Abortion/ *Note* Thread Closing Shortly! ! !

Sin City

Music4Life085 wrote: »

When a woman has her period is that not life being killed? That's why I think people can't judge! So shut up saying it's wrong and if your a man didn't you have wet dreams and masturbate? So leave them alone!

no need to get upset. this is a debate not.condemnation

anyway 1 masturbation isnt.like abortion as the ingredients for life to form doesn't exist

2 period if.fertilisation took place it can be seen as.a natural caus of death
not a premeditated one

Music4Life085

Sin City wrote: »

no need to get upset. this is a debate not.condemnation

anyway 1 masturbation isnt.like abortion as the ingredients for life to form doesn't exist

2 period if.fertilisation took place it can be seen as.a natural caus of death
not a premeditated one

Ah but it is both possible life gone...

Gongoozler

I'm wondering if there's many people anti-abortion based on the suffering of the fetus. I was reading some things earlier, where it said that it is generally accepted that pain isn't felt before the 20week mark. There is also one state in America that have written it into law that abortion clinics must make the woman sign a form requesting or refusing fetal painkillers. She is given information about what the fetus can and cannot feel, and how far it has developed by her stage.

I wonder does that make any difference to anybody, or is abortion just always about killing a human life?

doctoremma

Sin City wrote: »

so their.rights are reduced,over one criteria rather thananother

Um, I don't think any of their 'personhood' rights are reduced (right to life, food, freedom from torture etc) but I think, contingent on their level of capability, some 'social' rights could be considered to be reduced or removed (right to vote) or even especially applied (right to be tried as a child).

Not sure what the second part of your statement means in terms of this?

Zombrex

Sin City wrote: »

Masturbation does not lead to the fusion of the sperm and the egg so no embryo will form, basicaly no impregnation,so its not really an abortion of any kind (my bed isnt the site of mass genocide )

That is a technicality of the definition of "abortion". Technically destroying the zygote isn't abortion either since abortion is defined as the termination of a pregnancy and pregnancy is normally considered after implantation.

The principle though is the same, every single sperm cell has the potential, conditions being right, to grow into an adult human. But potential has never been considered all that important. We care about what exists, not what might exist.

Sin City wrote: »

Correct me if Im wrong but brain development does start early

Brain development begins with the formation and closure of the neural tube, the earliest nervous tissue that looks like a fat earthworm stretched out along the entire back of the embryo. The neural tube forms from the neural plate, which begins forming just sixteen days after conception. This plate lengthens and starts folding up, forming a groove at around eighteen days, which then begins fusing shut into a tube around twenty-two days post-conception. By 27 days, the tube is fully closed and has already begun its transformation into the brain and spinal cord of the embryo

If simply possessing a brain and nervous system was enough to convey human rights we would have to convey such rights on practically every animal in existence.

Which of course we don't. We convey rights on persons, which require a brain capable of forming a person. High brain functions in the human brain do not start turning on (for want of a better turn) until about week 28 of development. I would out law all abortion after this period (known as late term abortions, which are already banned in most countries with legal abortion as far as I know)

If you think about this is already the criteria most people already use in assessing value of life. We don't value cows. We do value humans. We value great apes. This isn't because of their DNA, it isn't because of their feet or the size of their eye balls. It isn't because they have a brain and nervous system (so do cows)

The greatest irony of the whole abortion debate is that we all already agree what is the important bit of a human, it seems that some have just not verbalized this or something. I've had so many discussions with people where they say humans are valuable because they are biologically human, which when pressed it turns out that even they don't actually believe this (simply bring up the intelligent aliens example).

Everyone already knows that humans are valuable because of what is produced by the higher brain functions of the brain. For some reason though they abandon this when discussion a foetus that does not have this valuable property. I suspect this is because of the human trait of conferring a mind onto objects that don't actually have a mind (hyper agency detection). So you think of the foetus as a person even though technically it does not have the required machinery to actually qualify for that classification.

robindch

doctoremma wrote: »

We have already encountered such intelligent life! I think the great apes should be conferred with the status of 'personhood'.

Been ages since that topic last came up, but let's get abortion settled first, shall we?

