Abortion/ *Note* Thread Closing Shortly! ! !

OCorcrainn

MrPudding wrote: »

Seriously, you need to stop listening to the crap spouted by or on behalf of the pro-life people.

Stop making assumptions, I never said I was pro-life, I respect the intelligent arguments that are put forward by both sides.

People seemed to have ignored my main point.

The point about religion being disingenuously associated with people who have anti-abortion views.

And no, being pro-medical termination does not equate to being pro-abortion.

ShooterSF

OCorcrainn wrote: »

I think it is wrong to equate anti-abortion with religion, there are plently of atheists out there who would be anti-abortion.

Bringing religion into the debate, and associating an individual who opposes abortion as someone who is religious undermines it, and the integrity of the one who puts it forth.

It is wrong to generalize.

Btw. Medical termination =/= Abortion

Assuming you are an atheist and against abortion why bother doing the mental gymnastics religious pro-life people need to do to appease their religious beliefs. You can hold a view that it's ok to abort if there are medical issues that require it and still be against abortions where there aren't, I won't agree with you but it's silly to play a linguistic game that only exists because the religious pro-life camp can't be seen to condone any abortions as it contradicts their god.

Yes there are atheists that are against abortion at all different levels and the best part is they are actually able to debate the topic at hand because you don't have to disprove their god first.

OCorcrainn

Lingua Franca wrote: »

Hello, and welcome to boards! Can you tell us which post you're responding to here?

I was replying to the posts made by a few individuals here. They insinuated that people who would not 100 percent agree with abortion are religious fundamentalist nutjobs.

People here seem to think that all atheists oppose all the views of the anti-abortion side.

OCorcrainn

ShooterSF wrote: »

Yes there are atheists that are against abortion at all different levels and the best part is they are actually able to debate the topic at hand because you don't have to disprove their god first.

That is fair enough.

Obliq

OCorcrainn wrote: »

Stop making assumptions, I never said I was pro-life, I respect the intelligent arguments that are put forward by both sides.

People seemed to have ignored my main point.

The point about religion being disingenuously associated with people who have anti-abortion views.

And no, being pro-medical termination does not equate to being pro-abortion.

If you respect intelligent arguments, then how about making one in return? I don't think you have read my post yet. It is far from disingenuous to associate the pro-life side of the debate with the CC. Again, please educate yourself on the history of the Irish abortion debate.

And being pro-medical termination AND anti-abortion makes someone a huge hypocrite if they have all the facts, or hugely stupid if they don't.

Lingua Franca

OCorcrainn wrote: »

I was replying to the posts made by a few people who insinuated that people who would not 100 percent agree with abortion are religious fundamentalist nutjobs. People here seem to think that all atheists oppose all the views of the anti-abortion side.

New people here seem to think that they know what's going on. That's a big assumption you are making from percieved "insinuations". We have pro life atheists posting right in this very thread, so think on.

OCorcrainn

ShooterSF wrote: »

You can hold a view that it's ok to abort if there are medical issues that require it and still be against abortions where there aren't.

Yes that would be my view.

OCorcrainn

Lingua Franca wrote: »

New people here seem to think that they know what's going on. That's a big assumption you are making from percieved "insinuations". We have pro life atheists posting right in this very thread, so think on.

In that case I apologize.

Obliq

OCorcrainn wrote: »

Yes that would be my view.

Ok, which medical issues would those be? Do you include fatal foetal abnormalities? Do you include risk to the health of the mother? Where do you draw the line?

Lingua Franca

Fair enough. You haven't seen them because they haven't posted recently but I can assure you we're aware that they exist.

Speaking of which, where IS Sin City? He could put up a fair argument.

OCorcrainn

Obliq wrote: »

If you respect intelligent arguments, then how about making one in return? I don't think you have read my post yet. It is far from disingenuous to associate the pro-life side of the debate with the CC. Again, please educate yourself on the history of the Irish abortion debate.

And being pro-medical termination AND anti-abortion makes someone a huge hypocrite if they have all the facts, or hugely stupid if they don't.

Thinly veiled insult. So I am either a hypocrite or I am lacking in intelligence? Those kind of comments give people a negative impression of atheists as being intolerant and arrogant, which is ironic considering some religious people as we all know, are the exact same.

Flier

OCorcrainn wrote: »

And no, being pro-medical termination does not equate to being pro-abortion.

If you are pro-medical termination, then you are pro-abortion in certain circumstances. I think that would reflect the view of most people. Most people will have situations where they think abortion/termination (or whatever you like to call it) is acceptable, and circumstances where they believe it is not.
The difference is where you want to draw that line.

