Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Abortion/ *Note* Thread Closing Shortly! ! !
Options
Comments
-
This is an interesting issue. At a very simplistic level, the answer to your earlier question is no, it is not equitable.I'm not debating the practicalities of it -- I'm debating the principle :)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?
As has been ready mentioned, it would be difficult, if not impossible, as well as, IMO, ethically questionable to force a woman to carry a baby to term because the father did. It want the woman to have a abortion. Whilst there is a certain inequitable tinge to this, it does seem fairly sensible. Instinctively I think the father should have some rights, but I simply don't know how they could be "enforced" without commuting an act which is more inequitable.
What about the flip side? What about where the woman wants the child but the man does not? Here we have two people who have engaged in the same act, taken the same risk but have different consequences. The man has, apparently, no right to want responsibility for the child (he can't force the woman to have the child) but he also has no right to avoid the consequences, he can't force the woman (quite correct IMO before someone jumps down my throat. )
Clearly there is a difference in the initial roles played by the father and mother, but is the fact that the woman has to carry the child for 9 months enough of a burden to justify her having the sole vote in the decision as to whether or not the father does not get the responsibility he wants, looking after a child, or get a responsibility he doesn't want?
Please note, I am not downplaying pregnancy, I am the father of 4 kids and I know exactly what it entails. I just think that Robin has brought up an interesting point worthy of theoretical discussion.
Personally, I think men should have more rights, though I simply can't see how that would work in practice.
MrP0 -
fatmammycat wrote: »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.
Seriously? Word gymnastics now? If I say "some reason", this specifies that there is er...some reason for a woman choosing abortion over adoption. I really do not know how to make it any clearer. I think you are arguing the same point as me tbh.
I know adoption is a difficult decision, that was kind of implied in my post when I thanked my brothers birth mother for making the decision to give him life!0 -
fatmammycat wrote: »You need to look up the word consent. It does not mean what you think it does.
So just the act and not the consequences
Wow I consent to drive but if I crash is it not my fault?
Every action can have consequences
By willingly engaging in sexual intercourse you are acknowlidging a chance of pregenacy0 -
So just the act and not the consequences
Wow I consent to drive but if I crash is it not my fault?
Every action can have consequences
By willingly engaging in sexual intercourse you are acknowlidging a chance of pregenacy
Well you don't consent to crash do you? If you do crash, why should a hospital treat you, or insurance cover you. WHy not accept the consequence of your actions?
I have to work.0 -
Yes it is open, but can you define the criteria for personhood?
I'll have a punt at this, see where it goes...
For me, becoming a "person" is concomitant with neural function (across the spectrum, from solving differential equations to knowing that you like ice cream to simply knowing that you "are"). "Personhood" requires the ability to think, feel, perceive, "know".
By my definition, "personhood" cannot be achieved prior to brain development, let's say six weeks into development for a primitive, largely undifferentiated, brain structure. Before then, the embryo, for me, is the classic "bundle of cells", obeying only the laws of physics and undergoing some fairly complicated chemical reactions. I see no reason to give special treatment to the concept of "potential" and, without this, these cells are no different to any other bunch of multiplying cells.
But I still don't think "personhood" applies at six weeks, because structure without function is useless. We need to reach 9 weeks before we see any differentiated brain structure, and even then, it's not the type of structure than can confer consciousness. Sure, the embryo starts moving, hiccupping, etc but these are reflexive movements, no more an indication of "personhood" than me tapping your knee with hammer and declaring you a "person" based on your unconscious response. I can make cells growing in a Petri dish respond reflexively - these populations of cells do not constitute a "person".
So, even with structure and reflexive function, I'm not convinced of the existence of "personhood" at this stage. Development of the cerebral cortex, the part of the brain responsible for awareness and thought, doesn't begin in earnest until at least 24 weeks, likely later. It is at this stage of development that I think, in principle (as I don't think many of us can recall the onset of awareness in utero!), an embryo can begin to be described as a "person".
So, there are my thoughts on "personhood"! Basically, at no point during the period where "elective" abortion is legal (in the UK) do I believe the embryo can be defined as a "person".
