Abortion/ *Note* Thread Closing Shortly! ! !

Sin City

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Think of it as more of a re-balancing where the focus has moved away from the ickle fetus- where it is normally locked in - and back to the woman's whose actual body the ickle fetus is in.

Ah but you cant get rid of the fetus in a debate without vilating the fetal rights,
So until you can manover around the issue you cant rid it from her body

Penn

Sin City wrote: »

Ah but you cant get rid of the fetus in a debate without vilating the fetal rights,
So until you can manover around the issue you cant rid it from her body

And again, you still haven't been able to approximate when the foetus becomes an individual person or achieves personhood to the extent that it has it's own rights which are separate to and equal to the rights of the mother.

Sin City

Penn wrote: »

And again, you still haven't been able to approximate when the foetus becomes an individual person or achieves personhood to the extent that it has it's own rights which are separate to and equal to the rights of the mother.

We have argued what constitutes personhood and it seems that it is a stage that cannot be defiened, This doesnt not mean that if can not be defined that it automaticaly looses rights.

Where do you think it becomes a person Penn?

I have given suggestions already so I would like to hear your point of view

At the moment it has fetal rights, the right to develop uninterupted by human/medical interference. The right of the unborn is enshrined in our constitution.

In my mind a livinh human entity exists within the mother, it exists as a result of her actions and so leaving aside rape and such she has given consent allowing the embryo to use her body

Tipsygypsy

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Christmas was not saying that abortions are like this for everyone though, simply passing on information which is just as valid as someone else saying "oh I had an abortion and it was great".

Well actually, she kind of has, re-read the thread, she has repeatedly and very vocally (on this and other threads and many times before the introduction to the details of her friends situation) made assertions that you dont get pain relief, you dont get antibiotics, its painful, its invasive the clinics are there to make money only and dont care about the women, it can cause future miscarriage. They have all been claimed as 'fact' and never once backed up with actual evidance (by evidence - and dont tke this as an accusation of falsehood - I mean actual factual written verifiable evidance). All of these assertions have been made repeatedly on several threads. Never ever addressing the requests for evidence to back it all up. I have always said I make no issue of the story of her friend.. I in fact sympathised with it.

Sin City

Penn wrote: »

And again, you still haven't been able to approximate when the foetus becomes an individual person or achieves personhood to the extent that it has it's own rights which are separate to and equal to the rights of the mother.

Also in your view when does one reach adult hood? At what age or time is this possible?

doctoremma

Sin City wrote: »

Ah but you cant get rid of the fetus in a debate without vilating the fetal rights,
So until you can manover around the issue you cant rid it from her body

I have no problem manoeuvring around that. The rights of the women to health and happiness take priority over the rights of the fetus to life.

Let me pose a hypothetical (already seen on an abortion debate on the other side):
Burning building, you can save either a child/woman or a cryotank of embryos, hundreds and hundreds of them. Which do you save?

OldNotWIse

doctoremma wrote: »

I guess you missed the repeated list of FACTS being posted (Clue: none of them are facts).


Who has said this?

re the posts from christmas, he/she is simply posting information from a friend who had an abortion (and had a bad experience) - you are all trying to make out that these posts are lies because you do not like them. Didn't a moderator already come on here and request that people stop accusing other people of lying????


Eviltwin has referred to her abortion as a positive thing more than once, has she not?

OldNotWIse

Tipsygypsy wrote: »

Well actually, she kind of has, re-read the thread, she has repeatedly and very vocally (on this and other threads and many times before the introduction to the details of her friends situation) made assertions that you dont get pain relief, you dont get antibiotics, its painful, its invasive the clinics are there to make money only and dont care about the women, it can cause future miscarriage. They have all been claimed as 'fact' and never once backed up with actual evidance (by evidence - and dont tke this as an accusation of falsehood - I mean actual factual written verifiable evidance). All of these assertions have been made repeatedly on several threads. Never ever addressing the requests for evidence to back it all up. I have always said I make no issue of the story of her friend.. I in fact sympathised with it.

No, I'm pretty sure she was referring to specific experiences there, you just didn't want to hear them.

Also, its kind of against boards policy to "follow" someone from one thread to another and quote them on posts from other threads, is it not?

Bannasidhe

Penn wrote: »

And again, you still haven't been able to approximate when the foetus becomes an individual person or achieves personhood to the extent that it has it's own rights which are separate to and equal to the rights of the mother.

Or to demonstrate why a foetus that may or may not be a person (we don't really know) should have more rights to a woman's body then the woman (who is absolutely no doubts about it a person) who owns the body.

Sin City

doctoremma wrote: »

I have no problem manoeuvring around that. The rights of the women to health and happiness take priority over the rights of the fetus to life.

