Abortion/ *Note* Thread Closing Shortly! ! !

MrPudding

robp wrote: »

We have a different idea of what abortion means. You argue I am playing semantics around the use of the word abortion. Well if I am its only through the influence of the medical establishment. Curiously, your silent on Prof John Bonnar's quote. I can cite more like it if you wish.

I wonder how much of this is smoke and mirrors with the medical establishment trying to draw attention away form their actions lest the pro-life fanatics try to limit their work further?

Whether it is you playing semantics or the medical establishment, the fact remains that the result of the doctors actions is that the woman is no longer pregnant. Whatever it is called it is quite clear that, in practical if not legal terms, it is an abortion.

robp wrote: »

Even if the child dies within months, those few months are typically an enormous consolation to the parents.

To be perfectly frank, and possibly a little bit blunt, I don't give a fcuk about consoling the parents if it is at the cost of causing suffering to a child not capable of any reasonable standard of life.

There was a thread about this on the other forum and one of the people was talking about relatives being given the chance to abort a child that had no chance of living. They took the decision to have the child born into suffering for a handful of minutes because, apparently, it made them feel better. Personally I think that is despicable. I would never bring a child to term knowing its mercifully short life would consist of nothing but suffering simply so my partner or I could feel a little better or get closure (I hate that term).

MrP

Turtwig

Ok so let me see if I got this correct.

If you're pro-life abortion is only abortion if the primary intent is to kill the foetus. Otherwise, it's all ok and everything else, every other process that kills the foetus, isn't really an abortion.

Convenient.

MrPudding

Jernal wrote: »

Ok so let me see if I got this correct.

If you're pro-life abortion is only abortion if the primary intent is to kill the foetus. Otherwise, it's all ok and everything else, every other process that kills the foetus, isn't really an abortion.

Convenient.

Yeah, bollix basically.

MrP

robp

MrPudding wrote: »

I wonder how much of this is smoke and mirrors with the medical establishment trying to draw attention away form their actions lest the pro-life fanatics try to limit their work further?

Whether it is you playing semantics or the medical establishment, the fact remains that the result of the doctors actions is that the woman is no longer pregnant. Whatever it is called it is quite clear that, in practical if not legal terms, it is an abortion.

To be perfectly frank, and possibly a little bit blunt, I don't give a fcuk about consoling the parents if it is at the cost of causing suffering to a child not capable of any reasonable standard of life.

There was a thread about this on the other forum and one of the people was talking about relatives being given the chance to abort a child that had no chance of living. They took the decision to have the child born into suffering for a handful of minutes because, apparently, it made them feel better. Personally I think that is despicable. I would never bring a child to term knowing its mercifully short life would consist of nothing but suffering simply so my partner or I could feel a little better or get closure (I hate that term).

MrP

The doctors take the wellbeing of the parents very seriously and so do I. Physical suffering can be alleviated by modern medication. Medicine is not so primitive! Physiological suffering is not going to be an issue at that early age.
In the UK the majority of abortions granted with that legal exception are for far more minor issues like Down syndrome. Nowadays people with Down syndrome can have a very decent quality of life.

Jernal wrote: »

Ok so let me see if I got this correct.

If you're pro-life abortion is only abortion if the primary intent is to kill the foetus. Otherwise, it's all ok and everything else, every other process that kills the foetus, isn't really an abortion.

Intention is everything. Everything. I can give many examples. For example do we treat losing a book the same as loaning a book? Same result but it came about with a different intention. Or do we treat manslaughter the same as murder? Again, same idea.

Anyway from a medically pointy of view you are talking about different treatments that do different things. Lumping them together isn't doing any justice to a complex situation. For instance serve cases of ectopic pregnancy are sometimes treated with a salpingectomy. That is very different to a typical surgical induced abortion. Additionally, it can be seen as an unnecessary attempt to politicize heathcare.

Obliq

pauldla wrote: »

First, thanks for taking the time to reply. You are being kept busy here!


