Abortion

LilyCricket

bored

Atlantis50

eviltwin wrote: »

What makes you think your view on the point life begins is any more valid that TrueorFalses?

Science.

Bullseye1

Atlantis50 wrote: »

Science.

The science is not conclusive and there is differing opinions among the science community. Science, or mans understanding of science is ever evolving when new data comes to light.

eviltwin

Atlantis50 wrote: »

Science.

Even science isn't 100%. Does life begin at conception or implantation or at the moment a heart beats or when brain activity starts....

Its hard to say and everyone will have their own definition of "life".

You have yours, let someone who has a different view on that make a choice for themselves what is right for them.

Atlantis50

Bullseye1 wrote: »

The science is not conclusive and there is differing opinions among the science community. Science, or mans understanding of science is ever evolving when new data comes to light.

The debate among scientist about when life begins generally splits between fertilisation and implantation, not up to as far as 20 or 24 weeks.

Have a look at the following list of references from scientists who state that life begins at fertilisation:

http://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html

Here's the first four:

"Development of the embryo begins at Stage 1 when a sperm fertilizes an oocyte and together they form a zygote."
[England, Marjorie A. Life Before Birth. 2nd ed. England: Mosby-Wolfe, 1996, p.31]


"Human development begins after the union of male and female gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilization (conception).
"Fertilization is a sequence of events that begins with the contact of a sperm (spermatozoon) with a secondary oocyte (ovum) and ends with the fusion of their pronuclei (the haploid nuclei of the sperm and ovum) and the mingling of their chromosomes to form a new cell. This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being."
[Moore, Keith L. Essentials of Human Embryology. Toronto: B.C. Decker Inc, 1988, p.2]


"Embryo: the developing organism from the time of fertilization until significant differentiation has occurred, when the organism becomes known as a fetus."
[Cloning Human Beings. Report and Recommendations of the National Bioethics Advisory Commission. Rockville, MD: GPO, 1997, Appendix-2.]


"Embryo: An organism in the earliest stage of development; in a man, from the time of conception to the end of the second month in the uterus."
[Dox, Ida G. et al. The Harper Collins Illustrated Medical Dictionary. New York: Harper Perennial, 1993, p. 146]

I challenge you to find one quote from a reputable scientist saying that life begins after 6+ weeks or at birth.

eviltwin

Does Irish law give a legal definition of when life begins?

Atlantis50

eviltwin wrote: »

Even science isn't 100%. Does life begin at conception or implantation or at the moment a heart beats or when brain activity starts....

Its hard to say and everyone will have their own definition of "life".

You have yours, let someone who has a different view on that make a choice for themselves what is right for them.

The general consensus in the science community is that life begins at fertilisation. If you want to pick and choose which scientific facts you agree and disagree with, that's your decision.

Bullseye1

Atlantis50 wrote: »

The debate among scientist about when life begins generally splits between fertilisation and implantation, not up to as far as 20 or 24 weeks.

Have a look at the following list of references from scientists who state that life begins at fertilisation:

http://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html

Here's the first four:

I challenge you to find one quote from a reputable scientist saying that life begins after 6+ weeks or at birth.

I agree with these views. I'm just saying that not all science is fact. Both sides of the argument have their "scientists" who they will quote.

eviltwin

Atlantis50 wrote: »

The general consensus in the science community is that life begins at fertilisation. If you want to pick and choose which scientific facts you agree and disagree with, that's your decision.

Is that what our laws are based on? I'm just curious then as to how contraception that prevents implantation and the morning after pill are legal then...surely they are then abortifacients ?

Atlantis50

eviltwin wrote: »

Does Irish law give a legal definition of when life begins?

X-case judgement said life begins with Implantation of fertilised egg. The difference between Irish law and the Science is practically negligible as the time period between fertilisation and implantation is very narrow (7 - 10 days).

eviltwin

Atlantis50 wrote: »

X-case judgement said life begins with Implantation of fertilised egg. The difference between Irish law and the Science is practically negligible as the time period between fertilisation and implantation is very narrow (7 - 10 days).

Thanks for that

Atlantis50

eviltwin wrote: »

Is that what our laws are based on? I'm just curious then as to how contraception that prevents implantation and the morning after pill are legal then...surely they are then abortifacients ?