Let me pose a hypothetical (already seen on an abortion debate on the other side):
Burning building, you can save either a child/woman or a cryotank of embryos, hundreds and hundreds of them. Which do you save?

Again we are not talking about the mother dying.

That can be seen as an evolutionary question in that we are programmed to save the child, as from an evolutionary standpoint a cryotank full of embryos wouldnt have existed.

Personaly Im not even sure what a cryotank actually does. Are the embryos in stasis or like in the womb are they developing and still living?

eviltwin

OldNotWIse wrote: »

re the posts from christmas, he/she is simply posting information from a friend who ahd an abortion (and had a bad experience) - you are all trying to make out that these posts are lies because you do not like them. Didn't a moderator already come on here and request that people stop accusing other people of lying????


Eviltwin has referred to her abortion as a positive thing more than once, has she not?

I never said the abortion was positive...you must have missed the part where I talked about the years of depression and the attempted suicide.

What I said was positive was the care I received...no pain, lots of medication if I needed it etc etc

The experience as a patient was good, the actual reason for me being there was not.

Bannasidhe

Sin City wrote: »

The right of the unborn is enshrined in our constitution.

So is the equality of all citizens of the State - yet I can't marry my OH but my brother and sister could.

OldNotWIse

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Think of it as more of a re-balancing where the focus has moved away from the ickle fetus- where it is normally locked in - and back to the woman's whose actual body the ickle fetus is in.

Or the body of the foetus, that is just boarding in the womans body (and at the mercy of her too) for nine months?

Interesting that you are so eager to "move the focus away from the foetus" though...surely we wouldn't even be having this debate if the foetus were not there??

Sin City

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Or to demonstrate why a foetus that may or may not be a person (we don't really know) should have more rights to a woman's body then the woman (who is absolutely no doubts about it a person) who owns the body.

Its not a question of which one has more (if life exists at conception then both are alive and deserve protection) Its a question of which one suffers more or looses out more

Sin City

Bannasidhe wrote: »

So is the equality of all citizens of the State - yet I can't marry my OH but my brother and sister could.

And hopefully the Gay marraige law gets passed soon so you can marry your OH

I would happily support that law

eviltwin

Sin City wrote: »

Its not a question of which one has more (if life exists at conception then both are alive and deserve protection) Its a question of which one suffers more or looses out more

How do you feel about fertility clinics destroying embryos parents no longer want?

OldNotWIse

Bannasidhe wrote: »

So is the equality of all citizens of the State - yet I can't marry my OH but my brother and sister could.

You're going to bring gay rights into it now? Gawd we'll be here all day :rolleyes:

Remember though, it's only those who an unplanned pregnancy can affect that are allowed to have a say (or at least, that line is due to be trotted out any minute) so that's us gone :rolleyes:

Bannasidhe

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Or the body of the foetus, that is just boarding in the womans body (and at the mercy of her too) for nine months?

Interesting that you are so eager to "move the focus away from the foetus" though...surely we wouldn't even be having this debate if the foetus were not there??

I am not 'eager' but yes - I do think the women are generally lost in these debates. The differences here is that women are speaking about their reasons, their experiences, their lives. Would you have them be silent?

doctoremma

Sin City wrote: »

Personaly Im not even sure what a cryotank actually does. Are the embryos in stasis or like in the womb are they developing and still living?

Stasis.

Sin City wrote: »

That can be seen as an evolutionary question in that we are programmed to save the child, as from an evolutionary standpoint a cryotank full of embryos wouldnt have existed.

An interesting take on that. However, I'd be surprised if you are claiming that you are not somehow in control of your instinctive response (to what might be, admittedly, an uncontrollable feeling).

You have ten seconds to make a choice. You can choose a single person or hundreds upon hundreds of people. Which do you choose?

Sin City

eviltwin wrote: »

How do you feel about fertility clinics destroying embryos parents no longer want?

Again , this is not an issue I have thought about, much like stem cell research and such

Sin City

doctoremma wrote: »

Stasis.


An interesting take on that. However, I'd be surprised if you are claiming that you are not somehow in control of your instinctive response (to what might be, admittedly, an uncontrollable feeling).

You have ten seconds to make a choice. You can choose a single person or hundreds upon hundreds of people. Which do you choose?

Thats just it though seconds to make a choice its going to be a heuristic choice which could bear evolutionary components, like a fight or flight reaction.

Bannasidhe

OldNotWIse wrote: »

You're going to bring gay rights into it now? Gawd we'll be here all day :rolleyes:

Remember though, it's only those who an unplanned pregnancy can affect that are allowed to have a say (or at least, that line is due to be trotted out any minute) so that's us gone :rolleyes:

No - I was bringing 'what it says in the Constitution' into it and pointing out how in reality in Ireland when it comes to the application of what it 'says in the Constitution' it seems a bit hit and miss.

