Abortion

tomtherobot

Idle Passerby wrote: »

Well that's what this whole argument comes down to then. Some see the feotus/zygote as a fully formed person with the same human rights as an individual person who can live independently (as in, not inside another person, dependent on their body/blood/food etc for its survival) and other people see it as something, that since it cannot live outside the mother, it is not therefore a fully formed person and not inherently deserving of the rights a fully formed person would have, so aborting it cannot be considered murder.

Nope, if you see an unborn child as not living, how can you ask the state to fund your counseling after you destroy it?

gearoidof

Tomtherobot, do you have any intention of changing your opinion in the face of solid reasoning and argument?

Do you think your arguments will make people "pro-life"?

Your arguments haven't been very good yet, so I doubt anyone has been swayed (I personally am on the pro-choice side). And it seems to me there's no chance of changing your mind.

That makes this entire thread an exercise in futility, doesn't it?

Idle Passerby

tomtherobot wrote: »

Nope, if you see an unborn child as not living, how can you ask the state to fund your counseling after you destroy it?

its not that anyone considers it to be not living, its that people dont neccessarily consider it to be a child just a potential child, but not yet an actual person.

tomtherobot

gearoidof wrote: »

Tomtherobot, do you have any intention of changing your opinion in the face of solid reasoning and argument?

Do you think your arguments will make people "pro-life"?

Your arguments haven't been very good yet, so I doubt anyone has been swayed (I personally am on the pro-choice side). And it seems to me there's no chance of changing your mind.

That makes this entire thread an exercise in futility, doesn't it?

I think some people here have acknowledge the validity or my arguments, do you think, given you're pro-abortion leanings you're in a position to objectively decide? I also think it's great this thread has remained remarkable civil. In a lot of arguments people get entrenched on both sides, does this make boards.ie or internet forums an exercise in futility?

Esoteric_

tomtherobot wrote: »

Sorry i think i have clarified this already. I'm not against the state funding of counseling for a variety of problems, post-natal depression, domestic violence, drug-abuse and so on. My argument against the state funding of abortion counseling is that it comes without the acknowledgement that abortion is harmful.

You're not against state funded treatment for drug users, but you are for people who have had abortions? Because, again, people who take drugs CHOOSE to do so, knowing the consequences, just as people who have abortions, choose to do so, knowing the consequences.


I'm not saying whether I am pro-choice or pro-life (I could just be playing devil's advocate here tbh), but you're coming across as one of those extremists that you said you dislike.

tomtherobot

Idle Passerby wrote: »

its not that anyone considers it to be not living, its that people dont neccessarily consider it to be a child just a potential child, but not yet an actual person.

I think you'll find a lot of people consider an unborn child not to be alive. At this point we are going over old ground but if it's just a potential child why aren't people demanding post-contraception counseling or post-masturbation counseling?

Esoteric_

tomtherobot wrote: »

I think some people here have acknowledge the validity or my arguments, do you think, given you're pro-abortion leanings you're in a position to objectively decide? I also think it's great this thread has remained remarkable civil. In a lot of arguments people get entrenched on both sides, does this make boards.ie or internet forums an exercise in futility?

Pro-abortion and pro-choice are two very different things and calling the poster pro-abortion when they have stated that they are pro-choice is as hyperbolic as me calling you a pro-forcing-rape-victims-to-give-birth-to-an-unwanted-child.

tomtherobot

LyndaMcL wrote: »

You're not against state funded treatment for drug users, but you are for people who have had abortions? Because, again, people who take drugs CHOOSE to do so, knowing the consequences, just as people who have abortions, choose to do so, knowing the consequences.


I'm not saying whether I am pro-choice or pro-life (I could just be playing devil's advocate here tbh), but you're coming across as one of those extremists that you said you dislike.

How can there be consequences if it's just the removal of a small group of unliving cells? I think that's quite a logical question and not extremist?

Idle Passerby

tomtherobot wrote: »

I think you'll find a lot of people consider an unborn child not to be alive. At this point we are going over old ground but if it's just a potential child why aren't people demanding post-contraception counseling or post-masturbation counseling?