Abortion supporters argue that as there is a need for abortion it should be available. Legislating against abortion doesn’t make it disappear. It either drives abortion underground, or sends women to jurisdictions where abortion is more freely available. Both diminish the capacity for women to make informed and reasoned decisions on the matter.


I’m still not clear on the issue you have with choice. Anti-abortion legislation does not do away with choice: it merely puts the decision in somebody else’s hands. I’ve still probably got the wrong end of the stick about what you are saying, though…


IMO, ‘pro-choice’ and ‘pro-life’ is a false dichotomy. I would describe myself as being both pro-choice and pro-life.

Fully agree with this Pauldla. I've been away for a bit and the abortion debate is raging on without me, damn:-) Have tried to catch up, and have seen Robp doing his thang....and SinCity throwing in bravely too.

I'd like to change tack a bit here and talk about Pro Choice versus Anti Choice. With the premise that we are all PRO LIFE. The difference between both sides, as far as I can see, is how we value that life. People who keep chickens, pigs, sheep, cows....all that, are very much aware of the status we have set ourselves as managers of life - of the taking of life for eating meat for example.

Many more people have justified the taking of life for food, by understanding that the animal had a life that we humans ended, when they buy a wrapped up piece of bacon or similar. They acknowledge that we have CHOSEN to take this animal's life for food. I imagine, but please correct me if you feel I'm wrong, that these people in the majority can see how a person can harden their heart enough to kill creatures. They see a need and can justify it - and it is a moral question and an ethical problem that must be reasoned.

Pro Choice people (again, comment if you have another take on this) reason that aborting an unborn baby is sometimes necessary in a similar way. If there is a need that supersedes the value you put on a semi-sentient being, we can reason that this is no worse than taking the life of an animal for food. It's an interesting debate really - if you have an emotional connection to an animal, you wouldn't dream of eating it (unless you're starving) - similarly, if you have an emotional attachment to your unborn baby, you wouldn't dream of aborting it (unless in some tragic cases, your baby may only live a few hours and those hours in distress and dying). However, if you have no emotional attachment in either of these examples, and you may have a very good reason for this life to be ended, people can say that morally and ethically we are entitled to value our needs above that of a living creature.

I have advanced this notion a few times and robp has ignored it, probably because it may be the crux of the argument. I can see that anti-choice people in general feel that they are SO right in this matter, that they don't have to debate the "right to life" - they are always right, no matter what. I can see that a lot of people feel that the human life potential is too important to ever justify killing it before birth, and I say good for you- Continue to uphold your belief, and practice what you preach by all means. But I never said you could speak for me.

I can go into a court of law, right now, and argue that my beliefs are as valid as yours. I can say that I have explored the moral implications of abortion and I am comfortable with the notion that a woman's decision to abort (for many, usually extremely difficult reasons ) is in her best interests, and therefore it's justifiable to end a tiny life. I reason in a similar way when I kill cockerels because they are too expensive to keep for their beauty. My reasoning/opinion is as valid as yours and I WILL argue that it is. Many will agree with me. So how do you get the right to stop me from making a choice in the matter, in my own country? What makes you more right than me?

This is the difficulty we face in Ireland now. 12 women every day make the decision for themselves, but the anti-choice movement say that they shouldn't be allowed the choice. If a pro-choice absolutist is someone who says "you have your choice, now I'll be entitled to mine as well", then I'm a pro-choice absolutist, but if being such a thing (in your view) is someone who is less right than you, then I'm no such thing.

Put it to the vote I say. I reckon that the 150,000 Irish women who have had abortions in the last 10 years and the many, many thousands who agree they should have a choice here, will give the anti-choicers a run for their money.

Galvasean

Obliq wrote: »

I'd like to change tack a bit here and talk about Pro Choice versus Anti Choice.

I'd much prefer if the two sides were referred to as 'pro-abortion' and 'anti-abortion', ie: calling a spade a spade. Both 'pro-life' and 'pro-choice' are just terms that were made up to give their side a nice bit of positive spin.