No because morning after pill works before implantation which occurs 7 to 10 days after conception (fertilisation). See my post above.

Dudess

LilyCricket wrote: »

Should it be available here?

Regardless of circumstance?

Yes it should IMO - but not regardless of circumstances in a blanket sense. Case by case.

grenache

If the mother's life is in danger, or if the baby is certified to be still-born, then of course the option to abort should be available to women in this country.

On the whole, i'm not in favour of abortion, but i am just a man.

And the average man doesn't really have a say in this issue. Or at least that's what i'm lead to believe.

Dudess

grenache wrote: »

On the whole, i'm not in favour of abortion, but i am just a man.

And the average man doesn't really have a say in this issue. Or at least that's what i'm lead to believe.

I guess the final decision is down to the mother, which I think is unfair on the father if he wants the baby - I know a guy this happened to and my heart was broken for him. But it's a bit "persecutiony" imo to claim no man ever has a say...

grenache

Dudess wrote: »

I guess the final decision is down to the mother, which I think is unfair on the father if he wants the baby - I know a guy this happened to and my heart was broken for him. But it's a bit "persecutiony" imo to claim no man ever has a say...

I always get the dirty look thrown at me from women if i express an opinion on abortion. I can feel the "it's my body who's carrying it, who are you to tell me what to do!" vibe going on.....

Or maybe i'm just paranoid.

hattoncracker

Bullseye1 wrote: »

eviltwin wrote: »

Where is your evidence that most abortions happen outside marriage?

I don't have any, it's an assumption on my behalf. If you are in a loving marriage and financially sound your less likely to want an abortion, or am I wrong? Why would you chose that option unless you had a medical condition?

Because adoption for married couples is illegal in this country....

Scanlas The 2nd

grenache wrote: »

Dudess wrote: »

I guess the final decision is down to the mother, which I think is unfair on the father if he wants the baby - I know a guy this happened to and my heart was broken for him. But it's a bit "persecutiony" imo to claim no man ever has a say...

I always get the dirty look thrown at me from women if i express an opinion on abortion. I can feel the "it's my body who's carrying it, who are you to tell me what to do!" vibe going on.....

Or maybe i'm just paranoid.

If the unborn baby could speak maybe it would say who are you not to let me live.

Stercus Accidit

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

If the unborn baby could speak maybe it would say who are you not to let me live.

If a potato could speak maybe it would say who are you to cook me up and make mashed spuds?

Min

It isn't down to the mother or father, when we were in our mother's womb, it was our life, not their life.
Those nine months of our life are every bit as important as the lives we now lead, it is our lives when we lived in the womb, not anyone elses.
I don't believe anyone had the right to kill me in those nine months, just because my residence was in a womb.

NinjaK

I laugh how the liberals are against capital punishment for mass killers yet jump at the thought of killing innocent babies!

saa

I would never get an abortion unless my life was in danger because I would not be able to take it emotionally because of how I feel about wanting to have my own children not every other woman feels that way so I try not to project my emotional attachments or facts about the the fetuses life onto other women especially because of how prevalent miscarriages are and they are hard enough to move on from without people trying to dramatise what losing a feotus is to us whether we have to chose that option or it happens.

And if you do save these babies lives where do they go I don't know any prolifers I've met from the care system not sure if thats a coincidence or just being left with a less emotional look on life, being brought up by parent(s) that did not want to have you/werent capable of making that decision due to sevre mental health or addiction is not something I wish to anyone else and abortion is available as much as I do not wish that on another woman it is the fact you have to travel that just excludes people and does not solve the problem, whether it is right or wrong, whether you want it or not other women will seek it whether it is legal or not.
I don't want abortions to happen but if I get it banned that is not fixing anything it just means later term abortions which sickens me and excluding people because of their means and ability to travel.

I am never getting an abortion, I do not want others to do so but they will and I will not stick my head in the sand and wave a don't do it you evil horrible person don't YOU know that a foetus is..flag, if the issues that cause women to make that choice were tackled first we'd get alot further.

Stercus Accidit

NinjaK wrote: »

I laugh how the liberals are against capital punishment for mass killers yet jump at the thought of killing innocent babies!