Because a condom or a pill or someone having a solitary **** does not equal a potential child, they don't really force anyone to seriously and profoundly consider their future or how they handle the situation might affect the rest of their life or the lives of their family/partner.

tomtherobot

LyndaMcL wrote: »

Pro-abortion and pro-choice are two very different things and calling the poster pro-abortion when they have stated that they are pro-choice is as hyperbolic as me calling you a pro-forcing-rape-victims-to-give-birth-to-an-unwanted-child.

Ok, I think you need to read the thread this has all been covered, I don't think rape victims should be forced to give birth to an unwanted child. I also don't think that's a valid 'pro-choice' argument because the woman who has been raped clearly hasn't chosen to do so.

That's one reason why i don't use the term pro-choice. The others are in the thread.

Esoteric_

:D

tomtherobot wrote: »

How can there be consequences if it's just the removal of a small group of unliving cells? I think that's quite a logical question and not extremist?

In the same way that some people who would be of a more vulnerable frame of mind may need counselling after any other kind of surgery? For example, someone gets life-saving surgery, or surgery that causes them to stop feeling chronic pain from an injury. Shock to the system, some people will need counselling.

Or, as some people have already stated, the person could want a child, but not at that moment in time be prepared for it, so are upset at the loss of a potential (in their minds) child.

tomtherobot

Idle Passerby wrote: »

Because a condom or a pill or someone having a solitary **** does not equal a potential child.

I don't know how up to date you are on the whole birds and bees thing but i think you'll find they are.

Esoteric_

tomtherobot wrote: »

Ok, I think you need to read the thread this has all been covered, I don't think rape victims should be forced to give birth to an unwanted child. I also don't think that's a valid 'pro-choice' argument because the woman who has been raped clearly hasn't chosen to do so.

That's one reason why i don't use the term pro-choice. The others are in the thread.

Sigh. I wasn't getting on to the rape debate. I was saying that you calling another poster 'pro-abortion' is as ridiculous as me calling you 'pro-forcing-rape-victims-to-give-birth-to-an-unwanted-child.'

I'll make it more concise - calling somebody pro-abortion is insulting. Pro-choice and pro-abortion are completely different things.

tomtherobot

LyndaMcL and Idle Passerby: Im sorry i don't mean to be curt with you two but at the same time this has all been covered earlier in the thread. I dont want to go over old ground so unless there's a new question i won't respond

Esoteric_

tomtherobot wrote: »

I don't know how up to date you are on the whole birds and bees thing but i think you'll find they are.

I think you'll find that there needs to be more than just semen for a potential child.:rolleyes:

Idle Passerby

tomtherobot wrote: »

I don't know how up to date you are on the whole birds and bees thing but i think you'll find they are.

I'd ask you the same question. Contraception exists to prevent conception. Masterbation by its very definition is a solitary activity, one person pleasuring themselves alone cannot result in conception.

Esoteric_

tomtherobot wrote: »

LyndaMcL and Idle Passerby: Im sorry i don't mean to be curt with you two but at the same time this has all been covered earlier in the thread. I dont want to go over old ground so unless there's a new question i won't respond

Do you really expect people to go through 40-odd pages of abortion/anti-abortion ranting?

tomtherobot

Idle Passerby wrote: »

I'd ask you the same question. Contraception exists to prevent conception. Masterbation by its very definition is a solitary activity, one person pleasuring themselves alone cannot result in conception.

Sigh, there's only so many times a person will have sexual energy or the semen required for conception. If that is used through masturbation it won't be used for sex. In lay man's terms if i spend the day whacking off im not gonna be up for riding that night am i?

LyndaMcL wrote: »

Do you really expect people to go through 40-odd pages of abortion/anti-abortion ranting?

I'm sorry, if you consider this debate ranting why are you here?

Idle Passerby

tomtherobot wrote: »

Sigh, there's only so many times a person will have sexual energy or the semen required for conception. If that is used through masturbation it won't be used for sex. In lay man's terms if i spend the day whacking off im not gonna be up for riding that night am i?

Theres no point trying to have a discussion with someone who equates having a **** to be the same thing as conception.