Really - is there any need for the roll eyes?

Being gay does not mean inability to get pregnant. If I were raped (again) I could easily get pregnant as for obvious reasons I don't use contraceptives. As I also have a chronic illness pregnancy could mean the end of my life.

doctoremma

Sin City wrote: »

Thats just it though seconds to make a choice its going to be a heuristic choice which could bear evolutionary components, like a fight or flight reaction.

But you seem to have a very strong conviction that each one of those hundreds and hundreds of embryos has an equal right to life as the single woman in there? In fact, if you play a numbers game, aren't you obliged to save the embryos, not the woman?

OK, let's take the instinct out of it. Two rooms, two bombs, one containing a woman, one containing the cryotank. Unless you choose which bomb to set off, they both go. Who do you save?

OldNotWIse

eviltwin wrote: »

You are basing your stance on one person who had a bad experience. Plenty of women have had positive experiences.

I did but when I mentioned that you called me a liar and said I was making the whole thing up! :eek:

eviltwin wrote: »

I never said the abortion was positive...you must have missed the part where I talked about the years of depression and the attempted suicide.

What I said was positive was the care I received...no pain, lots of medication if I needed it etc etc

The experience as a patient was good, the actual reason for me being there was not.

Now that's what I call small print

Turtwig

Only been able to skim through this quality thread. Lovely stuff folks. Compared to other debates on abortion you guys are truly to be commended.

doctoremma wrote: »

Robin, what's the next option after massive and red?

The JC rainbow text.

eviltwin

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Now that's what I call small print

Just to clarify I wasn't saying abortion is great, its not, its bloody awful. But it was the best option out of the three for me and I can't say anything bad about the care I got. It was a world away from what Christmas described.

OldNotWIse

Bannasidhe wrote: »

No - I was bringing 'what it says in the Constitution' into it and pointing out how in reality in Ireland when it comes to the application of what it 'says in the Constitution' it seems a bit hit and miss.

Really - is there any need for the roll eyes?

Being gay does not mean inability to get pregnant. If I were raped (again) I could easily get pregnant as for obvious reasons I don't use contraceptives. As I also have a chronic illness pregnancy could mean the end of my life.

My post, I will use rolleyes as I see fit. If you dont like it, that little scroll thing in the centre of your mouse allows you to skim over the post.

I am aware that being gay does not mean inability to get pregnant (I am gay and I plan to be pregnant some day!) - really I dont think you need to point that out to me. I made it quite clear that this is simply aline trotted out by pro-choicers in every single abortion debate - "Why should people that this will never affect be allowed to have a say?" - have a look around at some of the other threads if you dont believe me.

OldNotWIse

eviltwin wrote: »

Just to clarify I wasn't saying abortion is great, its not, its bloody awful. But it was the best option out of the three for me and I can't say anything bad about the care I got. It was a world away from what Christmas described.

Thats fine, nobody is arguing with you. The problem is, when you come on here and say you had an abortion and it was professional, well managed etc, everybody "likes" your post etc. When someone comes on and says, "my friend had an abortion and she had a terrible time" everyone accuses her of lying - why is this?? If they think her relaying a negative experience is condeming it, then surely (by logic) someone relaying a positive experience is promoting it?

Sin City

doctoremma wrote: »

But you seem to have a very strong conviction that each one of those hundreds and hundreds of embryos has an equal right to life as the single woman in there? In fact, if you play a numbers game, aren't you obliged to save the embryos, not the woman?

OK, let's take the instinct out of it. Two rooms, two bombs, one containing a woman, one containing the cryotank. Unless you choose which bomb to set off, they both go. Who do you save?

again your leaving me with an evolutionary dilema in the choices given, If it was a women and child , eveolutionary boilogy would have me save the child.

If its a woman related to me and some namless child I dont know who should be saved.

If I was given a sophies choice who could I pick which of my children should die.

Or better yet if its two unknown children to me , evolitionary biology would have me pick the one that most resembels me


So if we use evolutionary biology as a factor then there is a possiblity of me saving the mother as she does physicaly resemble me that the fetuses.


But intellectualy I would say Id save the embryos

Its a no real win hypothetical scenario

eviltwin

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Thats fine, nobody is arguing with you. The problem is, when you come on here and say you had an abortion and it was professional, well managed etc, everybody "likes" your post etc. When someone comes on and says, "my friend had an abortion and she had a terrible time" everyone accuses her of lying - why is this?? If they think her relaying a negative experience is condeming it, then surely (by logic) someone relaying a positive experience is promoting it?

I wasn't saying ALL abortions are like mine. I've heard horror stories believe me but to come on and say things like "there is no pain relief only 1 paracetamol FACT" is totally untrue and has to be challenged.