The Mad Hatter

Galvasean wrote: »

I'd much prefer if the two sides were referred to as 'pro-abortion' and 'anti-abortion', ie: calling a spade a spade. Both 'pro-life' and 'pro-choice' are just terms that were made up to give their side a nice bit of positive spin.

No, I think "pro-abortion" sounds like you're in favour of abortions for all, when in fact you might just be in favour of miniature American flags for all.

robindch

A cheerfully thoughtful article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/28/opinion/sunday/friedman-why-i-am-pro-life.html

Thomas Friedman wrote:

HARD-LINE conservatives have gone to new extremes lately in opposing abortion. Last week, Richard Mourdock, the Tea Party-backed Republican Senate candidate in Indiana, declared during a debate that he was against abortion even in the event of rape because after much thought he “came to realize that life is that gift from God. And even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen.” That came on the heels of the Tea Party-backed Republican Representative Joe Walsh of Illinois saying after a recent debate that he opposed abortion even in cases where the life of the mother is in danger, because “with modern technology and science, you can’t find one instance” in which a woman would not survive without an abortion. “Health of the mother has become a tool for abortions anytime, for any reason,” Walsh said. That came in the wake of the Senate hopeful in Missouri, Representative Todd Akin, remarking that pregnancy as a result of “legitimate rape” is rare because “the female body has ways to try and shut that whole thing down.”

These were not slips of the tongue. These are the authentic voices of an ever-more-assertive far-right Republican base that is intent on using uncompromising positions on abortion to not only unseat more centrist Republicans — Mourdock defeated the moderate Republican Senator Richard Lugar of Indiana in the primary — but to overturn the mainstream consensus in America on this issue. That consensus says that those who choose to oppose abortion in their own lives for reasons of faith or philosophy should be respected, but those women who want to make a different personal choice over what happens with their own bodies should be respected, and have the legal protection to do so, as well.

But judging from the unscientific — borderline crazy — statements opposing abortion that we’re hearing lately, there is reason to believe that this delicate balance could be threatened if Mitt Romney and Representative Paul Ryan, and their even more extreme allies, get elected. So to those who want to protect a woman’s right to control what happens with her own body, let me offer just one piece of advice: to name something is to own it. If you can name an issue, you can own the issue. And we must stop letting Republicans name themselves “pro-life” and Democrats as “pro-choice.” It is a huge distortion.

In my world, you don’t get to call yourself “pro-life” and be against common-sense gun control — like banning public access to the kind of semiautomatic assault rifle, designed for warfare, that was used recently in a Colorado theater. You don’t get to call yourself “pro-life” and want to shut down the Environmental Protection Agency, which ensures clean air and clean water, prevents childhood asthma, preserves biodiversity and combats climate change that could disrupt every life on the planet. You don’t get to call yourself “pro-life” and oppose programs like Head Start that provide basic education, health and nutrition for the most disadvantaged children. You can call yourself a “pro-conception-to-birth, indifferent-to-life conservative.” I will never refer to someone who pickets Planned Parenthood but lobbies against common-sense gun laws as “pro-life.”

“Pro-life” can mean only one thing: “respect for the sanctity of life.” And there is no way that respect for the sanctity of life can mean we are obligated to protect every fertilized egg in a woman’s body, no matter how that egg got fertilized, but we are not obligated to protect every living person from being shot with a concealed automatic weapon. I have no respect for someone who relies on voodoo science to declare that a woman’s body can distinguish a “legitimate” rape, but then declares — when 99 percent of all climate scientists conclude that climate change poses a danger to the sanctity of all life on the planet — that global warming is just a hoax.

The term “pro-life” should be a shorthand for respect for the sanctity of life. But I will not let that label apply to people for whom sanctity for life begins at conception and ends at birth. What about the rest of life? Respect for the sanctity of life, if you believe that it begins at conception, cannot end at birth. That radical narrowing of our concern for the sanctity of life is leading to terrible distortions in our society.