I am not against abortion, I also do not think of a feotus as an inanimate object to be flipantly discarded. There are many reasons why a woman would choose abortion and I dont think anyone who has not been in her shoes can judge her for those choices.

tomtherobot

Idle Passerby wrote: »

Theres no point trying to have a discussion with someone who equates having a **** to be the same thing as conception.

There's already been pro-abortionists on here trying to tell me that people who masturbate might need grief counseling because of the loss of potential life.

Idle Passerby wrote: »

I am not against abortion, I also do not think of a feotus as an inanimate object to be flipantly discarded. There are many reasons why a woman would choose abortion and I dont think anyone who has not been in her shoes can judge her for those choices.

I'm sorry that's just too vague and wishy-washy to respond.

Turtwig

tomtherobot wrote: »

I'm sorry that's just too vague and wishy-washy to respond.

Ok, what would you consider to not be vague and wishy-washy?

Stark

tomtherobot wrote: »

Sigh, there's only so many times a person will have sexual energy or the semen required for conception. If that is used through masturbation it won't be used for sex. In lay man's terms if i spend the day whacking off im not gonna be up for riding that night am i?

Kind of a moot point because no man is going to be getting women pregnant twice a day. Is this what the Youth Defence ilk are stooping to now?

Dangerous Man

LyndaMcL wrote: »

Do you really expect people to go through 40-odd pages of abortion/anti-abortion ranting?

Yes - you should read the thread if you're going to contribute to it!

Smidge

I'd like to submit a hypothetical situation.
I am not against abortion as I see it as an individual and very personal choice even though I would not consider it for myself.

I read a post some pages back(can't remember by who or exactly where) but it related to the mother giving the father say in the matter.
Now, I can understand this scenario if the mother was considering going through with the pregnancy and wanted to know if the father wanted to be involved with the future child etc.
But if the woman had decided against the pregnancy and has decided to go ahead with termination, other than telling the man about her decision, does he really have a "Say" in the matter?

tomtherobot

Jernal wrote: »

Ok, what would you consider to not be vague and wishy-washy?

Well he can't or won't say what he thinks a 'foetus' actually is. That's fine maybe he hasn't reached a conclusion himself but it's nonetheless pretty vague. And again he's vague in saying there are valid reasons but not giving them.

Stark wrote: »

Kind of a moot point because no man is going to be getting women pregnant twice a day. Is this what the Youth Defence ilk are stooping to now?

I'm sorry, if he's all whacked out he won't be doing it even once, surely you can see that, it's pretty straight forward? I've no affiliation with Youth Defense, I don't really even know who they are. Are they some kind of religious group, that statement isn't religious, it's very straightforward?

tomtherobot

mishkalucy wrote: »

I'd like to submit a hypothetical situation.
I am not against abortion as I see it as an individual and very personal choice even though I would not consider it for myself.

I read a post some pages back(can't remember by who or exactly where) but it related to the mother giving the father say in the matter.
Now, I can understand this scenario if the mother was considering going through with the pregnancy and wanted to know if the father wanted to be involved with the future child etc.
But if the woman had decided against the pregnancy and has decided to go ahead with termination, other than telling the man about her decision, does he really have a "Say" in the matter?

So why should he be expected to pay maintenance?

Smidge

tomtherobot wrote: »

So why should he be expected to pay maintenance?

I never mentioned anything about maintenance

I think you have skipped a few steps past the intention of my post.

tomtherobot

mishkalucy wrote: »

I never mentioned anything about maintenance

I think you have skipped a few steps past the intention of my post.

Well, it was part of the original post, and i think the issue of the woman or man choosing also makes calling it pro-choice nonsense, whose choice is it, the woman's, the man's, both and only goes ahead if they agree, the states choice etc etc.

Sorry tho, i'll take a step back and let you at it. Apologies, i've probably got a little caught up if im jumping in like this! Time for a break.

Turtwig

mishkalucy wrote: »

I'd like to submit a hypothetical situation.
I am not against abortion as I see it as an individual and very personal choice even though I would not consider it for myself.