Anyhow, just one message deleted in the last six or so hours. That's a new record low I think. Well done and keep it up

Sin City

Im starting to feel like a christian fundamentalist stating the all science that doesnt correlate to the bible is false at a scientific convention.

(except I can back up most of my claims)

Sin City

Gongoozler wrote: »

I'm wondering if there's many people anti-abortion based on the suffering of the fetus. I was reading some things earlier, where it said that it is generally accepted that pain isn't felt before the 20week mark. There is also one state in America that have written it into law that abortion clinics must make the woman sign a form requesting or refusing fetal painkillers. She is given information about what the fetus can and cannot feel, and how far it has developed by her stage.

I wonder does that make any difference to anybody, or is abortion just always about killing a human life?

I read somewhere that Tennesse was thinking about having death certificates for aborted babies. A kind of a name and shame to prevent some from seeking the service. (A bit OTT in my opnion)

But yes we had the feel pain arguement a few pages back

---

I think

Sin City

doctoremma wrote: »

Um, I don't think any of their 'personhood' rights are reduced (right to life, food, freedom from torture etc) but I think, contingent on their level of capability, some 'social' rights could be considered to be reduced or removed (right to vote) or even especially applied (right to be tried as a child).

Not sure what the second part of your statement means in terms of this?

Sorry I was only thinking out loud on that example, just throwing stuff out there at this stage. I hear some US states wont treat those mentally impaired with child minds as children .

Is there any difference betweem rights of life and rights of personhood?

Sin City

Zombrex wrote: »

That is a technicality of the definition of "abortion". Technically destroying the zygote isn't abortion either since abortion is defined as the termination of a pregnancy and pregnancy is normally considered after implantation.

The principle though is the same, every single sperm cell has the potential, conditions being right, to grow into an adult human. But potential has never been considered all that important. We care about what exists, not what might exist.

But it cant exist if it hasnt been fused and in a womb. Masturbation in itself cant be seen as the rejection of potential life as there is nothing there to give it that option. Once it hasnt got all the ingredients for life naturaly life cannot grow

The same way a period I wouldnt define as an abortion or at least a pre meditated abortion more death by natural causes.

Zombrex wrote: »

If simply possessing a brain and nervous system was enough to convey human rights we would have to convey such rights on practically every animal in existence.

Which of course we don't. We convey rights on persons, which require a brain capable of forming a person. High brain functions in the human brain do not start turning on (for want of a better turn) until about week 28 of development. I would out law all abortion after this period (known as late term abortions, which are already banned in most countries with legal abortion as far as I know)

I would except that notion if the animals themselves could in time have human brain fucntion, cognition , rational thought and other criteria that we possess
.

Zombrex wrote: »

If you think about this is already the criteria most people already use in assessing value of life. We don't value cows. We do value humans. We value great apes. This isn't because of their DNA, it isn't because of their feet or the size of their eye balls. It isn't because they have a brain and nervous system (so do cows)

I thought we value apes because they are similar to us geneticaly as well as their potential for high brain function and possible communication

Zombrex wrote: »

The greatest irony of the whole abortion debate is that we all already agree what is the important bit of a human, it seems that some have just not verbalized this or something. I've had so many discussions with people where they say humans are valuable because they are biologically human, which when pressed it turns out that even they don't actually believe this (simply bring up the intelligent aliens example).

Im intrigued please go on

Zombrex wrote: »

Everyone already knows that humans are valuable because of what is produced by the higher brain functions of the brain. For some reason though they abandon this when discussion a foetus that does not have this valuable property. I suspect this is because of the human trait of conferring a mind onto objects that don't actually have a mind (hyper agency detection). So you think of the foetus as a person even though technically it does not have the required machinery to actually qualify for that classification.

Yeah I know what you mean , but I still value the potential for higher brain fucntion, I mean if its only 20 weeks away is that right to end an enities life who is so close to being classed as fully a person?

Ok I really shattered now (I have been debating this all day and Im starting to even confuse myself now lol)

Sin City

Music4Life085 wrote: »

Ah but it is both possible life gone...