Point out a single 'liberal' who advocates the killing of a baby or admit that you are full of sh*t.

CommanderC

oh for **** sake.

When are you people going to listen ???

You cannot interfere in the lives of people you do not know. Their lives, their bodies, their babies, their abortions- whatever.

Its none of your business. So many people seem to have such a hard time understanding that their own opinion is not the right one for everyone else :rolleyes:

I think it should be allowed yeah, with an early time limit

Atlantis50

Atlantis50 wrote: »

The debate among scientist about when life begins generally splits between fertilisation and implantation, not up to as far as 20 or 24 weeks.

But when life begins isn't the point - the point is when the right to that life begins.

I believe a foetus is alive, I believe an embryo is alive, I believe a zygote is alive. I believe sperm are alive. But I don't think it should have any rights until quite far into pregnancy.

billybudd

If used in a respectful way then the option should be there but i would think it would be used and abused too much, sex- ed seems to be still crap in this country improving this aspect should be invested in heavily and with less draconian thought proccess.

billybudd

billybudd wrote: »

If used in a respectful way then the option should be there but i would think it would be used and abused too much, sex- ed seems to be still crap in this country improving this aspect should be invested in heavily and with less draconian thought proccess.

I'm not sure that it could be used too much, I really doubt anyone out there would want to repeatedly undergo a medical procedure for kicks.

I agree on sex ed though. The ideal for everyone concerned would be no unwanted pregnancies in the first the place where possible

billybudd

bluewolf wrote: »

I'm not sure that it could be used too much, I really doubt anyone out there would want to repeatedly undergo a medical procedure for kicks.

I agree on sex ed though. The ideal for everyone concerned would be no unwanted pregnancies in the first the place where possible

Had America in mind when i wrote that with some women having upto four abortions.

billybudd

CommanderC wrote: »

oh for **** sake.

When are you people going to listen ???

You cannot interfere in the lives of people you do not know. Their lives, their bodies, their babies, their abortions- whatever.

Its none of your business. So many people seem to have such a hard time understanding that their own opinion is not the right one for everyone else :rolleyes:

Show Time

Only in situations where the child is incompatible with life. Otherwise we would end up like England where it is a form of contraceptive.

philologos

LilyCricket wrote: »

Should it be available here?

Regardless of circumstance?

There's already another thread on this. In short no, I'm pro-life because I think that it is wrong to deny an unborn child the fundamental liberty to life.

mongdesade

Yes...my personal opinion

eviltwin

Show Time wrote: »

Only in situations where the child is incompatible with life. Otherwise we would end up like England where it is a form of contraceptive.

I think that comment shows a huge lack of knowledge on the subject. First of all an abortion is not cheap, there are plenty of other more affordable forms of contraception.

Secondly it takes a lot out of you physically. You can either have a medical abortion which is basically a miscarriage, its painful, it can take a long time to happen and you can't exactly carry on with normal life while its happening.

Or you can have a surgical abortion which is a physically invasive procedure which is again time consuming and takes time to recover from.

For most the experience is so traumatic its their last. Having gone through it I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy.

This idea that a woman can have an abortion on her lunch hour like its a leg wax or a smear is a total myth.

Of course I am sure there are women out there who are having multiple abortions but I think its a lot more rare than we would be led to believe...I also think there are probably bigger issues there.

Show Time

Show Time wrote: »

Only in situations where the child is incompatible with life. Otherwise we would end up like England where it is a form of contraceptive.

Considering a contraceptive prevents conception and an abortion deals with the aftermath of conception...

anhedonia

Yawn.

suicide_circus

bluewolf wrote: »

Considering a contraceptive prevents conception and an abortion deals with the aftermath of conception...

Whats the aftermath of conception?

krudler

suicide_circus wrote: »

Whats the aftermath of conception?

pregnancy?

cruiser178

krudler wrote: »

pregnancy?

smart fecker

suicide_circus

krudler wrote: »

pregnancy?

You trickster, you!
*shakes fist*

Blue_Seas

Atlantis50 wrote: »

Good point.

You certainly wouldn't be telling her 'just think of it as being a cluster of cells...a tumour'.