I read a post some pages back(can't remember by who or exactly where) but it related to the mother giving the father say in the matter.
Now, I can understand this scenario if the mother was considering going through with the pregnancy and wanted to know if the father wanted to be involved with the future child etc.
But if the woman had decided against the pregnancy and has decided to go ahead with termination, other than telling the man about her decision, does he really have a "Say" in the matter?

I'd say as an ethics problem this is a nightmare. Obviously the father should have some say, but it's not his body, it's not his potential life, just his progeny so perhaps rather unfairly he gets the least say in the matter. Harsh, I think but ultimately if it's a questions of rights, then the main conflict is between that of the woman and the foetus inside her.

Smidge

Jernal wrote: »

I'd say as an ethics problem this is a nightmare. Obviously the father should have some say, but it's not his body, it's not his potential life, just his progeny so perhaps rather unfairly he gets the least say in the matter. Harsh, I think but ultimately if it's a questions of rights, then the main conflict is between that of the woman and the foetus inside her.

Have to say I agree with you.
I can understand that he should get some input but the final choice lies with the woman.

up for anything

tomtherobot wrote: »

There's already been pro-abortionists on here trying to tell me that people who masturbate might need grief counseling because of the loss of potential life.

Any chance you could quote those posts please? I've read just about every post in this thread and as far as I remember you are the only one who is trying to equate masturbation or contraception with abortion,

Esoteric_

Dangerous Man wrote: »

Yes - you should read the thread if you're going to contribute to it!

It's not like AH is the same as PI, where you need to read the entire thread to make relevant posts.

I've read as much of the thread as I wanted to read, because parts were getting a bit ranty for my liking.

tomtherobot

up for anything wrote: »

Speak for yourself. Lots of people grieve having to use contraception.

Having a ****, as you so eloquently put it, is the loss of potential life but I don't know many who cry about it or dwell on it afterwards, although I am sure there are some who do.

up for anything wrote: »

Any chance you could quote those posts please? I've read just about every post in this thread and as far as I remember you are the only one who is trying to equate masturbation or contraception with abortion,

Your right, i have misquoted you and i apologize. I wasn't intentionally trying to misrepresent your argument it's just tiredness on my behalf. I just got confused because you had acknowledged that masturbation is the potential loss of life, that some people would cry about it and also that the grief from using contraception was comparable to the grief of the death of an unborn child (which i find as ridiculous as the suggestion that people would grieve over masturbating).

Plenty of people here have equated contraception with abortion. Also, the whole masturbation thing isn't central to my argument, it's off topic and making the same point that's been made in several other ways. How can pro-abortionists say that abortion isn't the death of an unborn child and at the same time demand counseling for it?

As yet nobody has given me a valid answer to this. I've heard plenty of arguments trying to justify killing an unborn child but nothing to show me there isn't an inherent contradiction and hypocrisy in pro-abortionists demanding state-funded counseling.

Morag

You haven't proven that there is.

tomtherobot

Sharrow wrote: »

You haven't proven that there is.

I haven't proven that there is what?

tomtherobot

Sharrow wrote: »

You haven't proven that there is.

I haven't proven there is an inherent contradiction and hypocrisy in pro-abortions demanding state funded counseling?

It's inherent, the proof is in the statement.

If i say there is no harm to abusing drugs how can i say that people that abuse drugs should get state funded counseling

There is an inherent contradiction and hypocrisy in saying that. I am fully willing to debate any of the issues around abortion, but still, inherent, in this case, means the proof is in the statement

Turtwig

tomtherobot wrote: »

If i say there is no harm to abusing drugs how can i say that people that abuse drugs should get state funded counseling

There is an inherent contradiction and hypocrisy in saying that. I am fully willing to debate any of the issues around abortion, but still, inherent, in this case, means the proof is in the statement

If i say there is no harm to Procrastination (*insert behaviour or action here*) how can i say that people that abusing procrastination (*insert behavioiur or action here*) should get state funded counseling

You just made an inherently contradictory statement.The hint would be in the word "abusing".

tomtherobot

Jernal wrote: »

If i say there is no harm to Procrastination (*insert behaviour or action here*) how can i say that people that abusing procrastination (*insert behavioiur or action here*) should get state funded counseling

You just made an inherently contradictory statement.The hint would be in the word "abusing".