You seem to think that I am really against those who have abortions, Im just having a debate and as I said back on page 10 or something, In no way do I want to offend anyone by my views or do I want my views thrust on anyone who doesnt support it

Zombrex

Sin City wrote: »

But it cant exist if it hasnt been fused and in a womb. Masturbation in itself cant be seen as the rejection of potential life as there is nothing there to give it that option. Once it hasnt got all the ingredients for life naturaly life cannot grow.

Well yes that is the point. If I kill the sperm before it can fuse with an egg then I am stopping the potential person that sperm would grow into if it did fuse with an egg, from ever existing.

Same with abortion.

Sin City wrote: »

I would except that notion if the animals themselves could in time have human brain fucntion, cognition , rational thought and other criteria that we possess
.

But you don't value them now because they don't possess the qualities we value.

Sin City wrote: »

I thought we value apes because they are similar to us geneticaly as well as their potential for high brain function and possible communication

We don't. Mice are similar to use genetically, we don't value them.

Sin City wrote: »

Im intrigued please go on

Well you said it yourself, you don't value a cow. You would if it had human like brain functions.

Sin City wrote: »

Yeah I know what you mean , but I still value the potential for higher brain fucntion, I mean if its only 20 weeks away is that right to end an enities life who is so close to being classed as fully a person?

Well again you don't value the potential for brain functions. Every sperm has the potential for brain functions.

You value potential for brain function after a particular point where you think that nature has taken over, which is largely a myth, the idea that the zygote is complete and just needs to "grow" a bit to become a person.

This is the problem with humans, we confuse our choices with natures plan. The reality is that as far as nature is concerned your impulse to have sex with someone is just as much a part of the natural course of things as the zygote separating or implantation.

Or to put it another way, the sperm leaving the penis and meeting the egg is as much a natural step on the path of the growth of a human as implantation or cell division. You "abort" a potential human by interrupting this as much as you do with an actual abortion.

Or to put it even simpler sexual intercourse is a stage of growth. The animal does not start growing at conception, it was already growing when the male produced the sperm and the female produced the egg and the natural process got them to get busy with it.

We don't think of it this way because our advanced human brains make us think that sex is something we choose to do, that is beyond the realms of natural process and then everything after that is nature growing in the woman. But nature doesn't view it like that. Sexual intercourse is no different a stage of grown than implantation or birth.

Mark Hamill

doctoremma wrote: »

And I think this is where our opinions simply cannot reach unity. I cannot find any reason to account for potentiality, I simply don't see your POV here (not being obtuse, just it's completely irrelevant to me in assigning 'meaning' to the life). Any thought exercises to expose flawed thinking here?

Seems to me that people who don't account for potentiality in a foetus must not want or have pensions because pensions are based on treating a similar sense of potentiality as a certainty. You will only potentially reach an age where you will need a pension, in much the same way that a foetus will only potentially be born. So would you abandon your pension scheme because there is no reason to account for the potentiality of getting old?

28064212

Sin City wrote: »

However, even in its current state, Article 40.3.3 still makes abortion illegal by offering status to the unborn

Incorrect, and I've posted what 40.3.3 means (as defined by the Supreme Court) several times now. If there is a substantial risk to the life of the mother (including the risk of suicide), the mother has a right to an abortion. This is not up for debate, this is what the Supreme Court has ruled as the meaning of the Constitution. There is no further appeal.

40.3.3 means a woman has a constitutional right to an abortion where there is a substantial risk to her life.

Sin City

Zombrex wrote: »

Well yes that is the point. If I kill the sperm before it can fuse with an egg then I am stopping the potential person that sperm would grow into if it did fuse with an egg, from ever existing.

Same with abortion.

Not so much,I know what you are implying but its not the same thing.
A condom could be seen as doing what you are implying (which to me is not an abortion even though it does as you say stop the natural process of pregnancy but to me the potential will never be actualised until it fuses with the egg

Zombrex wrote: »

But you don't value them now because they don't possess the qualities we value.

But I could if in 20weeks they were capible or higher brain function

Zombrex wrote: »

We don't. Mice are similar to use genetically, we don't value them.

Similar but not extactly identical ,we are also closey related by DNA similarity to daffodils or something

Zombrex wrote: »

Well you said it yourself, you don't value a cow. You would if it had human like brain functions.

exactly or at least the potential for human like brain function

Zombrex wrote: »

Well again you don't value the potential for brain functions. Every sperm has the potential for brain functions.

