Abortion/ *Note* Thread Closing Shortly! ! !

Bannasidhe

Sin City wrote: »

Fair play to you. Im pro choice as long as no one looses a life

at least I would go for the lesser of two evils, hence adoption over death

and when this is simply not an option?

marienbad

Sin City wrote: »

Fair play to you. Im pro choice as long as no one looses a life

at least I would go for the lesser of two evils, hence adoption over death

But you keep saying that Sin City - ''a life'' - what do you mean by that ? I don't have the certainty that you do and don't see how I can impose my views - even indirectly through a referendum - on others . It is really a matter for each person's conscience .

Sin City

Bannasidhe wrote: »

When weighed against the death of the mother?
Because women did die in droves through botched abortions.

The better option is that when women do make the decision that they will not die because of it.

But a potential life should die instead?

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I do understand what you are saying, but for me the life of the person already here is worth saving over a potential person not yet born.

Ok so we are now classifying the rights only happen once you are born

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Outlawing abortion will not stop abortion, it will just drive desperate women to desperate measures. History proves this.

I know what you are saying but you could say the same thing for drugs yet I dont see any class As being legailsed soon

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Were it not for the safety value provided by the UK we would be back to back-street abortions - in fact they are still with us for women who don't have the funds to travel or else they take the on-line route.

The simple fact is - abortion will always be with us whether we want it our not. The choice we have to make as a society is will it be safe or will it pose a serious threat to the mother's life.

This is the part I struggle with really. Which life holds more weight and it could be a case for abortion when the fetus could cause the death for the mother. But I would suggest that that should be a case for the legisators

Sin City

Bannasidhe wrote: »

and when this is simply not an option?

Why wouldnt adoption be an option other than it would make it harder to give away ?

Bannasidhe

Sin City wrote: »

Why wouldnt adoption be an option other than it would make it harder to give away ?

Because some women do not want, for a variety of reason, to be pregnant.

Sin City

marienbad wrote: »

But you keep saying that Sin City - ''a life'' - what do you mean by that ? I don't have the certainty that you do and don't see how I can impose my views - even indirectly through a referendum - on others . It is really a matter for each person's conscience .

A life = a living organsisim which has every potential to become a full human being

I will vote for what I think is right and for what I think does not take a life

Sin City

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Because some women do not want, for a variety of reason, to be pregnant.

I can understand that and I dont want to be crass or callus but (you all know what I am going to say here) They knew the risk of sex, even if it was protected and they took the risk and lost




(This is normal consenual sex, not talking about rape etc)

marienbad

Sin City wrote: »

A life = a living organsisim which has every potential to become a full human being

I will vote for what I think is right and for what I think does not take a life

so you equate a potential human being with an actual human being- I just don't have your certainty. And as it is not going to be a issue for me personally I don't feel it is right that I should decide for anyone else.

Sin City

marienbad wrote: »

so you equate a potential human being with an actual human being- I just don't have your certainty. And as it is not going to be a issue for me personally I don't feel it is right that I should decide for anyone else.

I do equate a potential human being with an actual human being. The only thing in between the two is 9 months, possibly even less for some.


Tell me would you vote if they were going to hold a referendum to re introduce the death penalty in Ireland , and how would you vote?

marienbad

Sin City wrote: »

I do equate a potential human being with an actual human being. The only thing in between the two is 9 months, possibly even less for some.


Tell me would you vote if they were going to hold a referendum to re introduce the death penalty in Ireland , and how would you vote?

I would vote no . and if there was a referendum on euthansia I would vote yes .

When a personhood begins as opposed to life is open to question - would you agree with that ?

Sin City

marienbad wrote: »

I would vote no . and if there was a referendum on euthansia I would vote yes .

When a personhood begins as opposed to life is open to question - would you agree with that ?

Why would you vote no? Surely you could infringe the rights of those who could be murdered if this death row inmate was realsed because of our lax prison sentences. (I would also vote no but you say I infringe on peoples rights anyway)

Why euthanisa? Who would give consent? surely the person would not be thinking clear enough to make that decision? His family? they could just want him out of the way, inheritence etc?
The HSE? Ill leave you think about that one


Yes it is open, but can you define the criteria for personhood?

StudentDad

This is something that needs to be legalised immediately. Religious beliefs are irrelevant. Politicians can be catholic or whatever in the privacy of their home, but when they put on the politician hat they represent everyone irrespective and must in my view legislate in a morally neutral manner.

SD

marienbad

Sin City wrote: »

Why would you vote no? Surely you could infringe the rights of those who could be murdered if this death row inmate was realsed because of our lax prison sentences. (I would also vote no but you say I infringe on peoples rights anyway)

Why euthanisa? Who would give consent? surely the person would not be thinking clear enough to make that decision? His family? they could just want him out of the way, inheritence etc?
The HSE? Ill leave you think about that one


Yes it is open, but can you define the criteria for personhood?