OCorcrainn wrote: »

I was replying to the posts made by a few individuals here. They insinuated that people who would not 100 percent agree with abortion are religious fundamentalist nutjobs.

People here seem to think that all atheists oppose all the views of the anti-abortion side.

That is a fair point. However if you look at those most vocal on the pro-life side, they are all (I can't think of any that aren't off the top of my head, but I'm open to correction) religious and more often than not bring their religion (or their interpretation of their religion) into the debate.
There are certainly many pro-life atheists too, but their arguments are not based on religion.

OCorcrainn

Flier wrote: »

but their arguments are not based on religion.

Well yes, in most cases you cannot have an intelligent debate with someone who base their arguments on religion. However, I am not suggesting that people who are religious are incapable of intelligent debate or being logical and reasonable.

OldNotWIse

Flier wrote: »

If you are pro-medical termination, then you are pro-abortion in certain circumstances. I think that would reflect the view of most people. Most people will have situations where they think abortion/termination (or whatever you like to call it) is acceptable, and circumstances where they believe it is not.
The difference is where you want to draw that line.




That is a fair point. However if you look at those most vocal on the pro-life side, they are all (I can't think of any that aren't off the top of my head, but I'm open to correction) religious and more often than not bring their religion (or their interpretation of their religion) into the debate.
There are certainly many pro-life atheists too, but their arguments are not based on religion.

Howya

I'm pro life.

I'm not religious.

There, fixed that one for you

I notice (and this goes for both sides) this trend where people labour under the illusion that if someone disagrees with you, insult them and then they will agree with you. Seriously whats that about?? Go to any forum discussing abortion and you see pro choicers talking about "crap from religious pro lifers" and pro lifers banging on about "baby killers" etc. Come off it like.. There's no need to resort to name calling...and its not going to make someone agree with you!

ShooterSF

OCorcrainn wrote: »

Yes that would be my view.

And that's worth discussing/debating! But there is little point in creating an argument about the definition of the word abortion amongst a group of people who can see the topic for the shades of grey it truly is.

OldNotWIse

Anyone read the X case judgment??

It talks about a real and substantive risk (to the mother's life)

Know what else it talks about?

(and btw this post is not intended to be inflammatory but having a discussion yesterday about this and it was brought to my attention that there is an "element" to this judgment that people forget, or dont knwo of and I'm curious to see if anyone here knows)

Obliq

OCorcrainn wrote: »

Thinly veiled insult. So I am either a hypocrit or I am lacking in intelligence? Those kind of comments give people a negative impression of atheists as being intolerant and arrogant, which is ironic considering some religious people as we all know, are the exact same.

It wasn't veiled at all. You originally said that religion shouldn't be brought into the debate - I clearly stated how it had brought itself into the debate. You ignored my answer and proceeded to say "People seemed to have ignored my main point.
The point about religion being disingenuously associated with people who have anti-abortion views." Which was disingenuous, considering I had just tried to answer to your point.

You might consider that you gave me a right negative impression by coming on here, guns blazing with assumptions yourself. Got my back up instantly. So I apologise for calling you stupid and/or a hypocrite. However, I may call you on your compassion for women who may face appalling difficulties in having an unwanted pregnancy and wish to have an abortion. I may not. We shall see.

In my opinion, people are NOT pro-abortion in the first place. No more than they are pro- abortion for medical reasons, if they insist on making that distinction, as you seem to. People who are pro-choice are mainly (as far as I can see, having spent time here on this debate) compassionate towards the woman's needs, not pro- the ending of a pregnancy.

MrPudding

OCorcrainn wrote: »

Stop making assumptions, I never said I was pro-life, I respect the intelligent arguments that are put forward by both sides.

Um, I never said you were pro-life. [IMG]file:///C:\DOCUME~1\c0708805\LOCALS~1\Temp\msohtml1\02\clip_image002.gif[/IMG]

OCorcrainn wrote: »

People seemed to have ignored my main point.

Yes I have. I was specifically responding to your incorrect assertion that a medical termination was somehow different to an abortion.

OCorcrainn wrote: »

And no, being pro-medical termination does not equate to being pro-abortion.

I think I can probably relate to what you are saying here, but you are still wrong to say a medical termination is not an abortion. The reason for having it does not really dictate the term that should be used.

Pregnancy terminated because woman does not want to be pregnant = abortion.
Pregnancy terminated because the woman would otherwise die = abortion.