As long as it fuses with an egg

You value potential for brain function after a particular point where you think that nature has taken over, which is largely a myth, the idea that the zygote is complete and just needs to "grow" a bit to become a person.[/quote]

Needs to grow to 20 weeks to meet your criteria for personhood

Zombrex wrote: »

This is the problem with humans, we confuse our choices with natures plan. The reality is that as far as nature is concerned your impulse to have sex with someone is just as much a part of the natural course of things as the zygote separating or implantation.

Or to put it another way, the sperm leaving the penis and meeting the egg is as much a natural step on the path of the growth of a human as implantation or cell division. You "abort" a potential human by interrupting this as much as you do with an actual abortion.

Or to put it even simpler sexual intercourse is a stage of growth. The animal does not start growing at conception, it was already growing when the male produced the sperm and the female produced the egg and the natural process got them to get busy with it.

We don't think of it this way because our advanced human brains make us think that sex is something we choose to do, that is beyond the realms of natural process and then everything after that is nature growing in the woman. But nature doesn't view it like that. Sexual intercourse is no different a stage of grown than implantation or birth.

Deep Zombrex

Yes we know sex is a drive that we dont fully control

And stopping us having sex eliminates any potential people we may produce. But again sperm and egg need to fuse to become pp. Put it another way whats the life span of both sperm and egg in the male and female reproductive glands?

Sin City

28064212 wrote: »

Incorrect, and I've posted what 40.3.3 means (as defined by the Supreme Court) several times now. If there is a substantial risk to the life of the mother (including the risk of suicide), the mother has a right to an abortion. This is not up for debate, this is what the Supreme Court has ruled as the meaning of the Constitution. There is no further appeal.

40.3.3 means a woman has a constitutional right to an abortion where there is a substantial risk to her life.

That quote I got was copied and pasted from the supreme courts website

(I got lazy and was on my phone so it was easier than rewording it myself)

or at least I thougt I copied and pasted it somewhere

Did I say it should be done on a case by case basis?

Zombrex

Sin City wrote: »

Not so much,I know what you are implying but its not the same thing.
A condom could be seen as doing what you are implying (which to me is not an abortion even though it does as you say stop the natural process of pregnancy but to me the potential will never be actualised until it fuses with the egg

That doesn't make sense. By definition the sperm that made you had the potential make you long before it fused with the egg that also made you. And it fulfilled that potential. If your father had destroyed it by having a **** instead of sex with your mother (or maybe just not having sex with your mother and waiting a bit until the sperm naturally died) the potential for you to exist would be extinguished. But no one would care because we don't value theoretical humans.

Sin City wrote: »

As long as it fuses with an egg

How many "as long as" steps are required after the formation of the zygote. How many are required before hand. Why pick that one out as the actualisation of potential?

Sin City wrote: »

Needs to grow to 20 weeks to meet your criteria for personhood

Needs to actually have the thing we value as defining a person to meet the criteria for personhood.

Sin City wrote: »

Deep Zombrex

Yes we know sex is a drive that we dont fully control

And stopping us having sex eliminates any potential people we may produce. But again sperm and egg need to fuse to become pp. Put it another way whats the life span of both sperm and egg in the male and female reproductive glands?

The sperm and egg need to fuse, correct. And about a billion other things need to happen as well, before and after that takes place. Again why are you singling out that particular step as having particular significance in deciding that now potential is possible?

Plenty of zygotes that have no potential to become a person are formed and then flushed by the body naturally. Saying a sperm does not have actual potential because we don't know if it would ever make it to an egg could equally be applied to a zygote which we don't know will actually implant in the mother. But none of us would be here with the sperms that actually did make us, so all those sperms had potential and fulfilled it.

Sin City

Zombrex wrote: »

That doesn't make sense. By definition the sperm that made you had the potential make you long before it fused with the egg that also made you. And it fulfilled that potential. If your father had destroyed it by having a **** instead of sex with your mother (or maybe just not having sex with your mother and waiting a bit until the sperm naturally died) the potential for you to exist would be extinguished. But no one would care because we don't value theoretical humans.