I don't really get your point, is it because of the word abusing, I stands without it surely?

If i say there is no harm to using drugs how can i say that people that use drugs should get state funded counseling

If some people argue there is no harm to domestic violence it is inherently contradictory and hypocritical for them to demand state funded counseling for people beaten by their partners

Corkfeen

Plenty of prescribed drugs can be beneficial for the user but require counselling as a result of the side effects. A person who gets an abortion may require  counselling for numerous reasons. For some it may be regret or guilt but for many others it's as a result of indirect aspects such as the social stigma. Labelling them as murderers and being unfairly judged by family members and friends is going to have an impact on their mental health. So no it does not mean that their actions were in any way immoral.


Edit: Sentence had entirely different meaning previously...

up for anything

up for anything wrote: »

Speak for yourself. Lots of people grieve having to use contraception. I did myself until I was in a position to get pregnant. However, I didn't grieve the loss of potential life from the abortion I had years before that. It is possible without being hypocritical to feel opposing feelings at different times of your life.

Having a ****, as you so eloquently put it, is the loss of potential life but I don't know many who cry about it or dwell on it afterwards, although I am sure there are some who do.

tomtherobot wrote: »

Your right, i have misquoted you and i apologize. I wasn't intentionally trying to misrepresent your argument it's just tiredness on my behalf. I just got confused because you had acknowledged that masturbation is the potential loss of life, that some people would cry about it and also that the grief from using contraception was comparable to the grief of the death of an unborn child (which i find as ridiculous as the suggestion that people would grieve over masturbating).

Plenty of people here have equated contraception with abortion. Also, the whole masturbation thing isn't central to my argument, it's off topic and making the same point that's been made in several other ways. How can pro-abortionists say that abortion isn't the death of an unborn child and at the same time demand counseling for it?

As yet nobody has given me a valid answer to this. I've heard plenty of arguments trying to justify killing an unborn child but nothing to show me there isn't an inherent contradiction and hypocrisy in pro-abortionists demanding state-funded counseling.

There is still an element of misrepresentation going on. Nowhere did I say that "the grief from using contraception was comparable to the grief of the death of an unborn child". I did say that many people grieve over having to use contraception which they do. I did not say to what extent or give comparisons.

As for feeling grief and sadness after masturbation - I am sure there are quite a few men out there who are not in a position to have children or have fertility problems who need the physical relief provided by masturbation but once the act is over, rail and cry against the fate which leaves them unable to aid in starting a new life in much the same way a woman who has difficulty in becoming pregnant due to fertility issues or where it simply takes some time cries bitter tears when she finds that first spot of blood on her knickers which heralds her period arriving.

I will however say that I know someone who falls apart each month when her period arrives and that I know someone else who went to pieces when she miscarried at 14 weeks. Their sadness and sense of loss at these events is not measurable, quantifiable or comparable. It just is.

You are probably never going to get the valid answer you require because what one person sees as a valid answer is another person's straw horse.

lugha

tomtherobot wrote: »

As yet nobody has given me a valid answer to this. I've heard plenty of arguments trying to justify killing an unborn child but nothing to show me there isn't an inherent contradiction and hypocrisy in pro-abortionists demanding state-funded counseling.

I would agree that your question (if abortion is a routine procedure why the need for counselling) has not been satisfactorily answered. Presumably your inferred argument is that pro-choicers know full well that abortion IS very different? In which case you should be accusing them of being disingenuous rather than hypocritical.

But that works both ways. You said earlier that a rape victim should not be forced to give birth to an unwanted child, a position taken by what might be called the moderate pro-lifers. But does this not belie their assertion that a foetus is a human being, every bit at much as a post-birth child is? How can you justify the killing of an innocent human being, no matter what the circumstances might be?

I would suggest that to argue that a foetus equates to a human being is as disingenuous as arguing that a foetus is “a bunch of cells”. For most of us, and despite what we publicly argue, this is rather a grey area, and few really do take one extreme view or the other.

tomtherobot wrote: »

That's one reason why i don't use the term pro-choice.