Being pro-medical termination does equate to be pro-abortion (because a medical termination is an abortion), but it is abortion in limited circumstances and using the correct meaning of the word. When pro-lifers use the term pro-abortion they use it in a slightly different way to suggest something very different. I myself, for example, would not be pro-abortion in the sense that some pro-life people might suggest I am. I believe in a woman’s right to choose, but I don’t love abortions, I don’t wish there was more of them, but I understand there is a need for them.

MrP

Flier

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Howya

I'm pro life.

I'm not religious.

There, fixed that one for you

I notice (and this goes for both sides) this trend where people labour under the illusion that if someone disagrees with you, insult them and then they will agree with you. Seriously whats that about?? Go to any forum discussing abortion and you see pro choicers talking about "crap from religious pro lifers" and pro lifers banging on about "baby killers" etc. Come off it like.. There's no need to resort to name calling...and its not going to make someone agree with you!

Whooah there - did you find my post insulting?
If so I really am sorry to cause offense (I am usually very careful about who I choose to insult), but I don't see where I've been insulting.

I specifically said in my post that there are non religious (atheist) prolifers, so I'm unsure what you have fixed for me!!

Flier

OK OldNotWIse, just saw your edit re the insult bit. Glad to see I'm not loosing my mind.
The other bit still stands though.

Dades

Obliq wrote: »

You might consider that you gave me a right negative impression by coming on here, guns blazing with assumptions yourself. Got my back up instantly. So I apologise for calling you stupid and/or a hypocrite. However, I may call you on your compassion for women who may face appalling difficulties in having an unwanted pregnancy and wish to have an abortion. I may not. We shall see.

I'm glad to hear it.

There's a bit too much of a tendency to shoot first, and ask questions later, going on in here recently. Would be nice if people could at least introduce themselves before choosing their pistols.

Obliq

Dades wrote: »

I'm glad to hear it.

There's a bit too much of a tendency to shoot first, and ask questions later, going on in here recently. Would be nice if people could at least introduce themselves before choosing their pistols.

Yes, you're right. Most of you know I don't often do that. OCorcrainn, seriously, I am actually sorry for that but I am also highly emotional about this whole debate. I generally try harder to be nice.

Flier

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Anyone read the X case judgment??

It talks about a real and substantive risk (to the mother's life)

Know what else it talks about?

(and btw this post is not intended to be inflammatory but having a discussion yesterday about this and it was brought to my attention that there is an "element" to this judgment that people forget, or dont knwo of and I'm curious to see if anyone here knows)

Not sure where you're going with this one. The judgement went into a lot of detail about alot of things. Care to elaborate??

Obliq

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Anyone read the X case judgment??

It talks about a real and substantive risk (to the mother's life)

Know what else it talks about?

(and btw this post is not intended to be inflammatory but having a discussion yesterday about this and it was brought to my attention that there is an "element" to this judgment that people forget, or dont knwo of and I'm curious to see if anyone here knows)

The 13th amendment that specified that the prohibition on abortion would not limit the freedom of pregnant women to travel out of the state?

Obliq

What is happening in the U.S. is absolutely terrifying. I honestly didn't know which part of the article to quote here as it's all appalling.

Is miscarriage murder?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jan/25/miscarriage-murder-roevwade-personhood

"Lynn Paltrow recounts the tragic case of Angela Carder, who was ordered by a court to undergo caesarian surgery – against the advice of her doctors, her family, and her own wishes.

"Ms Carder was 27 years-old and 25 weeks pregnant when she became critically ill. She, her family and her attending physicians all agreed on treatment designed to keep her alive for as long as possible. The hospital however called an emergency hearing to determine the rights of the fetus.

Despite knowing that Caesarian surgery could kill Ms Carder, the court ordered it, claiming that the fetus had independent legal rights. The fetus was born alive but died two hours later. Angela Carder died two days later, with the surgery listed as a contributing factor."

A higher court later ruled that Carder's rights had been violated – scant comfort to her grieving family. The dissenting judge in that ruling, however, gave some frightening insight into what women are up against: he argued that the viable unborn child is a person with rights separate from the pregnant woman, and that an expectant mother by "undertaking to bear another human being places herself in a special class of persons"."

Bannasidhe

Obliq wrote: »

What is happening in the U.S. is absolutely terrifying. I honestly didn't know which part of the article to quote here as it's all appalling.

Is miscarriage murder?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jan/25/miscarriage-murder-roevwade-personhood

"Lynn Paltrow recounts the tragic case of Angela Carder, who was ordered by a court to undergo caesarian surgery – against the advice of her doctors, her family, and her own wishes.

"Ms Carder was 27 years-old and 25 weeks pregnant when she became critically ill. She, her family and her attending physicians all agreed on treatment designed to keep her alive for as long as possible. The hospital however called an emergency hearing to determine the rights of the fetus.