As do the millions of other sperms you relase, yet they are not aborted. Again I get what you are saying but I dont see it like that, maybe I should as it effects me but someother sperm could have been a faster swimmer than me too and that also would renender me non existant. Its that fact that implantation and fertilization occurs that we can say for certain that life is in the making and any premeditated artifical inteription of this action is whats wrong and it is from here we can talk about potential life.

Zombrex wrote: »

How many "as long as" steps are required after the formation of the zygote. How many are required before hand. Why pick that one out as the actualisation of potential?

Untill you get what Im trying to say.

A cow will never in its lifetime or develomental stages will ever aquire higher brain function, an embryo can

Zombrex wrote: »

Needs to actually have the thing we value as defining a person to meet the criteria for personhood.

Guess what Im going to counter argue, it begings with P

Zombrex wrote: »

The sperm and egg need to fuse, correct. And about a billion other things need to happen as well, before and after that takes place. Again why are you singling out that particular step as having particular significance in deciding that now potential is possible?

Because this isnt a science lab and your average person may not know what stages are involed in the development (I include myself in this as well)

Zombrex wrote: »

Plenty of zygotes that have no potential to become a person are formed and then flushed by the body naturally. Saying a sperm does not have actual potential because we don't know if it would ever make it to an egg could equally be applied to a zygote which we don't know will actually implant in the mother. But none of us would be here with the sperms that actually did make us, so all those sperms had potential and fulfilled it.

But when it does implant and we know we are pregnant then that thinking goes out the window and thats when we actually concentrate on a potential person

28064212

Sin City wrote: »

That quote I got was copied and pasted from the supreme courts website

(I got lazy and was on my phone so it was easier than rewording it myself)

or at least I thougt I copied and pasted it somewhere

Link? Because it's wrong. The situation really can't be any clearer. A woman has a constitutional right to an abortion where there is a risk to her life (including the risk of suicide)

Sin City wrote: »

Did I say it should be done on a case by case basis?

How else would it be done? A risk to the life of the mother can't be judged on any other basis than case-by-case

Sin City

28064212 wrote: »

Link? Because it's wrong. The situation really can't be any clearer. A woman has a constitutional right to an abortion where there is a risk to her life (including the risk of suicide)

Sin City wrote: »

Just to add t the body that holds medical licences in Ireland considers it malpractice for any doctor to perform an abortion. The Irish Medical Council stated: "The deliberate and intentional destruction of the unborn child is professional misconduct.

This was the ruling

In that case, the Court held there is no right for women to an abortion, although it found that Ireland had violated the Convention by failing to provide an accessible and effective procedure by which a woman can have established whether she qualifies for a legal abortion under current Irish law. The Court's decision is binding on Ireland and all of the contracting states of the European Council.

The law, at the moment, is highly complex, the original amendment modified by referenda and court decisions. However, even in its current state, Article 40.3.3 still makes abortion illegal by offering status to the unborn

Ill go searching for the link,

Sin City

Ive gone lazy and will link the wiki version as that was the first link there (its all there verbatim)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland

28064212

Sin City wrote: »

Ive gone lazy and will link the wiki version as that was the first link there (its all there verbatim)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland

Did you see the big [citation needed] after it?

Which part of this post are you having problems with?

28064212 wrote: »

Here's a timeline:

• 1983: 8th amendment to the Constitution is passed by referendum, which "acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother"
• 1992: The X Case. The Supreme Court rules that the 8th amendment means women have a right to an abortion where there is a substantial risk to the life of the mother, including the risk of suicide.
• 1992: After the ruling, the government runs a referendum to remove the right to an abortion. It is defeated. This is when the legislation should have been brought in
• 2002: Still no legislation. The government runs another referendum to remove the right to an abortion. It is defeated again. Legislation should have been brought in.
• 2010: ABC case in the ECHR. The ECHR rules that Ireland has violated C's rights by not provided a legally authoritative determination of whether she was entitled to an abortion

The current situation is this: abortion is illegal in Ireland because of the Offences against the Person Act 1861. However, this act is unconstitutional.

Is there anything there that is not factual?