On your death penalty argument - that is not a argument in favour but an argument against our penal system.

On euthansia - of course there would have to be the necessary safeguards - but if they are provided why should we interfere with someone who wishes to end their life ?.

I don't need to define the criteria for personhood - you agree it is an open question . So one definition will invariably clash with another . So as it is an open question let us leave it to individual conscience.

Rev Hellfire

marienbad wrote: »

personally I don't feel it is right that I should decide for anyone else.

Personally I don't get this line of thought, our entire society is predicated on the collective individuals within it making decisions (through votes) on what is permissible within our society, why is this any different.

fatmammycat

Sin City wrote: »

I can understand that and I dont want to be crass or callus but (you all know what I am going to say here) They knew the risk of sex, even if it was protected and they took the risk and lost




(This is normal consenual sex, not talking about rape etc)

Great, again with the consequences argument. When a person has sex- unless preagreed- the only thing they are consenting to is sex. Not to carry a fetus to full term. 'Consequence' is like some kind of stick to beat people with it seems. Oh you made your bed now like in it for nine months. Absolute nonsense. And you keep using adoption as some kind of moral band aid, disregarding what almost ever woman here has told you, that it's not. That what a woman carrying an unwanted pregnancy wants is to be not pregnant. We can do this safely these days, where the woman, as Iguana points out, need not run a guantlet of dangerous options to rid herself of an unwanted pregnancy.

OldNotWIse

StudentDad wrote: »

This is something that needs to be legalised immediately. Religious beliefs are irrelevant. Politicians can be catholic or whatever in the privacy of their home, but when they put on the politician hat they represent everyone irrespective and must in my view legislate in a morally neutral manner.

SD

For me too...religious beliefs are irrelevant. But do you realise not everyone who is pro life is religious? I'm so tired of people always trotting out that line - some of us (myself included) are pro life because we believe it is wrong to end the life of an unborn baby. I wouldn't, however, step foot inside a church.

Sin City

OldNotWIse wrote: »

For me too...religious beliefs are irrelevant. But do you realise not everyone who is pro life is religious? I'm so tired of people always trotting out that line - some of us (myself included) are pro life because we believe it is wrong to end the life of an unborn baby. I wouldn't, however, step foot inside a church.

I would be the same. In my debate I have never used religious views as a basis in my arguement , yet some on the opposing side have used it against my argument even though I never brought it up

OldNotWIse

Sin City wrote: »

Why wouldnt adoption be an option other than it would make it harder to give away ?

For some reason, it seems to be an option for very few. My big brother was adopted and I get chills when I think what might have happend to him had his birth mother decided that it would have been more convenient to end his life. I will always be grateful to her for giving him life and being so selfless as to allow my parents to adopt, love and rear him, and in those days (33 years ago) there were far fewer support systems in place!

OldNotWIse

Sin City wrote: »

I would be the same. In my debate I have never used religious views as a basis in my arguement , yet some on the opposing side have used it against my argument even though I never brought it up

Yup, we're all bible bashing freaks Merely a convenient label utilised in order to justify complete disregard for our arguments - it's so easy to say, "I dont have to listen to what you have to say because you're a god freak"

fatmammycat

OldNotWIse wrote: »

For some reason, it seems to be an option for very few. My big brother was adopted and I get chills when I think what might have happend to him had his birth mother decided that it would have been more convenient to end his life. I will always be grateful to her for giving him life and being so selfless as to allow my parents to adopt, love and rear him, and in those days (33 years ago) there were far fewer support systems in place!

It's not for 'some reason'. My oldest friend gave up her son for adoption over twenty years ago, her choice and I supported her then as I do now, but I have seen the cost to her and it's not pretty. I understand why some woman choose that route and it's brave and difficult, but I also understand fully why some women have absolutely no interest in continuing with an unwanted pregnancy and their wishes should be respected and their health in the matter a priority.

Sin City

marienbad wrote: »

On your death penalty argument - that is not a argument in favour but an argument against our penal system

Its an argument about life and death and if you feel comfortabel in voting for the excecution of a person.

marienbad wrote: »

On euthansia - of course there would have to be the necessary safeguards - but if they are provided why should we interfere with someone who wishes to end their life ?.

What would these safeguards be? I have stated the problem with the patient, and their families, the HSE will kill them off if they are on a medicle card

marienbad wrote: »

I don't need to define the criteria for personhood - you agree it is an open question . So one definition will invariably clash with another . So as it is an open question let us leave it to individual conscience.

Personhood is the sticky wicket

Some have argued these five criteria must be used to classify persons

1 consciousness (of objects and events external and/or internal to the being), and in particular the capacity to feel pain

2 reasoning (the developed capacity to solve new and relatively complex problems)

3 self-motivated activity (activity which is relatively independent of either genetic or direct external control)

4 the capacity to communicate, by whatever means, messages of an indefinite variety of types, that is, not just with an indefinite number of possible contents, but on indefinitely many possible topics

5 the presence of self-concepts, and self-awareness, either individual or racial, or both (Warren 1973)

OldNotWIse

fatmammycat wrote: »

It's not for 'some reason'. My oldest friend gave up her son for adoption over twenty years ago, her choice and I supported her then as I do now, but I have seen the cost to her and it's not pretty. I understand why some woman choose that route and it's brave and difficult, but I also understand fully why some women have absolutely no interest in continuing with an unwanted pregnancy and their wishes should be respected and their health in the matter a priority.

Er....sorry but doesn't everything have a reason? or do you need me to go back to basics?? When my parents adopted my brother, there was actually an ad saying that the place they got him from had "opened their books" for would be adoptive parents to register - that was how many babies they had. Now, couples are waiting years and years to adopt a baby and only the very lucky ones are successful. Is there not a reason for this??

robindch

eviltwin wrote: »

Its simply not practical. How would it work? You haven't yet explained how you would actually deal with a case like this in practical terms

I'm not debating the practicalities of it -- I'm debating the principle

iguana wrote: »

However the inequality of rights that you are talking about in terms of pregnancy is biological. You can't give men rights over a foetus without taking away the woman's rights over her own body and nobody can claim rights over someone else's body.

Yes, but from my perspective, I think it's arguable that there are four things to consider here: the mother's part of the fetus, the father's part of the fetus, the fetus itself and the mother who hosts the fetus. Your view is that only the mother as host retains any rights, and from the practical perspective, that's easy to argue and easy to implement, but at the cost of denying that the other three items (ok, perhaps two) exist or have any validity.

However, I'm still wondering whether anybody can consider that the father has any rights at all, even in principle?

robindch

btw, I'm going to sink back into the background on this one at this point. Have work to do, but I'll be keeping an eye on things too

MrPudding

Sin City wrote: »

Left alone and not interferd with. From the womb to birth its always developing

That is not being left alone. I would not consider being physically inside and connected to a person upon whom you are completely on for nutrition and oxygen being "left alone."

christmas2012 wrote: »

Abortionists arent qualified to give anaesthetic [...]

Nor are brain surgeons, cardio-thoracic surgeons, orthopaedic surgeons or any other type of surgeon. 

Sin City wrote: »

True enough, but if meant saving a life isnt it worth it?
Isnt adoption a better option than death?

To you perhaps, but clearly not for everyone. 

MrP

fatmammycat

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Er....sorry but doesn't everything have a reason? or do you need me to go back to basics?? When my parents adopted my brother, there was actually an ad saying that the place they got him from had "opened their books" for would be adoptive parents to register - that was how many babies they had. Now, couples are waiting years and years to adopt a baby and only the very lucky ones are successful. Is there not a reason for this??

You said for some reason women don't choose adoption, it's not for 'some' reason, it's for a 'particular' reason, because they don't want to continue with a pregnancy.

I hate it when it is casually suggested that women with an unwanted or unplanned pregnancy ought to be some kind of incubator for the childless (i'm not saying you did, but it's an argument constantly put forward). It undermines how difficult a pregnancy can be for a woman, how traumatic a birth can be, how traumatic giving a child up for adoption can be.

I went with my friend to the foster home where her child stayed while she struggled with a final decision on her son, I went with her to the adoption office in Cathedral Street, I sat with her through endless nights of crying and grief, before, during and after her choice was made, HER choice. So it galls me to see people oh so casually throw 'adoption' out there as some kind of easy option to an unwanted pregnancy. It isn't and it does nothing at all to address the issue of abortion and actual unwanted pregnancy.

Sin City

MrPudding wrote: »

That is not being left alone. I would not consider being physically inside and connected to a person upon whom you are completely on for nutrition and oxygen being "left alone."

Ok but as was said the fetus did not ask to be there and (just dealing with consenual sex here) has tacitly consented to allowing the embryo to use her body

or else has a duty to sustain the embryo because the woman herself caused it to stand in need of her body

fatmammycat

Sin City wrote: »

Ok but as was said the fetus did not ask to be there and (just dealing with consenual sex here) has tacitly consented to allowing the embryo to use her body

or else has a duty to sustain the embryo because the woman herself caused it to stand in need of her body

Again, consent to sex is just consent to sex, it's not consent, tacitly or otherwise, to being pregnant. I'm not even going to touch 'her duty'.

Sin City

fatmammycat wrote: »

Again, consent to sex is just consent to sex, it's not consent, tacitly or otherwise, to being pregnant.

Not so, its also consent to any reprocussions sex involves.

Its like T&Cs of sex

fatmammycat

Sin City wrote: »

Not so, its also consent to any reprocussions sex involves.

Its like T&Cs of sex

You need to look up the word consent. It does not mean what you think it does.