As to the meaning of pro-abortion V pro-choice, well of course, anyone can decide for themselves how they might interpret and assign such labels. For me, pro-abortion means that you would personally be prepared to make the decision to avail of an abortion where as pro-choice simply means that you allow others to make such a decision, even if you yourself would not.

I would be pro-choice in this sense though I am finding it increasingly difficult to personally justify abortion. And for me, there is something rather unsatisfactory about this stance, quite a popular one amongst pro-choicers I think.

Is there any other situation where some, possibly a majority, would vehemently assert something to be unethical or morally wrong but be content not to have this view enshrined in the laws of society?

There isn’t even a consistency in the realm of conception / pregnancy. I don’t think many pro-choicers would demand that couples who go the IVF route should only be bound by their own personal ethics. And similarly with surrogacy.

Thus we (pro-choicers) will afford people the freedom to personally decide on the ethics, but only on the singular, isolated question of abortion. On all other grave matters, you must be bound by societal rules. Surely this anomaly is a testament to our capacity for rationalisation? (This of course be is a question for someone on the other side of the fence)

gozunda

I believe that this issue has been fully dealt with previously in the epic movie - The Meaning of Life....

Remember every sperm is sacred!

And our preconceptions ( ironic I know!) are a huge left over from the catholic morality that was forcefed to us for the last thousand years ( but especially in the Dev epoch)

Pregnancy (& staying away from the at best ambigous "baby or "unborn child) can either terminate naturally or by artificial means. Every sperm is not sacred and not every pregnancy will be necessarily carried to term. Religous bias on reproduction previously saw miscarried fetuses thrown into communal pits as the church did not see them as a full "person"- so called angel plots without any identification of the remains interned there. Now the same bunch are jumping up and down and insisting everything is sacred....give me a break.

I believe that people must make choices sometimes - responsible choices. Raming doctrine down an individuals neck will not help.

Zulu

Millicent wrote: »

Well I'm very sorry you feel sorry for me. I'm more concerned about people who have been born that those who haven't. I must be a tyrant. :rolleyes:

Apologies, I misread your post. I took it to mean that these children would prefer to be dead, I see now that you were simply saying that they regret the resentment they faced from their parents. (Is that correct?) Eitherways, it's not really answering the question I asked: would they prefer to be dead? Which by-and-large, I think most people would say no.
I guess conclusive proof to the contrary would be high rates of suicides in "surprise" children.

lugha wrote: »

I would agree that your question (if abortion is a routine procedure why the need for counselling) has not been satisfactorily answered. Presumably your inferred argument is that pro-choicers know full well that abortion IS very different? In which case you should be accusing them of being disingenuous rather than hypocritical.

Indeed, it's disingenuous to suggest it's equivalent to removing an appendix or such.

How can you justify the killing of an innocent human being, no matter what the circumstances might be?

I don't think you can tbh.

I would suggest that to argue that a foetus equates to a human being is as disingenuous as arguing that a foetus is “a bunch of cells”.

Indeed, it is disingenuous semantics. A foetus is a human alright, by definition. It's also a child, by definition. The question raised is whether it should be given human rights (or perhaps wheither by "law" it should be considered a human being).

I would be pro-choice in this sense though I am finding it increasingly difficult to personally justify abortion. And for me, there is something rather unsatisfactory about this stance, quite a popular one amongst pro-choicers I think.

Pro-choice is a fallacy. It only concerns itself with the choice of the mother. It's not pro the choice of the father. It's not pro the choice of the child.

Morag

People who have heart surgery get counseling as do those who develop a range of conditions.

So if someone becomes diabetic due to their life choices should their counselor not be funded by tax payers?

gozunda

Zulu wrote: »

...pro-choice is a fallacy. It only concerns itself with the choice of the mother. It's not pro the choice of the father. It's not pro the choice of the child.