Given that the Supreme Court has ruled that the constitution gives a woman the right to an abortion in specific circumstances, is there any flaw in the conclusion that an act banning all abortions is unconstitutional?

OldNotWIse

Gongoozler wrote: »

I'm wondering if there's many people anti-abortion based on the suffering of the fetus. I was reading some things earlier, where it said that it is generally accepted that pain isn't felt before the 20week mark. There is also one state in America that have written it into law that abortion clinics must make the woman sign a form requesting or refusing fetal painkillers. She is given information about what the fetus can and cannot feel, and how far it has developed by her stage.

I wonder does that make any difference to anybody, or is abortion just always about killing a human life?

Last post on this as I have a very busy day ahead of me - I think you're right! You hit a nerve with me on that one because of what you said - I often ask myslef why I detest abortion so much! When I see plenty of intelligent, caring, loving people who are pro choice...I wonder why I care so much. Someone asked a poster yesterday, "why do you care if someone else haas an abortion, being pro choice is not about forcing abortion on those who do not want it". And I think you have clarified my answer. It's not that I dont want a human life to not exist - I really sometimes think this world is sh1t (sorry guys but sometimes it is) and we are over populated anyway and really, I dont understand why people keep farting out offspring like its going out of fashion - yet I hate the idea of abortion and its because I think the foetus (I dont know but I would suppose from about 10-12 weeks) could feel pain/distress at being butchered and this sickens me. But its true if abortion were just about "switching off" a light or something and there was no suffering, no pain, no horrible "partial births" or destruction in utero/vacuuming etc, if the unborn just ceased to "be" by flicking a switch, I think it wouldn't be that bad. It's not like we need any more children. And I dont get upset when people just decide not to procreate!
Thank you for clarifying that for me. Hope you all enjoy the rest of the debate - though I doubt anyone will be changing their minds any time soon

old hippy

Tipsygypsy wrote: »

I just have to say, Doctoremma, I think you might be my favourite ever poster in informed debate. I only wish I was able to put forth argument as clearly and factually as you. You rock.

The Doc is truly awesome

Sin City

28064212 wrote: »

Did you see the big [citation needed] after it?

Which part of this post are you having problems with?


Is there anything there that is not factual?

Given that the Supreme Court has ruled that the constitution gives a woman the right to an abortion in specific circumstances, is there any flaw in the conclusion that an act banning all abortions is unconstitutional?

Yes you are right, abortion is allowed in specific cases where the mothers life is at risk

doctoremma

OldNotWIse wrote: »

I think the foetus (I dont know but I would suppose from about 10-12 weeks) could feel pain/distress at being butchered and this sickens me.

If you don't know, why do you suppose?

The brain structure (thalamus and associated neurones) required for sensation of pain aren't developed until around 17 weeks. These structures don't make connections to the cerebral cortex, required for perception of pain, until at least 22 weeks and they continue to develop and connect throughout the remainder of gestation.

Until the cortex is properly wired, fetal movements are reflexive (like your own knee-jerk response, which is not associated with pain in any way). Think of your reflexive removal of your hand from a hot surface. Does it hurt? When does it hurt? The onset of pain happens after you have moved your hand, when the neural connections in the brain catch up with the involuntary spinal cord/brain stem response that causes you to move your hand.

Until at least late second trimester, a fetus does not have the capacity to perceive pain.

OldNotWIse wrote: »

But its true if abortion were just about "switching off" a light or something and there was no suffering, no pain

Early abortions (pre-12 weeks) ARE like this. At these stages and embryo is a very soft structure (no bones etc) and the force from the vacuum instrument is very strong. The embryo isn't torn apart or into pieces, it's instantly, well, liquefied. (Sorry, not trying to be insensitive but I can't find a better layman's term).

OldNotWIse wrote: »

no horrible "partial births"

This is illegal is the US and not performed in the UK. However, to be devil's advocate, I'm not sure (biologically) what the objection is to this method over others that would be performed at similar stages of pregnancy. From the fetal POV, there is no difference.

OldNotWIse wrote: »

or destruction in utero/vacuuming etc

Use of vacuum aspiration is a remarkably efficient way of destroying the embryo immediately and without complication in a manner safe for the woman. I can't see an alternative way that is more "humane" (if you accept such an adjective).