Respect for life has to include respect for how that life is lived, enhanced and protected — not only at the moment of conception but afterward, in the course of that life. That’s why, for me, the most “pro-life” politician in America is New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg. While he supports a woman’s right to choose, he has also used his position to promote a whole set of policies that enhance everyone’s quality of life — from his ban on smoking in bars and city parks to reduce cancer, to his ban on the sale in New York City of giant sugary drinks to combat obesity and diabetes, to his requirement for posting calorie counts on menus in chain restaurants, to his push to reinstate the expired federal ban on assault weapons and other forms of common-sense gun control, to his support for early childhood education, to his support for mitigating disruptive climate change.

Now that is what I call “pro-life.”

Bannasidhe

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

No, I think "pro-abortion" sounds like you're in favour of abortions for all, when in fact you might just be in favour of miniature American flags for all.

Agree. I would not describe my self as pro-abortion as it is not an option I could see myself choosing unless the life of the fetus was not viable or it was a 'me or it' situation. But that would be my choice . Other women are entitled to make their choices too. Ergo - I am pro-choice.

Obliq

Galvasean wrote: »

I'd much prefer if the two sides were referred to as 'pro-abortion' and 'anti-abortion', ie: calling a spade a spade. Both 'pro-life' and 'pro-choice' are just terms that were made up to give their side a nice bit of positive spin.

Yup, pro-abortion and anti-abortion is much more straightforward in terms of how the "pro-life" side debates it. However, I'm not sure I'd describe myself as pro-abortion, any more than I'm pro-cockerel killing. I see the need for a choice, and I'll take the choice based on necessity. If you see my distinction?

I'd like to be able to say I have a choice based on my pro or anti abortion stance, but because the pro-abortion side have no actual rights/choice here in Ireland, I'm thinking that the term pro-choice is more the actual debatable term here.

Obliq

robindch wrote: »

A cheerfully thoughtful article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/28/opinion/sunday/friedman-why-i-am-pro-life.html

How interesting. Not so cheerful, but definitely thoughtful!

robindch

^^^ Cheerful in the sense that it's a thoughtful article on abortion and that's a rarity in the USA

Obliq

robindch wrote: »

^^^ Cheerful in the sense that it's a thoughtful article on abortion and that's a rarity in the USA

True for ya .....and this I like:"Pro-life” can mean only one thing: “respect for the sanctity of life.” And there is no way that respect for the sanctity of life can mean we are obligated to protect every fertilized egg in a woman’s body, no matter how that egg got fertilized"

THIS is what I would like to debate with robp. I would like to get down to the reason that ropb feels that an unborn human life has somehow more value than that of a pig or a cow. I would like to see the reasoning for his/her values, and I IMAGINE that we would hear a Christian interpretation of the "sanctity of human life" as opposed to the right to life of a pig (for eg.)

MrPudding

robp wrote: »

The doctors take the wellbeing of the parents very seriously and so do I. Physical suffering can be alleviated by modern medication. Medicine is not so primitive! Physiological suffering is not going to be an issue at that early age.
In the UK the majority of abortions granted with that legal exception are for far more minor issues like Down syndrome. Nowadays people with Down syndrome can have a very decent quality of life.

Irrespective of that, I think it is obnoxiously selfish.

robp wrote: »

Intention is everything. Everything. I can give many examples. For example do we treat losing a book the same as loaning a book? Same result but it came about with a different intention. Or do we treat manslaughter the same as murder? Again, same idea.

Anyway from a medically pointy of view you are talking about different treatments that do different things. Lumping them together isn't doing any justice to a complex situation. For instance serve cases of ectopic pregnancy are sometimes treated with a salpingectomy. That is very different to a typical surgical induced abortion. Additionally, it can be seen as an unnecessary attempt to politicize heathcare.

Your murder / manslaughter analogy is an interesting one, but not one that helps you position. Both murder and manslaughter share the same actus reus, the unlawful killing of an actual human in being. The difference is the mens rea, the intention to cause death or really serious harm for murder, anything less, manslaughter.

With respect to making a woman not pregnant either because she does not want to be pregnant or because she is receiving medical treatment which require the pregnancy to be ended, the actus reus is the same: an abortion. The difference is the intent. Clearly the only parallel I intend to draw here how intent merely changes the label we apply legally, not the underlying act, as I don't happen to believe abortion is murder.