Well we can't be having that then...I mean she is only a woman after all and even though is legally responsible for the child in the first degree can't be expected to be able to make any decision that will effect her. I know let's ask the fetus / collection of cells or how about we have a referendum. - no? Didn't we already have a couple of them - yes that's right and last time I checked abortion still wasn't legal here SO what the hell are we discussing this bizarre proposition for - its not like we are actually dealing with any of the underlying issues...

Khannie

lugha wrote: »

Is there any other situation where some, possibly a majority, would vehemently assert something to be unethical or morally wrong but be content not to have this view enshrined in the laws of society?

This is something that also puzzles me. "Oh, I think it's morally wrong myself, but I think people should be allowed do it". Why? Murder is morally wrong so we don't allow people to choose to do it. Stealing is wrong so we don't allow people to do it, even if they want to. I don't see this as any different. You think it's morally wrong? Enshrine it in law.

The other one I see bandied about is "it's my body", well....it's that childs body too. You'd consider it murder at 8 months...why allow it before then? At what magical second does it cease being reasonable to kill the child?

OldNotWIse

Stark wrote: »

Which is the only scenario that the legislation being drawn up will deal with. Anything more is expressly forbidden by the Constitution. It's only the nut cases who would prefer the mother to die in a threat to life scenario or be sent to England where she'll be "out of sight, out of mind" who have anything to worry about.

Oh come off it, thin edge of the wedge anyone? Do you really think they will stop at that?

Khannie

Khannie wrote: »

I don't see this as any different. You think it's morally wrong? Enshrine it in law.

That would assume that there should be a one to one mapping between morality and law. I do not really think there should be. For example many would argue that it is morally wrong to lie. I do not see many people suggesting we make lying generally illegal though, except of course in situations like a court room.

There should be a divide between personal morality and society morality too. I might decide that something is precluded me by my personal morality but also recognise I see no reason to force that morality onto others.

I think abortion should be one of those things myself. If a persons personal morality tells them not to consider having an abortion then by all means that person should not have an abortion. If however they want to enshrine that in law or dictate to others that THEY should not have an abortion then I want to hear their moral, legal and philisophical arguments for that position. Alas this does not really seem to be forthcoming from the people I have engaged with on the subject.

Stark

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Oh come off it, thin edge of the wedge anyone? Do you really think they will stop at that?

And how do you propose they're going to get round the Constitution? And what's your rationale for not legislating for the X-case?

Khannie

Deleted User wrote: »

That would assume that there should be a one to one mapping between morality and law. I do not really think there should be. For example many would argue that it is morally wrong to lie. I do not see many people suggesting we make lying generally illegal though, except of course in situations like a court room.

It's exactly the same thing. Personal morality dictates that lying is wrong, but so minor that it's generally irrelevant (except in some circumstances as you point out). So the morality here is that it shouldn't be punished under law (and therefore it's not).

Deleted User wrote: »

There should be a divide between personal morality and society morality too. I might decide that something is precluded me by my personal morality but also recognise I see no reason to force that morality onto others.

The only divide between personal morality and societal morality is majority or not. Of course you force your morality on other people all the time. You would happily keep some things illegal that others would like to do. The death penalty for example. Some people who have been the subject of a horrendous crime (having a loved one murdered for example) might feel that the death penalty is a great idea. You probably disagree. We all voted on it. No death penalty. Personal morality on a grand scale -> societal morality. That's how a democracy works. Majority don't feel that telling a lie warrants being enshrined in law? it doesn't happen. Majority feel that it's OK to drink alcohol? it happens. Majority don't feel that abortion's good for society? no abortion. Majority feel that it is? abortion.

I don't see why abortion should be given the free ride of "well, I don't agree with it, and I'll enforce my morality everywhere else, but not in this case".

Deleted User wrote: »

If however they want to enshrine that in law or dictate to others that THEY should not have an abortion then I want to hear their moral, legal and philisophical arguments for that position. Alas this does not really seem to be forthcoming from the people I have engaged with on the subject.

It's incredibly simple. I think it's killing a child. To me it's morally wrong on a fairly serious level. I Therefore it should be legislated for.

Other things that I think are wrong that should be legislated for: <insert more or less the entire statute books here>.