However, I wouldn't argue for such a late limit for abortion based on "personhood" criteria, although philosophically (and biologically), I can understand those who would. I think that late abortions are to be avoided as far as is possible (for the physical health of the woman and the psychological health of both the woman and wider society). I also can't ignore a reflexive response that I find to be key in my position: the response to pain. I try to avoid inflicting pain at all costs and I can't therefore argue that abortion can be carried out at a point where the embryo can feel pain, even if I do think the embryo isn't perceiving that pain as "suffering" (there are people who would argue that pain itself is not something to be avoided, it is the suffering aspect that we need to avoid - it's a large part of the debate in research on animals). I'm aware that this is largely an emotional response on my part and may fall apart under scrutiny - I'm happy to test that.
So, the perception of pain defines my maximum limit for abortion, and I'm happy to shave a few weeks off "to be cautious". I'm comfortable, on all aspects, with a limit of 18-20 weeks. As I said before, I'm reasonably happy (biologically, at least) with the current 24 week limit but suspect this allows prevaricating women a little too much time to emotionally tangle themselves up.
TL;DR - I don't believe "personhood" can be achieved until close to the third trimester, but "personhood" doesn't set my personal time limits on abortion availability.0 -
Advertisement
-
fatmammycat wrote: »Well you don't consent to crash do you? If you do crash, why should a hospital treat you, or insurance cover you. WHy not accept the consequence of your actions?
I have to work.
Yes you dont consent to crash, but you have to do except that it could happen everytime you get behind the wheel
Same with sex, there is a chance that you could get pregnant. If you consent to sex you give the fetus a right to grow inside you0 -
Yes you dont consent to crash, but you have to do except that it could happen everytime you get behind the wheel
Same with sex, there is a chance that you could get pregnant. If you consent to sex you give the fetus a right to grow inside you
Thankfully we are allowed to change our minds though if that does happen
0 -
doctoremma wrote: »I'll have a punt at this, see where it goes...
For me, becoming a "person" is concomitant with neural function (across the spectrum, from solving differential equations to knowing that you like ice cream to simply knowing that you "are"). "Personhood" requires the ability to think, feel, perceive, "know".
By my definition, "personhood" cannot be achieved prior to brain development, let's say six weeks into development for a primitive, largely undifferentiated, brain structure. Before then, the embryo, for me, is the classic "bundle of cells", obeying only the laws of physics and undergoing some fairly complicated chemical reactions. I see no reason to give special treatment to the concept of "potential" and, without this, these cells are no different to any other bunch of multiplying cells.
But I still don't think "personhood" applies at six weeks, because structure without function is useless. We need to reach 9 weeks before we see any differentiated brain structure, and even then, it's not the type of structure than can confer consciousness. Sure, the embryo starts moving, hiccupping, etc but these are reflexive movements, no more an indication of "personhood" than me tapping your knee with hammer and declaring you a "person" based on your unconscious response. I can make cells growing in a Petri dish respond reflexively - these populations of cells do not constitute a "person".
So, even with structure and reflexive function, I'm not convinced of the existence of "personhood". Development of the cerebral cortex, the part of the brain responsible for awareness and thought, doesn't begin in earnest until at least 24 weeks, likely later. It is at this stage of development that I think, in principle (as I don't think many of us can recall the onset of awareness in utero!), an embryo can begin to be described as a "person".
So, there are my thoughts on "personhood"! Basically, at no point during the period whereh "elective" abortion is legal (in the UK) do I believe the embryo can be defined as a "person".
However, I wouldn't argue for such a late limit for abortion based on "personhood" criteria, although philosophically (and biologically), I can understand those who would. I think that late abortions are to be avoided as far as is possible (for the physical health of the woman and the psychological health of both the woman and wider society). I also can't ignore a reflexive response that I find to be key in my position: the response to pain. I try to avoid inflicting pain at all costs and I can't therefore argue that abortion can be carried out at a point where the embryo can feel pain, even if I do think the embryo isn't perceiving that pain as "suffering" (there are people who would argue that pain itself is not something to be avoided, it is the suffering aspect that we need to avoid - it's a large part of the debate in research on animals). I'm aware that this is largely an emotional response on my part and may fall apart under scrutiny - I'm happy to test that.