So, when you, or a doctor, says that the medical treatment is not an abortion you are merely referring to the legal term applied to the act of aborting a foetus. Fudging the figures basically.

MrP

Galvasean

Okay, points taken. How about the 'anti-choice' and 'pro-death' movements?

Obliq

Galvasean wrote: »

Okay, points taken. How about the 'anti-choice' and 'pro-death' movements?

Ummmm.......is that to me? Anti-choice is clear - it is those who oppose choice. Pro-death being the opposite of pro-life is sometimes what is said of the pro-choice side. (Damn, I'd like to say the pro-abortion side for clarity - OK, I TAKE YOUR POINT TOO! Bum.)

Nodin

Galvasean wrote: »

Okay, points taken. How about the 'anti-choice' and 'pro-death' movements?

It would make a good Slayer t-shirt certainly.

Obliq

robp wrote: »

The peer-reviewed work of dozens of scholars is judged bollocks at the turn of a hat. The science maybe imprecise and flawed but bollocks it is not.
As I have said before risks may be very specific to certain situations or regions. I am not generalising the results. I am sure you folks know how to use Google Scholar.
This study is brand new
Abortions and Breast Cancer Risk in Premenopausal and Postmenopausal Women in Jiangsu Province of China
Ai-Ren Jiang et al

This study is not "brand new" but it has also been peer reviewed, and not in China: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21557713

Misinformation on abortion

Objective To find the latest and most accurate information on aspects of induced abortion.

Methods A literature survey was carried out in which five aspects of abortion were scrutinised: risk to life, risk of breast cancer, risk to mental health, risk to future fertility, and fetal pain.

Findings Abortion is clearly safer than childbirth. There is no evidence of an association between abortion and breast cancer. Women who have abortions are not at increased risk of mental health problems over and above women who deliver an unwanted pregnancy. There is no negative effect of abortion on a woman's subsequent fertility. It is not possible for a fetus to perceive pain before 24 weeks’ gestation. Misinformation on abortion is widespread. Literature and websites are cited to demonstrate how data have been manipulated and misquoted or just ignored. Citation of non-peer reviewed articles is also common. Mandates insisting on provision of inaccurate information in some US State laws are presented. Attention is drawn to how women can be misled by Crisis Pregnancy Centres.

Conclusion There is extensive promulgation of misinformation on abortion by those who oppose abortion. Much of this misinformation is based on distorted interpretation of the scientific literature.

Obliq

Very interesting (but very long) article by a woman who was a "pro-life" advocate who has since looked at the evidence and become "pro-choice".
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2012/10/how-i-lost-faith-in-the-pro-life-movement.html

" I found that making birth control widespread and easily accessible is actually the most effective way to decrease the abortion rate. Even as I processed this fact, I knew that the pro-life movement as a whole generally opposes things like comprehensive sex education and making birth control available to teenagers. I knew this because I had lived it, had heard it in pro-life banquet after pro-life banquet, had read it in the literature. The pro-life movement is anti-birth-control. And opposing birth control is pretty much the most ineffective way to decrease abortion rates imaginable. In fact, opposing birth control actually drives the abortion rates up."

and

"I was shocked to find that the countries with the lowest abortion rates are the ones where abortion is most legal and available, and the countries with the highest abortion rates are generally the ones where the practice is illegal."

B0jangles

Obliq wrote: »

Very interesting (but very long) article by a woman who was a "pro-life" advocate who has since looked at the evidence and become "pro-choice".
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2012/10/how-i-lost-faith-in-the-pro-life-movement.html

We must be reading the same blogs/websites - I was just coming here to post this

Obliq

B0jangles wrote: »

We must be reading the same blogs/websites - I was just coming here to post this

Very possible! Don't let getting beaten to it put you off writing the comment you might have been about to make!

robp

Obliq wrote: »

True for ya .....and this I like:"Pro-life” can mean only one thing: “respect for the sanctity of life.” And there is no way that respect for the sanctity of life can mean we are obligated to protect every fertilized egg in a woman’s body, no matter how that egg got fertilized"

THIS is what I would like to debate with robp. I would like to get down to the reason that ropb feels that an unborn human life has somehow more value than that of a pig or a cow. I would like to see the reasoning for his/her values, and I IMAGINE that we would hear a Christian interpretation of the "sanctity of human life" as opposed to the right to life of a pig (for eg.)