Despite knowing that Caesarian surgery could kill Ms Carder, the court ordered it, claiming that the fetus had independent legal rights. The fetus was born alive but died two hours later. Angela Carder died two days later, with the surgery listed as a contributing factor."

A higher court later ruled that Carder's rights had been violated – scant comfort to her grieving family. The dissenting judge in that ruling, however, gave some frightening insight into what women are up against: he argued that the viable unborn child is a person with rights separate from the pregnant woman, and that an expectant mother by "undertaking to bear another human being places herself in a special class of persons"."

and that an expectant mother by "undertaking to bear another human being places herself in a special class of persons"...for 'special' read lesser.

Obliq

Bannasidhe wrote: »

and that an expectant mother by "undertaking to bear another human being places herself in a special class of persons"...for 'special' read lesser.

Correct. On par with a cow in calf. If they can treat women like cows (that we send to the slaughter house), what the hell is the big problem with the humane dispatching of a foetus if so desired? I don't understand.

It is such a gift of love to give life to a baby - we women know the risks, and still we do it - through love - to make a unique and immensely special person that is the combination of two people's genes. Sometimes this is an accidental, yet welcome undertaking - but it is a HUGE ask. And a HUGE task. Sometimes unwelcome, and therefore an unimaginable undertaking.

If we knew that the risks involved in being pregnant with a WANTED baby included being incarcerated to prevent harm to the foetus, or being arrested for not treating your own body well enough to support the life of a foetus, or being operated on despite recommendations from your doctor.....how many of us women would volunteer to have children?

If I had girls and lived in any of these U.S. states, I can safely say I would recommend to my daughters NOT to take the risk.

_rebelkid

Saw part of a very interesting BBC documentary today, was broadcast in 2011 I think.

It was called, "23 Week Babies", and was about Birmingham Maternity Unit, which is one of few hospitals in England which has the capability of providing resuscitation to babies born that far prematurely.

There was a woman whose waters broke at 22 weeks, and her decision was either abort the pregnancy or have a cesarean and try to resuscitate the baby.

But the choice was not made by medical staff, nor under their recommendation. The choice is left to the parents. Statistically, only 9 out of every 100 babies born at that time survive without severe disability. They decided to, as they put it, "give the baby a chance".

The nurse who was interviewed said that some babies survive only a few minutes, some up to a few hours, and some even a few days. The rest survive for a few years, but have a very poor quality of life.

Anyway, the cesarean was a success and the baby went straight into ICU. 40 minutes later, the blood tests of the baby were "not compatible with life", and was living only by the respirator. The choice then for the mother was whether she wanted to hold her lifeless child "with, or without tubes".

The bit I find most interesting, and humane, in this story is the fact that it was the mothers choice to either abort or to give resus a try. No one would have hated them if they aborted, and no one would have hated them because of their choice.

Choice can work both ways, choose to continue with pregnancy, or choose to abort.

Just thought it was a nice story, but one which shows how pro life can work in a world with choice (which is odd). No fanaticism, no crazies. Just choice. Choose to give a baby a chance, or choose to say "goodbye" on your own terms.

Obliq

All that. Choice is good and terrible. Being told one way is moral/one way is immoral ....well, that's a dreadful imposition.

How can that choice be less than a personal choice? Why does the church/government need to rule over that? How can people take that choice away when those decisions are all based on the MOST painful of personal circumstances?

Hotblack Desiato

Obliq wrote: »

“There is only one way to be sure a woman’s life is at risk, that is, after she dies.” (Christian Fiala, 2012)

Exactly. The supposed distinction our constitution claims to make between the life of a pregnant woman and her health, is not only meaningless but deeply offensive. The 8th amendment is idiotic and must be repealed. No living and breathing person can rationally have their right to life equated with a fertilised ovum. Legislating for X, and doing nothing more, means more women will die.

Obliq wrote: »

Despite knowing that Caesarian surgery could kill Ms Carder, the court ordered it, claiming that the fetus had independent legal rights. The fetus was born alive but died two hours later. Angela Carder died two days later, with the surgery listed as a contributing factor."

A higher court later ruled that Carder's rights had been violated – scant comfort to her grieving family. The dissenting judge in that ruling, however, gave some frightening insight into what women are up against: he argued that the viable unborn child is a person with rights separate from the pregnant woman, and that an expectant mother by "undertaking to bear another human being places herself in a special class of persons"."

As long as a woman's right to life is equated with that of a foetus, there is nothing whatsoever to prevent this from happening here.