So, the perception of pain defines my maximum limit for abortion, and I'm happy to shave a few weeks off "to be cautious". I'm comfortable, on all aspects, with a limit of 18-20 weeks. As I said before, I'm reasonably happy (biologically, at least) with the current 24 week limit but suspect this allows prevaricating women a little too much time to emotionally tangle themselves up.
TL;DR - I don't believe "personhood" can be achieved until the third trimester, but "personhood" doesn't set my personal time limits on abortion availability.
I have to say thats a well thought out arguement there Dr Emma.
Two points one of higher brain fucntion and perception of pain are your criteria for when you feel its safe /ethical/moral to preform an abortion
Brain function. I see you went for the higer brain function (cerbral fucntioning) which does occur late in gestation. However some would argue that the lower function (brain stem) would stil be sufficient to show at least life, possible lower class person could be criteria enough to give it rights
Would you say that those who have higher brain fucntion impairments should loose their right to life also? Higher brain function leads us with the ability to reason would those who lack this ability also loose their rights of personhood?
Same could go with pain, (I do see where you are comming from if no pain sensors are firing then fetus cant feel pain ergo its humane to terminate then)
But does the ability to feel pain give you personhood/right to life,as those who are born with genetic impairments to feel pain may start to get a little worried0 -
-
Sin City, you've said a couple of times that you would rather see a life not lost, or words to that effect. I wonder are there any cases in which you would supprt abortion. for example what is your feeling is in the case of fetal fatal abnormality, where the baby cannot live outside the womb. Or in the cases where the mothers life is genuinely at risk?
With regard to the question of the fathers rights, I think a persons right to decide what happens in their body has to come first. It is your body, it is the one and only thing that is truly your own, and I firmly believe that it is nobody elses place to force you to do anything with it that you dont choose to do. That said, I understand where you're coming from, if there was a way for the man to still have the baby without compromising the womans physical autonomy then that would be great, but we're not made that way and science isnt there yet, so in this instance I think the womans right has to come first.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
fatmammycat wrote: »This should answer your questions.
Perhaps you have addresses this earlier in the discussion (I did look back through the last 5 or 6 pages at least), but I'll ask anyway:
At what point during a pregnancy does the pregnancy also involve the body of the baby as well as the body of the mother?
Or a related (but different) question: At what point (in your view) does the baby have equal rights to the mother?
I know that Emma has addressed the question of personhood in her post, but I am wondering specifically about your views on the rights, if any, of the embryo/foetus/baby?0 -
Tipsygypsy wrote: »Sin City, you've said a couple of times that you would rather see a life not lost, or words to that effect. I wonder are there any cases in which you would supprt abortion. for example what is your feeling is in the case of fetal fatal abnormality, where the baby cannot live outside the womb. Or in the cases where the mothers life is genuinely at risk?
I have mention these scenarios already, in that these matters are grey areas and are best left to the legistlators. I am not comfortable declaring whose life holds more value, the potential person or the actual person. In the case with incompatiblity with life I am equally snookered, but all doubts about the condition have to be cleared. We have all heard of a certain hospital in Dublin declaring babies dead and terminating them before it was discovered that the equipment used was faulty0 -
-
Tipsygypsy wrote: »With regard to the question of the fathers rights, I think a persons right to decide what happens in their body has to come first. It is your body, it is the one and only thing that is truly your own, and I firmly believe that it is nobody elses place to force you to do anything with it that you dont choose to do. That said, I understand where you're coming from, if there was a way for the man to still have the baby without compromising the womans physical autonomy then that would be great, but we're not made that way and science isnt there yet, so in this instance I think the womans right has to come first.
While that's the case where the male may wish to keep the child and the female doesn't. But if you reverse the situation and the father doesn't want it.
Is it equitable and fair for a woman to insist they have to take responsibility for this for the coming 18+ years, incurring a significant financial and emotional burden ?0 -
Sadly no but at least we have the UK and I can assure you there are many women - and probably a fair amount of men - who are grateful for that.