No I wouldn't because I'm not heartless. To her it was a life. To a pregnant woman it could be a life that she has to terminate for health reasons, or it could be something unwanted that she has to get rid of.

In my opinion abortion is necessary until we have the means to take fetuses out and have them grow to a full baby, but not inside the mother. Just because she created the thing doesn't mean she is obliged to keep it.

You're looking for ridiculous flaws in my argument that have nothing to do with the topic at hand - termination, not spontaneous abortion (which is a miscarriage)

kylith

I think that in this day and age there's little excuse for surprise pregnancy. Young people need to be better informed about, and have better access to, contraceptives.

In an ideal world there'd be no need for abortion, but I think it should be legal. No woman should be forced to have a child that she doesn't want and can't afford.

I couldn't see myself having an abortion unless the foetus had a serious genetic problem. Watching the documentary 'The Boy Whose Skin Fell Off' was a real eye opener; it's very difficult to watch a person who say that he wished he'd never been born, and see him agreeing with his mother that if she'd known he'd have such a severe condition she would have aborted him.

Stercus Accidit

true-or-false wrote: »

But when life begins isn't the point - the point is when the right to that life begins.

I believe a foetus is alive, I believe an embryo is alive, I believe a zygote is alive. I believe sperm are alive. But I don't think it should have any rights until quite far into pregnancy.

Well put. It certainly is a case of deciding when during development the zygote/fetus gains rights and before that, when it is simply a bundle of cells heading that way.

Show Time

eviltwin wrote: »

I think that comment shows a huge lack of knowledge on the subject. First of all an abortion is not cheap, there are plenty of other more affordable forms of contraception.

Secondly it takes a lot out of you physically. You can either have a medical abortion which is basically a miscarriage, its painful, it can take a long time to happen and you can't exactly carry on with normal life while its happening.

Or you can have a surgical abortion which is a physically invasive procedure which is again time consuming and takes time to recover from.

For most the experience is so traumatic its their last. Having gone through it I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy.

This idea that a woman can have an abortion on her lunch hour like its a leg wax or a smear is a total myth.

Of course I am sure there are women out there who are having multiple abortions but I think its a lot more rare than we would be led to believe...I also think there are probably bigger issues there.

I have a lot more knowledge than i care to on the subject.
As i said i would only like to see abortion in Ireland for good medical reasons. That is my own personal take on it.

44leto

I could do with a flabbortion, I'm piling it on.

Morag

eviltwin wrote: »

Does Irish law give a legal definition of when life begins?

Yes.

If your pregnancy ends it'self before 24 weeks, you misscarried and there is no birthcert or person to register and you don't get maternity leave to recover.

If your pregnancy ends it'self after 24 weeks you get a brirthcert and a death cert and you go on maternity leave to recover.

The state does not see pregnancies which didn't get as far as 24 weeks as being a 'person'.

Novella

*bashes head on table*

These threads always turn out so well.

Teyla Emmagan

Sharrow wrote: »

Yes.

If your pregnancy ends it'self before 24 weeks, you misscarried and there is no birthcert or person to register and you don't get maternity leave to recover.

If your pregnancy ends it'self after 24 weeks you get a brirthcert and a death cert and you go on maternity leave to recover.

The state does not see pregnancies which didn't get as far as 24 weeks as being a 'person'.

Interesting.

Chain_reaction

Sharrow wrote: »

Yes.

If your pregnancy ends it'self before 24 weeks, you misscarried and there is no birthcert or person to register and you don't get maternity leave to recover.

If your pregnancy ends it'self after 24 weeks you get a brirthcert and a death cert and you go on maternity leave to recover.

The state does not see pregnancies which didn't get as far as 24 weeks as being a 'person'.

That's a strange one alright.

philologos

Sharrow wrote: »

Yes.

If your pregnancy ends it'self before 24 weeks, you misscarried and there is no birthcert or person to register and you don't get maternity leave to recover.

If your pregnancy ends it'self after 24 weeks you get a brirthcert and a death cert and you go on maternity leave to recover.

The state does not see pregnancies which didn't get as far as 24 weeks as being a 'person'.

Maybe that's because a miscarriage isn't quite the same thing as a birth.

A birth certificate is a description of a birth. Not a miscarriage. The child was already dead.