In later abortions, pharmacological agents are widely used to stop the fetal heart beat, prior to any procedure.

Tipsygypsy

doctoremma wrote: »

If you don't know, why do you suppose?

.

This is the problem here in Ireland. We are taught in secondary school that abortion is wrong. We are shown images from pro-choice groups, and videos that villiify abortions and anyone who would obtain one.

And I was foolish enough to think that those days were gone, since I left school many, many years ago, but I spoke to girl last night who has just done her leaving and she also was taught that abortion is wrong and shown all the gruesome images that the pro-life campaig use.

Ive mentioned here before that in secondary school I was made to do a project on abortion, and resources to find a true and accurate portrayal were certainly not made available (days before the good old internet), so all I had to use was what my Catholic school gave me and my parents encyclopedia, or whatever I could find in the local libraby (not much I can tell you).

This is why some Irish people will suppose, and have such stong held beliefs, because many of us are quite literally brainwashed into them in school

Just to add that this is slowly changing, we are so much more questioning than we were in years gone by, and demading. Ireland has come a long way, but it still has a very long way to go.

Bannasidhe

Tipsygypsy wrote: »

This is the problem here in Ireland. We are taught in secondary school that abortion is wrong. We are shown images from pro-choice groups, and videos that villiify abortions and anyone who would obtain one.

And I was foolish enough to think that those days were gone, since I left school many, many years ago, but I spoke to girl last night who has just done her leaving and she also was taught that abortion is wrong and shown all the gruesome images that the pro-life campaig use.

Ive mentioned here before that in secondary school I was made to do a project on abortion, and resources to find a true and accurate portrayal were certainly not made available (days before the good old internet), so all I had to use was what my Catholic school gave me and my parents encyclopedia, or whatever I could find in the local libraby (not much I can tell you).

This is why some Irish people will suppose, and have such stong held beliefs, because many of us are quite literally brainwashed into them in school

Just to add that this is slowly changing, we are so much more questioning than we were in years gone by, and demading. Ireland has come a long way, but it still has a very long way to go.

Is that still going on??? :mad:

I remember going on a 5th year 'retreat' in the early 80s (I volunteered to go as I reckoned it would be a doss day) and being forced to listen to a highly emotive and biased recording (only audio back then) of a woman who allegedly had an abortion by one of those Fr Trendy priests and his sidekick The Singing Nun. I smelt a large rat when the recording claimed it was in the room as the abortion was being performed :eek:.

I must admit I went spare and read them the riot act for subjecting young women to such outrageous propaganda - I may have mentioned that this was particularly rich coming from two people who had taken vows of celibacy so were unlikely to ever find themselves faced with an unwanted pregnancy. All I can really remember about the incident is that a red mist of indignation descended, the shocked expressions on my classmates face as I not only challenged authority - I lost the plot with authority - and my mates trying to pull me back into my seat as I insisted 'I will not shut up. This is outrageous!'
Phone call to the principle calling for my expulsion (at no point was I rude or abusive I hasten to add), Principle backed me all the way and went to town on the priest for daring to play such a recording to her pupils without her permission


Bannasidhe agreed to never ever go on retreat again - which was academic as the Principle decided from then on no more retreats.

I can't believe they are still pulling that crap. :mad:

Edit: No, I can. I should say I can't believe they are still allowed to pull that crap.

old hippy

In the late 80s I attended a college run by the Opus Dei. We had a religion class every morning dressed up as "civics". The priest (an excorcist) regularly told us how abortion and other "nasty business" was immoral and wrong. I quit attending his propgaganda lectures after a month or so.

lazygal

I must be lucky. We never got the 'abortion is a tragedy, look at this 'informative' video' in school. There were a couple of nuns and it was a religious school, but in hindsight the sex education we got was practical and as good as could be expected. We also had retreats, during which there were q&as during which sex and pregnancy came up. I think maybe I was fortunate, but given the nature of education in Ireland, me and my classmates didn't fare too badly. The teachers also gave a lot of support to the couple of girls who got pregnant in school, which might not happen in every school.