"sadly" is entirely subjective so has little place when one is stating facts such as "we dont have abortion here" but "we can travel to the UK" - some people are happy about this, some people are not.0 -
equivariant wrote: »P
Or a related (but different) question: At what point (in your view) does the baby have equal rights to the mother?
This hear is what the whole debate should be about.
My opinion is the fetus has rights since conception, and if it survives (uniterupted by medical procedures) it should be allowed to develop and reach personhood0 -
fatmammycat wrote: »[.........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 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!
Adoption is not necessarily a better answer to a crisis pregnancy than termination; it is foolish and insensitive to expect every woman who is pregnant and unhappy about being pregnant to (a) have the strength to go ahead with birthing and relinquishing her baby, and (b) believe it's what she should do, because those who are opposed to abortion are opposed to abortion.
When I decided to go ahead with adoption, 23 years ago, I hadn't the foggiest idea how big a mistake I was making - I had no clue I was embarking on a journey that would threaten to destroy me. Christmas2012 makes many references in this thread to the absence of warnings of future psychological trauma following an abortion, but it's my experience that the ongoing psychological trauma of separating a mother from her baby are grossly overlooked and/or downplayed. If I knew 23 years ago what I know now, with regard to how layered, deceptive, insidious, constantly evolving, impossible to shake off - ever - and detrimental to my mental/emotional/physical health the impact of choosing adoption was going to turn out to be, wild horses wouldn't have been able to drag me down the road I so naively and innocently sentenced myself to walk heartbrokenly down.
I couldn't in all conscience vote against abortion being available to women in Ireland - I couldn't in all conscience advise a woman to choose adoption. I can't speak for anyone else, obviously my view is coloured by my own experiences, but it disturbs me deeply when I read/hear adoption being suggested as a "sure, there's always adoption, plenty of people looking to adopt" argument against abortion.
Adoption being suggested as a stand-alone idea is one thing, but as an alternative to abortion, from a "there's never any excuse to abort when there's adoption" concerns me greatly, because I rarely (if ever) get the impression the person making the suggestion fully understands the impact of what they're asking a woman to do. I didn't until I learned for myself, by living the pain every day, week, month and year since.
Obviously not becoming pregnant in the first place is the best option, and for some women adoption is the next best option, but, equally, for others abortion is the best option. There is no one-size-fits-all answer.
Of the many women I know who have had abortions, only one regretted it. And none of those women (even the one who regretted it) ended up as close to insane as result of their decision as I did. I know what advice I'd give a friend if she came to me and told me she was pregnant and unable to cope with a baby - and it sure as hell wouldn't be to consider adoption.0 -
Fizzlesque wrote: »Adoption is not necessarily a better answer to a crisis pregnancy than termination; it is foolish and insensitive to expect every woman who is pregnant and unhappy about being pregnant to (a) have the strength to go ahead with birthing and relinquishing her baby, and (b) believe it's what she should do, because those who are opposed to abortion are opposed to abortion.
When I decided to go ahead with adoption, 23 years ago, I hadn't the foggiest idea how big a mistake I was making - I had no clue I was embarking on a journey that would threaten to destroy me. Christmas2012 makes many references in this thread to the absence of warnings of future psychological trauma following an abortion, but it's my experience that the ongoing psychological trauma of separating a mother from her baby are grossly overlooked and/or downplayed. If I knew 23 years ago what I know now, with regard to how layered, deceptive, insidious, constantly evolving, impossible to shake off - ever - and detrimental to my mental/emotional/physical health the impact of choosing adoption was going to turn out to be, wild horses wouldn't have been able to drag me down the road I so naively and innocently sentenced myself to walk heartbrokenly down.
I couldn't in all conscience vote against abortion being available to women in Ireland - I couldn't in all conscience advise a woman to choose adoption. I can't speak for anyone else, obviously my view is coloured by my own experiences, but it disturbs me deeply when I read/hear adoption being suggested as a "sure, there's always adoption, plenty of people looking to adopt" argument against abortion.
