing leukemia, so if someone inherits this predisposition from a parent and that parent is a possible donor, would we force their donation? Although I'm sure almost every parent would donate, and so it's a question that hopefully never arises, it doesn't really change the hypothetical situation.

partyatmygaff

Knasher wrote: »

Some people have a genetic predisposition towards developing leukemia, so if someone inherits this predisposition from a parent and that parent is a possible donor, would we force their donation? Although I'm sure almost every parent would donate, and so it's a question that hopefully never arises, it doesn't really change the hypothetical situation.

That's an unlikely scenario. For one, as you said almost every parent would not hesitate to donate and secondly if a parent is healthy and they were a carrier of the gene that predisposed their children to leukaemia i'd feel it would be their duty to donate.

Also, assuming the genes involved are recessive i'd be of the opinion that it would be the duty of both parents to donate if they didn't have already leukaemia themselves.

Knasher

partyatmygaff wrote: »

That's an unlikely scenario. For one, as you said almost every parent would not hesitate to donate and secondly if a parent is healthy and they were a carrier of the gene that predisposed their children to leukemia I'd feel it would be their duty to donate.

It's unlikely but plausible so I think it's fair game to use in an argument. Sure I could accept that a parent would have a duty to donate, but the question was would you force them to donate? (I'm not sure if you meant duty as an euphemism for forcing them) And if it's only the predisposition that makes the difference then does that mean you wouldn't force them to donate if they didn't carry the gene?

Morag

Irishchick wrote: »

this thread is about abortion so you hardly think its going to be one sided. The women are having trouble coming to terms with it because they know what they've done and they are regretting it now. Its what happens. Some women need counselling for years to deal with an abortion. Its damaging. There is nothing positive about it.

Some women do due to the stigma and taboo nature of abortion due to people like you who condemn and judge.

Many don't need counseling and are not damaged by it one bit.

Irishchick

Sharrow wrote: »

Many don't need counseling and are not damaged by it one bit.

Do you honestly believe that ?

philologos

true-or-false wrote: »

Killing your children and preventing their birth are two different things.

Abortion is killing an unborn child. To say otherwise is fudging the truth.

Knasher wrote: »

I'll have to read up a bit on that before I would be willing to say if I would consider that enough, wikipedia says that the neural tube "will later differentiate into the spinal cord and the brain", so it sounds a little premature to me. But for the sake of argument lets say I agree that the right to life should be extended all the way back to neurulation, it wouldn't change my pro-choice stance. Your right to life is contingent on your ability to practice it without violating the rights of others.

And abortion violates the rights of the child.

This is why I say that both rights should be considered insofar as it is practicable. That is neither should be steamrolled over. That's why I think death isn't a reasonable solution.

Knasher

philologos wrote: »

And abortion violates the rights of the child.

This is why I say that both rights should be considered insofar as it is practicable. That is neither should be steamrolled over. That's why I think death isn't a reasonable solution.

That's fair enough, and if there is a practical way to respect the rights of both the mother and the fetus, then I'm all for it. Unfortunately there currently isn't so we have to decide whose rights take president.

As far as I can see the right to life is always contingent on your ability to exercise it without infringing on the rights of another person. We take the right to bodily autonomy so seriously that we aren't willing to violate it by harvesting the organs of the dead to save the living (I've heard of people suggesting we might assume a willingness to donate until told otherwise via will or from the family, but that is still a fair distance from the right to life overriding the right to bodily autonomy of another).

So I don't see the reason why we would automatically assume the right to life of a fetus would override the right to bodily autonomy of another person.

philologos

There's something called finding a media between both. I.E - The mother wouldn't have to keep the child, but the child would be able to have the freedom to live.

I don't think killing is a reasonable or a valid option as a matter of mere choice. It is extremely serious, and should be taken extremely seriously. I can't ever be tolerant of the idea that people think that they should have the liberty to take someone else's life as a matter of mere choice.

Irishchick

Knasher wrote: »

So I don't see the reason why we would automatically assume the right to life of a fetus would override the right to bodily autonomy of another person.

No one is saying one right should override another, but that the feotus should have an equal right to a chance at life, however short that life might be.

Morag

Irishchick wrote: »

Do you honestly believe that ?

I don't believe it, I know it.
There have been studies and research which shows this.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2577621/Mental-health-is-not-harmed-by-abortion-study-says.html

Mental health is not harmed by abortion, study says
Abortions do not harm the mental health of women, an authoritative study has found.

By Sarah Knapton

7:04AM BST 18 Aug 2008

The American Psychological Association (APA), said it had uncovered no evidence that the majority of terminations caused psychiatric problems.

The APA is considered to be one of the world's most influential mental health bodies.

It is thought the study could hinder current efforts to make it harder for British women to obtain abortions.

Anti-abortion MPs have tabled an amendment to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill that would require all women to be counselled about psychiatric risks before they can be cleared to have a termination.

They claim many women suffer depression and anxiety following an abortion.

But the APA found "no credible evidence" that single abortions could directly cause mental health problems among adults with unwanted pregnancies.

Brenda Major, who chaired the task force, said: "Among adult women who have an unplanned pregnancy the relative risk of mental health problems is no greater if they have a single elective first-trimester abortion or deliver that pregnancy."

However the report did find that women who had late abortions because of fetal abnormalities often suffered adverse psychological reactions similar to those experience after miscarriage or still birth.

The APA's conclusions matched those of the Commons Science and Technology Select Committee, which last year found no evidence for psychiatric damage caused by abortion.

The idea that women are 'damaged' afterwards if a myth, one of the many that pro lifers love to spread. They say women are damaged by it or were damaged beforehand and that is why they had the abortion that way silencing women who have had an abortion who don't regret it and didn't need counseling from speaking out as they want to paint such women as some sort of sociopath.

Oh and the notion that women don't know what abortion is or what happens during abortion or that pro choice people don't know is another Myth.

Knasher

philologos wrote: »

There's something called finding a media between both. I.E - The mother wouldn't have to keep the child, but the child would be able to have the freedom to live. I don't think killing is a reasonable or a valid option as a matter of mere choice.

That isn't a medium between both, that is deciding straight up that the right to life of a fetus overrides the right to bodily autonomy. And assuming that you agree that in every other instance the right to life doesn't override an other persons right to bodily autonomy, I would like to know what justifies the exception for a fetus.

philologos wrote: »

I don't think killing is a reasonable or a valid option as a matter of mere choice. It is extremely serious, and should be taken extremely seriously.

I take this extremely serious, I put a hell of a lot of thought into it before I decided I was pro-choice, and if I am given a reasonable argument to why I should change my position, then I will seriously consider it. Polemics aside, if you please.

philologos

Bodily autonomy also applies in the case of the unborn child. It isn't the mothers liberty to insist on compromising that right.

As a result, both rights need to be considered and compromised as best as is humanly possible. Killing is not a justifiable solution to dealing with a conflict of human rights, indeed, it could be regarded as wholly barbaric.

50 million unborn children die in the world each year as a result of abortions. Personally, I just can't justify that. It's over 7 times the death toll (excuse the violation of Godwin's Law) of the Holocaust. That to be is fundamentally unjust, and fundamentally wrong, I can't and will never condone and applaud such a disgraceful human rights abuse.

eviltwin

Sharrow wrote: »

I don't believe it, I know it.
There have been studies and research which shows this.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2577621/Mental-health-is-not-harmed-by-abortion-study-says.html



The idea that women are 'damaged' afterwards if a myth, one of the many that pro lifers love to spread. They say women are damaged by it or were damaged beforehand and that is why they had the abortion that way silencing women who have had an abortion who don't regret it and didn't need counseling from speaking out as they want to paint such women as some sort of sociopath.

Oh and the notion that women don't know what abortion is or what happens during abortion or that pro choice people don't know is another Myth.

I think in cases where women are left with mental health issues - and it does happen, I was very messed up myself for a while - its done to a few things. Lack of decent pre abortion counselling is one. In this country it exists but you are so busy trying to book flights you can afford, find a clinic etc its the last thing you think of.

Then you have the lack of post abortion counselling. I think its been proven that if women are able to access proper non judgemental information they are more likely to make the right choice for them. As it stands people are rushing into it.

Knasher

philologos wrote: »

It's over 7 times the death toll (excuse the violation of Godwin's Law) of the Holocaust.

Saying you are about to break Godwin's does not excuse it. If you have nothing to add and this is the style of argument you want to engage in, then I have no interest in proceeding with you.

philologos

Knasher wrote: »

Saying you are about to break Godwin's does not excuse it. If you have nothing to add and this is the style of argument you want to engage in, then I have no interest in proceeding with you.

So it's inexcusable to bring up the truth that 50 million unborn children die globally in a single year as a result of abortion-by-choice? - You're saying it's unacceptable to bring up truth in a discussion. That's kind of strange.

philologos

philologos wrote: »

And abortion violates the rights of the child.

But could you explain why you think the unborn child should have rights?

philologos

true-or-false wrote: »

But could you explain why you think the unborn child should have rights?

Why do you think anyone else should have human rights?

I think the burden is on those who wish to deny the unborn child those rights to suggest why they shouldn't have these liberties unlike other humans?

The question is why do people think there is a fundamental difference between in-utero and ex-utero? Why isn't infanticide a reasonable suggestion? What is the difference between a child in the womb, and the day it is born? Or even a child in the womb a day before it is born, and when it is born?

There's no difference? - Children which have been born have been left to die in hospitals. Indeed, people have survived abortions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPF1FhCMPuQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8B1nKGIAeg

Why shouldn't people like Gianna Jessen have had the unalienable right to life as all other humans have? Why as a result of the botched abortion that her mother had to endure was it acceptable that that happened to her? Why is it acceptable that it happens to anyone? She's lucky - she survived. 50 million each year don't - I find that deeply wrong.

Simply put, abortion is not a solution to any problem. What is a solution to a problem is finding out a way to reduce and tackle head on the issue of unplanned pregnancy.

Knasher

philologos wrote: »

So it's inexcusable to bring up the truth that 50 million unborn children die globally in a single year as a result of abortion-by-choice? - You're saying it's unacceptable to bring up truth in a discussion. That's kind of strange.

You know what part of you post I was objecting to. (Hint, it's the part I quoted.)
Please don't play coy with me.

partyatmygaff

true-or-false wrote: »

But could you explain why you think the unborn child should have rights?

For the same reason a born child has rights. Why else?

Mal-Adjusted

Knasher wrote: »

If you have nothing to add and this is the style of argument you want to engage in, then I have no interest in proceeding with you.

because you can't argue his point?