I have tried to stay away for subjective debates about the moral value of life. Pro-life people tend to focus on the hard and fast biological concepts e.g. conception or implantation. I would never argue that the legal protection of the unborn is based on Christian concepts here. Personally, I think its a bit much to compare human life to a cow or pig. We all recognize that human life has special qualities. It is granted blanket protection for these reasons. My right to life is not contingent on society's emotional attachment of me, my intelligence or my wantedness. That is real equality.

My question for you is if abortion is justifiable days before birth in certain cases (as it is in the UK) how can you condemn infanticide of a one month-old neonate (newborn)? There is no way it is sentient. There is no way it has personhood. It can be done painlessly. Or does something magical happen at birth?

Obliq wrote: »

This is the difficulty we face in Ireland now. 12 women every day make the decision for themselves, but the anti-choice movement say that they shouldn't be allowed the choice. If a pro-choice absolutist is someone who says "you have your choice, now I'll be entitled to mine as well", then I'm a pro-choice absolutist, but if being such a thing (in your view) is someone who is less right than you, then I'm no such thing.

Put it to the vote I say. I reckon that the 150,000 Irish women who have had abortions in the last 10 years and the many, many thousands who agree they should have a choice here, will give the anti-choicers a run for their money.

Well if you are saying that Pro-lifers are against women traveling to England for abortion that is not accurate. I don't think you will hear that opinion in the contemporary pro-life movement.

I am not sure how you calculate that figure of 150,000 but you have to be careful calculating these figures as in the UK 36% of abortions are repeat abortions. Additionally we also know that abortion regret exists. Its very variable. sometimes its low but sometimes it is high but in Ireland one study by the HSE found 44% of women expressed varying degrees of regret about their abortions. from Irish Contraception and Crisis Pregnancy Study 2010 (ICCP 2010), produced by the HSE's Crisis Pregnancy Programme.

So its safe to say that a significant portion of women who have actually taken this procedure would not be very positive about it all.

28064212

robp wrote: »

So its safe to say that a significant portion of women who have actually taken this procedure would not be very positive about it all.

It's not safe to say that at all. The authors of the report specifically note that they didn't ask for the reasons behind the regret.

If you looked half a page up, you would have found a far more relevant question: "whether [the outcome of the crisis pregnancy] was the right thing to do or if they wished another outcome had been chosen". In 2010, 87% of the women who chose abortion said that it they still made the right choice

Obliq

robp wrote: »

I have tried to stay away for subjective debates about moral value of the life. Pro-life people tend to focus on the hard and fast biological concepts e.g. conception or implantation. I would never argue that the legal protection of the unborn is based on Christian concepts here.

You're in a subjective debate about the moral value of life. That is what I have been talking about anyway - and as I pointed out, you haven't entered into a discussion on those terms as it is probably the crux of the issue (and one that you have just admitted you want to avoid). Pro-life people constantly bang on about Christian values of the "right to life", as you well know. And as for your last sentence, what would you argue that they're based on then?

Personally, I think its a bit much to compare human life to a cow or pig. We all recognize that human life has special qualities. It is granted blanket protection for these reasons. My right to life is not contingent on societies emotional attachment of me, my intelligence or my wantedness. That is real equality. I am sure you agree on this.

No, I don't agree at all that human life has "special" qualities to any animal except humans. What special qualities? Are we magical? We are only more intelligent/reasonable than other animals - some creature had to be eh?

My whole point is that we can morally agree that killing something is acceptable when we value our needs above that of a living being. The cow and the pig being killed for food are examples of when we do this. The family dog is an example of when we do not. And actually I do believe that the "right to life" has a very different meaning to a starving child in Africa, where their life/death is entirely contingent on society's emotional attachment to them. We just happen to be lucky to live here. Real equality does not happen, anywhere.

My question for you is if abortion is justifiable days before birth in certain cases (as it is in the UK) how can you condemn infanticide of a one month-old neonate (newborn)? There is no way it is sentient. There is no way it has personhood. It can be done painlessly. Or does something magical happen at birth?

As well you know, something happens at birth. It is not magical, it is natural. The clue is in the word "newborn". I would not argue with the natural law of birth being a good starting point for the actual right to life. I am not a heartless person. It's not in me to see any animal suffer, and I would support late abortion for cases where the suffering of the foetus dying would be less than it's suffering if it had to undergo birth and a few hours/days of distress/pain. Again, as you well know, nearly all (with exceptions I'm sure - that prove the rule) late term abortions are for medical reasons.

Well if you are saying that Pro-lifers are against women traveling to England for abortion that is not accurate. I don't think you will hear that opinion in the contemporary pro-life movement.

You must be running scared to put words in my mouth like that. Pro-lifers are against women having a choice HERE.

I am not sure how you calculate that figure of 150,000 but if have to be careful calculating these figures as in the UK 30% of abortions are repeat abortions. Additionally we also know abortion regret exists. Its very variable. sometimes its low but sometimes it is high but in Ireland one study by the HSE found 44% of women expressed varying degrees of regret about their abortions. from Irish Contraception and Crisis Pregnancy Study 2010 (ICCP 2010), produced by the HSE's Crisis Pregnancy Programme.

So its safe to say that a significant portion of women who have actually taken this procedure would not be very positive about it all.

And?? Your point? Please try reading the link I sent about the pro-life woman who became pro-choice - it's very interesting. No amount of banning abortion will make it go away as a choice, but she offers some USEFUL methods for lowering the abortion rate everywhere.

loveisdivine

robp wrote: »

Personally, I think its a bit much to compare human life to a cow or pig.

Sorry I just have to address this point. I find it so strange that most people find it so abhorrent to compare human life with other animal life.
Granted, my partner would be more important to me than an animal. However when you look at the grand scheme of things, humans are no more important than any other species. We may consider ourselves important, to us, if you get me. But to the planet, we are no more important than anything else. We just consider ourselves to be. We really need to get over ourselves and start looking at the human race for what it really is.

Also, to suggest an unborn human should have more rights than living breathing animals, is utterly crazy to me. I dont consider every single baby to be some magical, precious little miracle. Its just biological life. Every species on the planet is capable of doing it!

Obliq

Quite. And it is the debate that robp keeps ignoring. Quoting myself here on the section of a previous comment that robp declines to get involved in debating:

Obliq wrote: »

Pro Choice people (again, comment if you have another take on this) reason that aborting an unborn baby is sometimes necessary in a similar way. If there is a need that supersedes the value you put on a semi-sentient being, we can reason that this is no worse than taking the life of an animal for food. It's an interesting debate really - if you have an emotional connection to an animal, you wouldn't dream of eating it (unless you're starving) - similarly, if you have an emotional attachment to your unborn baby, you wouldn't dream of aborting it (unless in some tragic cases, your baby may only live a few hours and those hours in distress and dying). However, if you have no emotional attachment in either of these examples, and you may have a very good reason for this life to be ended, people can say that morally and ethically we are entitled to value our needs above that of a living creature.

I have advanced this notion a few times and robp has ignored it, probably because it may be the crux of the argument. I can see that anti-choice people in general feel that they are SO right in this matter, that they don't have to debate the "right to life" - they are always right, no matter what. I can see that a lot of people feel that the human life potential is too important to ever justify killing it before birth, and I say good for you- Continue to uphold your belief, and practice what you preach by all means. But I never said you could speak for me.

kylith

loveisdivine wrote: »

Sorry I just have to address this point. I find it so strange that most people find it so abhorrent to compare human life with other animal life.
Granted, my partner would be more important to me than an animal. However when you look at the grand scheme of things, humans are no more important than any other species. We may consider ourselves important, to us, if you get me. But to the planet, we are no more important than anything else. We just consider ourselves to be. We really need to get over ourselves and start looking at the human race for what it really is.