Adoption being suggested as a stand-alone idea is one thing, but as an alternative to abortion, from a "there's never any excuse to abort when there's adoption" concerns me greatly, because I rarely (if ever) get the impression the person making the suggestion fully understands the impact of what they're asking a woman to do. I didn't until I learned for myself, by living the pain every day, week, month and year since.
Obviously not becoming pregnant in the first place is the best option, and for some women adoption is the next best option, but, equally, for others abortion is the best option. There is no one-size-fits-all answer.
Of the many women I know who have had abortions, only one regretted it. And none of those women (even the one who regretted it) ended up as close to insane as result of their decision as I did. I know what advice I'd give a friend if she came to me and told me she was pregnant and unable to cope with a baby - and it sure as hell wouldn't be to consider adoption.
I can empathise with the child mother seperation that adoption brings and my heart goes out to anyone who suffers at having to give their child away (for whatever reason, I know like abortion , it isnt taken lightly)
But , you gave your child a chance at life , to live love and to expeirence everything the world has to offer. You have given it the chance to live love hurt feel pain and joy and inevitibly make its own decesions. I will acknowledge there is always a part of you wondering where it is and if you made the right decesion
But isnt it better than just the finality of death, robbing it of a chance of life and its expirence ?0 -
Fizzlesque wrote: »Adoption is not necessarily a better answer to a crisis pregnancy than termination; it is foolish and insensitive to expect every woman who is pregnant and unhappy about being pregnant to (a) have the strength to go ahead with birthing and relinquishing her baby, and (b) believe it's what she should do, because those who are opposed to abortion are opposed to abortion.
When I decided to go ahead with adoption, 23 years ago, I hadn't the foggiest idea how big a mistake I was making - I had no clue I was embarking on a journey that would threaten to destroy me. Christmas2012 makes many references in this thread to the absence of warnings of future psychological trauma following an abortion, but it's my experience that the ongoing psychological trauma of separating a mother from her baby are grossly overlooked and/or downplayed. If I knew 23 years ago what I know now, with regard to how layered, deceptive, insidious, constantly evolving, impossible to shake off - ever - and detrimental to my mental/emotional/physical health the impact of choosing adoption was going to turn out to be, wild horses wouldn't have been able to drag me down the road I so naively and innocently sentenced myself to walk heartbrokenly down.
I couldn't in all conscience vote against abortion being available to women in Ireland - I couldn't in all conscience advise a woman to choose adoption. I can't speak for anyone else, obviously my view is coloured by my own experiences, but it disturbs me deeply when I read/hear adoption being suggested as a "sure, there's always adoption, plenty of people looking to adopt" argument against abortion.
Adoption being suggested as a stand-alone idea is one thing, but as an alternative to abortion, from a "there's never any excuse to abort when there's adoption" concerns me greatly, because I rarely (if ever) get the impression the person making the suggestion fully understands the impact of what they're asking a woman to do. I didn't until I learned for myself, by living the pain every day, week, month and year since.
Obviously not becoming pregnant in the first place is the best option, and for some women adoption is the next best option, but, equally, for others abortion is the best option. There is no one-size-fits-all answer.
Of the many women I know who have had abortions, only one regretted it. And none of those women (even the one who regretted it) ended up as close to insane as result of their decision as I did. I know what advice I'd give a friend if she came to me and told me she was pregnant and unable to cope with a baby - and it sure as hell wouldn't be to consider adoption.
Nobody is saying its always the best answer, but I am perfectly within my rights to acknowledge that it is a difficult decision, and to extend a thank you to the woman who (imo) was very selfless to gestate her unwanted baby and give it to a childless couple to raise as their own. This is not some kind of dig at those who decided against adoption, it is simply an expression of gratitude for not ending the life of my big brother, so that we got to have him as a part of our lives. I would be very upset if I thought that she was sitting somewhere telling other people that she wished she had aborted him instead - because he is very much alive and very real to me and to his family who reared and cherished and love him - the thought that someone could still say, after 33 years of HIS life, "Oh I wish I had aborted him instead" is hard to take.
Also, in much the same way that I cannot say, "It was good that my brother was adopted therefore every potential aborted baby should be adopted instead" you cannot say, "I regret giving my baby up, therefore it is a bad decision for everyone".0 -
Advertisement
-
I have mention these scenarios already, in that these matters are grey areas and are best left to the legistlators.
The problem I see with this is that it has been left to the legislators for 20 years now, and they have failed to legislate. I suppose what Im asking is, if it were to come downto a referendum, specifically in referance to the grey area cases I've mentioned, would you oppose the introduction of abortion in Ireland (again Im speaking specifically about medical cases - the reason being that is all the that 'expert group are considering')
BTW I respect your opinion, it differs greatly from mine but its well considered, and I've really enjoyed reading this dabate so far.0 -
OldNotWIse wrote: »"sadly" is entirely subjective so has little place when one is stating facts such as "we dont have abortion here" but "we can travel to the UK" - some people are happy about this, some people are not.
I'm speaking for myself here and no one else. I think its very sad I had to travel to the UK to have an abortion, I'm very grateful for the fact it was possible for me to do that though.0 -
Tipsygypsy wrote: »The problem I see with this is that it has been left to the legislators for 20 years now, and they have failed to legislate. I suppose what Im asking is, if it were to come downto a referendum, specifically in referance to the grey area cases I've mentioned, would you oppose the introduction of abortion in Ireland (again Im speaking specifically about medical cases - the reason being that is all the that 'expert group are considering')
BTW I respect your opinion, it differs greatly from mine but its well considered, and I've really enjoyed reading this dabate so far.
Honestly its a grey area that I would have to think long and hard about.
Whose life holds more value and why
In the case of incompatibilty of life, perhaps should be done on a case by case basis and after all possible avenues and recources have been exhausetd and the outcome becomes without a doubt and a fact that cannot be disputed that the foteus/baby/potential person will die anyway then maybe abortion could be permitted but again its something that would need to be discussed and at the moment I am not comfortable committing myself to a definitive answer0 -
Im not against abortion,but abortion for all is a huge mistake,arguing whether abortion is a good idea,can also be heartbreak for some,living with the trauma of abortion - the physical procedure itself and the psychological after effects is not something one can live with easily.To a lot of women abortion may seem like purely an academic debate,just a word,but its a lot more than that.Some women go on to miscarry,there is risk of infection,you only get one paracetemol tablet after the procedure and youre on your way back to ireland.They for the most part use concious sedation and will talk you into it,which can leave a girl with terrible memories as it does not block out all the memories..
Abortion is something that is physically invasive,and traumatic,so before reducing it to academic debate think about the human impact,the human factor of what women go through.0 -
Ha, a far better TL;DR than my own!Two points one of higher brain fucntion and perception of pain are your criteria for when you feel its safe /ethical/moral to preform an abortion
I would never deny that even the most basic of reflexive responses is enough to indicate what would normally be called "life". However, materialist that I am, I would hesitate to even define what "life" is; for me, everything is physics and chemistry, virus to man, ashes to stars. Whether that makes even myself alive or not is a road we probably shouldn't go down just yet....Brain function. I see you went for the higer brain function (cerbral fucntioning) which does occur late in gestation. However some would argue that the lower function (brain stem) would stil be sufficient to show at least life
But, using the popular definition of "life", we have to decide whether we apply "meaning" (and, therefore, confer "rights") to that life. A hiccuping embryo is demonstrating signs of "life" but I don't believe those signs indicate "meaningful life" (as I think it's just physics/chemistry) and therefore, I don't confer on this living embryo structure even the most basic "right" to live (in the same way I don't think trees should be afforded the "right" to live).
No. But I'm not confident of my ability to judge exactly what level of cognitive ability any person is achieving. Short of complete lack of brain function, I simply cannot know (and I'm not sure anyone can) exactly what level of awareness any specific person has, especially of they lack the ability to communicate such awareness. I'm erring on the side of caution and would assume even the most severely disabled person to have an awareness of "self".Would you say that those who have higher brain fucntion impairments should loose their right to life also?
No. My definition of "personhood" does not include, as necessary, the ability to reason or make choices. I don't know how that fits with standard philosophical definitions?Higher brain function leads us with the ability to reason would those who lack this ability also loose their rights of personhood?