Also, to suggest an unborn human should have more rights than living breathing animals, is utterly crazy to me. I dont consider every single baby to be some magical, precious little miracle. Its just biological life. Every species on the planet is capable of doing it!

Obliq wrote: »

Quite. And it is the debate that robp keeps ignoring. Quoting myself here on the section of a previous comment that robp declines to get involved in debating:

The thing is that if one is religious then humans are automatically much, much more important than any other animal because the entire universe was made just for you (and they call us arrogant!). Whereas those of us who are evolutionists know that we're just an ape that had a lucky break, and therefore no better nor worse than any other living thing upon the face of the planet.

I'm not saying that that's robp's stance. TBH I find it hard to keep track of who's on which side of what fence sometimes.

Obliq

kylith wrote: »

The thing is that if one is religious then humans are automatically much, much more important than any other animal because the entire universe was made just for you (and they call us arrogant!). Whereas those of us who are evolutionists know that we're just an ape that had a lucky break, and therefore no better nor worse than any other living thing upon the face of the planet.

I'm not saying that that's robp's stance. TBH I find it hard to keep track on which side of what fence sometimes.

It is little wonder we can't keep track of which side of the fence he's on when he claims on the one hand that he "would never argue that the legal protection of the unborn is based on Christian concepts here." and on the other, that he has "tried to stay away for subjective debates about moral value of the life". Covering his arse, in other words. I'll make a claim contrary to reason and then refuse to discuss it. There must be a word for that kind of behaviour - oh yes, CHILDISHNESS.

Ronagig

I jumped for joy when I found out I was pregnant
I loved the week where their hearts started beating
I marveled the week where they started producing alpha & beta waves - dreaming for them was a reality
I hugged myself the day they started moving & punching and kicking
I breathed a sigh of relief the week I knew their lungs had developed sufficient coating to reinflate after birth (JIK)
I grinned from ear to ear the day I finally put a face to them

I am however very much in favour of contraception, neither pro choice or pro life. I would love to see an option in the middle of the two where contraception was a right and abortions only happened pre heartbeat/brainwave activity & only if that was the last resort.

Nodin

Grim, grim stuff.

Polish rape victim 'should have had abortion access'


A Polish teenager who became pregnant after rape should have had unhindered access to an abortion, the European Court of Human Rights has ruled.
The girl, who was then 14, was forced to have a clandestine abortion after harassment from pro-life groups led to her being turned away from hospitals.
The court ordered the Polish state to pay the teenager and her mother 61,000 euros (£49,000) in compensation.
Poland's abortion law is among the strictest in Europe.
Terminations are only permitted in cases of rape, incest or when the life of the mother or foetus is in danger.

'Manipulated and helpless'
The unnamed teenager at the centre of this court case became pregnant in 2008 after she was raped at the age of 14.
In accordance with the law, she got a certificate from the public prosecutor confirming that her pregnancy was as a result of unlawful sexual intercourse.
The girl, named only as "P" went to two different hospitals with her mother in her hometown of Lublin in south-east Poland to try and obtain an abortion.

At one, a Roman Catholic priest attempted to convince her to have the child. Hospital management then issued a press release saying they would not perform the procedure, leading to her case becoming caught up in Poland's ongoing debate about abortion.
The girl then travelled to a hospital in Warsaw, but doctors there said they were under pressure not to go ahead with the procedure.
The court documents say the pair left the hospital "feeling manipulated and helpless", after which they were harassed by pro-life groups and eventually taken in for several hours of police questioning.

The authorities then accused the mother of trying to force her daughter into having an abortion and had "P" placed in a juvenile shelter.
She eventually managed to go ahead with the termination in Gdansk, 500km from her home, after the Ministry of Health intervened in the case.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-20143558