I don't think the ability to feel pain gives you "personhood", just as I don't think the ability to feel cold gives you "personhood". However, based on my own response to pain, I know it is something I'd rather not go through (whereas I don't feel such antipathy to cold) and therefore, I'd rather not put something or someone else through it.But does the ability to feel pain give you personhood/right to life,as those who are born with genetic impairments to feel pain may start to get a little worried
To touch on a previous point I made though, I'm not convinced that pain in and of itself is necessarily a problem or something to be avoided. Momentary pain with no lasting consequence is not what makes humans so scared or precious about it; it's our massive brains and our ability to anticipate pain, to anticipate lasting effects, to dread a repeat experience, that forms our desire to avoid it. A ripped-off plaster barely hurts if you don't know when it's happening; staring at a plaster, working up the courage to essentially wax your arm, makes it hurt in a meaningful sense.0 -
I'm speaking for myself here and no one else. I think its very sad I had to travel to the UK to have an abortion, I'm very grateful for the fact it was possible for me to do that though.
I am saddened that anyone would have an abortion in the first place, regardless of where it was. I am happy that travelling is a necessity not because I want to inconvenience people to "get at them" for having abortions but because I think removing this necessity makes them more accessible and may lead to a higher rate.0 -
christmas2012 wrote: »Im not against abortion,but abortion for all is a huge mistake,arguing whether abortion is a good idea,can also be heartbreak for some,living with the trauma of abortion - the physical procedure itself and the psychological after effects is not something one can live with easily.To a lot of women abortion may seem like purely an academic debate,just a word,but its a lot more than that.Some women go on to miscarry,there is risk of infection,you only get one paracetemol tablet after the procedure and youre on your way back to ireland.They for the most part use concious sedation and will talk you into it,which can leave a girl with terrible memories as it does not block out all the memories..
Abortion is something that is physically invasive,and traumatic,so before reducing it to academic debate think about the human impact,the human factor of what women go through.
You are right in some respects, abortion can be a terrible emotional burden for some women and part of the problem is the stigma here and the fact very little help exists afterwards.
I suffered years of depression after. I tried suicide. It was not that I had made the wrong choice but more the fact I made that choice under pressure, I was trying to sort out time off work, affordable flights etc and I think had abortion been an option here I would have had more time to think it over. I probably would have done it anyway but I think I would have been more secure in the decision and saved myself so much mental trauma.
But please don't pretend you care about women like me because you don't. You are happy to come out with lies again and again to scare women rather than to take the time to help them make a decision that is right for them.0 -
A ripped-off plaster barely hurts if you don't know when it's happening; staring at a plaster, working up the courage to essentially wax your arm, makes it hurt in a meaningful sens
abortion is a lot more than a plaster,a friend of mine who went over to get one said she felt like she had been literally gutted from the inside out,and she bled for at least a week afterwards,and had got an infection,and NO she didnt get antibiotics from the clinic after,just one paracetemol tablet,not only that she is left with terrible memories of the ordeal for life.0 -
OldNotWIse wrote: »I am saddened that anyone would have an abortion in the first place, regardless of where it was. I am happy that travelling is a necessity not because I want to inconvenience people to "get at them" for having abortions but because I think removing this necessity makes them more accessible and may lead to a higher rate.
I don't agree. I think people look too much at the UK model as a potential for what might happen here.
I think in some cases abortion is too easy to get in the Uk. I would like abortion here but I would like compulsory counselling so that the women isn't making a choice under pressure. Thats not the case in the UK, also abortion is free in the UK once you have been referred by a doctor.
Irish women have to pay and I think that alone makes them think a bit more deeply about it.0 -
Advertisement
-
christmas2012 wrote: »abortion is a lot more than a plaster,a friend of mine who went over to get one said she felt like she had been literally gutted from the inside out,and she bled for at least a week afterwards,and had got an infection,and NO she didnt get antibiotics from the clinic after,just one paracetemol tablet,not only that she is left with terrible memories of the ordeal for life.
I've a friend who had one and she was perfect, never looked back, no medical issues whatsoever.
See, I can make up stories to suit my arguments too.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement