Abortion

cynder

Pace2008 wrote: »

cynder wrote: »

After all avenues of treatment have been exhausted yes. Sometimes prolonging the inevitable is worse, You can't live forever. At least they got the chance to live.

So you're saying that cancer patients do deserve life-saving/preserving treatment. But this doesn't seem to zygotes that fail to implant. No one is doing anything to drastically reduce the rate of zygote death because, as far as I can see, no one really views them as human beings.

A couple trying to conceive may "kill" many zygotes in their attempts and think nothing of it. I'm sure if they wanted to they could take expensive measures to greatly improve their chances of successful implantation, but no one does apart from couples with fertility issues, presumably because no one really cares. Yet when it comes to a child who has already been born, or is in the later stages of pregnancy, there is no amount of money a parent would not spend to save their baby, even if there were only an outside chance of their child living.

Does this not suggest to you that there is a stage in development when a new human life is not considered valuable?

Cancer is never going to be an independent human life form.

How do they kill the zygotes?

I would presume the zygote fails to implant it's nothing to do with having a medical procedure to kill it. Many people would not know the zygote failed to implant. They wouldnt know there was a zygote inside them, not every sex session results in a zygote. They would be non the wiser and it wouldn't be her fault that the zygote didn't implant.

nozzferrahhtoo

Khannie wrote: »

But sure your argument is based entirely on the same values.

Not that I am aware of. There is no emotional arguments or arguments from emotion in my posts at all for example.

Khannie wrote: »

you're saying it's human because it displays a set of characteristics that you entirely subjectively define as showing human life.

There is always going to be a subjective element given morality IS subjective (unless youre a theist and think it comes from god of course, but I have yet to hear THAT substantiated).

That said however my choice to centre my position around the faculty of human consciousness is not solely subjective. IF we are having a conversation about human morality and ethics and rights then I can only see one source of that conversation. Human Consciousness. It is that faculty the concept comes from (again, unless youre into the god hypothesis), that decides what those rights are, who will get them, how to enforce them and much more.

It is not much of a leap to suggest it is TO that self same faculty we are pinning them.

nozzferrahhtoo

cynder wrote: »

Looks human! Has human DNA.

Of course. That makes sense if we are talking biology and taxonomy. You will get no argument from me there.

But if we are talking about "rights" I am not convince taxonomy is the best grounding for it. We do not assign rights to DNA do we. We mediate it based on consciousness. The closer an animal comes to it the more moral concern we seem to have for them too. Cows are more morally important than flies, and monkeys more than cows, and apes more than monkeys and so on. Are we mediating that on DNA? I do not think so.

cynder wrote: »

Human DNA is unique.

So is Cow DNA. So is Sheep DNA. So is oak tree DNA. So whats your point?

nozzferrahhtoo

Khannie wrote: »

So I mulled this for a bit, as it's a good point. Eventually though I had to come to the conclusion that it is flawed. The problem with defining an arbitrary (and they're all arbitrary based on one thing or another that is also fairly arbitrary) time based solution is that you have to be willing to prosecute those who break that law. So what you're saying by drawing this line in the sand at 12 weeks or whatever is that one day later and you consider it something worth prosecuting over, so it's not a small line.

But I repeat that in "law" this is near unavoidable. It is generally how many of our laws work. For example if I sell alcohol to a teen the day before his 18th birthday I can legally be prosecuted. What happens on his birthday? What is different about him on that one day that was not present the day before? Nothing, but alas in writing law we have to define cut off points like it or not.

No one would make the ridiculous argument that since no cut off point really makes sense at all for alcohol, or as you said voting, then let us throw out hands in the air and give up and simple either let anyone, or no one, buy alcohol or vote.

So why you think the same argument, ridiculous as it is in other conversations, suddenly becomes useful and applicable here is entirely opaque to me I am afraid. After all the "Argument from emotion" and "Argument Ad Populum" I have seen around here, this really is the first time I have been presented the "Argument from just giving up".

nozzferrahhtoo

Mickeroo wrote: »

I'm guessing each fetus would have slight differences in terms of how quick or slow they develop, so it would make sense to me to carry out a series of tests on each individual fetus.

Individual assessment of individual cases would be a wonderful Ideal for MANY laws, not just that of abortion. Alas it is unworkable in todays world. The time, money and other resources simply are not available to run a legal system in that way that I know of.

The best we can hope to do is write our laws to do the best they can and avoid as much harm as they can. I try to pick my abortion cut off and then pull it back a few weeks to avoid the possibility of a fetus developing unusually fast compared to the norm. Building in such a buffer is a wise move. Another reason I would pin my colors to the mast of 12 or 16 weeks faster than to 24.

Noodleworm

My line of thinking has always been Human egg, well women loose one a month, who cares. Sperm cells, we loose million a few times a week.
Stick them together... is there a *poof* magic human instance... no, nor at implantation. Its a long process.

Its proven there is no possibly felt before 22 weeks. It has the beginning on a brain and spinal colomn etc. But they don't actually work yet. In fact many experts believe babies are unconscious and only have uncontrolled reflexes until birth.

A lot of people get confused by the whole "at 6 weeks it has organs and brain activity". organs beginning to form to not mean a functioning respiratory/excretion/circulatory system. brain activity does not mean though. Theres brain activity in a dead person for hours after they die.

about 1/4 of all pregnancies miscarry (also known as spontaneous abortion), if that number seems high its because most those women never knew they were pregnant. They might have a late period and not realise that when it comes its a miscarriage.

In the UK about 91% of abortions happen before 13 weeks. its about as complex as a shrimp at that point, not concious , no capacity for pain. In fact Irelands abortion laws only delay the women who plan to get an abortion from getting one. If they were available here majority would be as soon as pregnancy is detected. at 4-6 weeks.

Anti abortion posters always feature late term abortions (illegal nearly everywhere) or actual stillbirths.

I refuse to believe this embryo deserves more protection than the fully grown, functioning, feeling woman who carries it. Its sad and a last option because yes, she has to deal with guilt of not allowing that embryo to one day become a human. But it is not yet a person.

People drown kittens and say its the best thing to do, if you eat meat at all actually im not sure how you can say abortion is murder.

robp

Stark wrote: »

Plenty of cases of suicide because mothers would rather die than continue to have their body violated. That's why doctors provide abortion services, not to end life but to provide a necessary medical service. But I guess they get what they deserve for having sex :rolleyes:

This is untrue! I have already posted the Dublin declaration on maternal healthcare on this thread. I don't want to repeat it here again. So you should google it. Here is a snippet

Prof O’Dwyer and a panel of speakers also formally agreed a “Dublin declaration” on maternal healthcare. It stated: “As experienced practitioners and researchers in obstetrics and gynaecology, we affirm that direct abortion is not medically necessary to save the life of a woman.

Actor

robp wrote: »

This is untrue! I have already posted the Dublin declaration on maternal healthcare on this thread. I don't want to repeat it here again. So you should google it. Here is a snippet

Don't let the facts get in the way of good aul scare tactics and using extreme cases to make bad laws.

Lingua Franca

robp wrote: »

This is untrue! I have already posted the Dublin declaration on maternal healthcare on this thread. I don't want to repeat it here again. So you should google it. Here is a snippet

I saw your "Dublin declaration" but dismissed it out of hand since despite what they insist, the panel was made up of notorious pro-lifers with an agenda. I have absolutely no faith in them to be impartial. I bet if you look to see who called for this "international symposium" of just 140 people, it'd be O'Dwyer + friends from the Pro-Life Institute. No one is paying it any mind because it means nothing. Pure propaganda.

I'd say everyone else reading this thread disregarded it once they saw who was on the panel, too.

WoollyRedHat

seamus wrote: »

Overdose? Haha, you're joking right, get out of my hospital.

Couldn't stop laughing.

Actor

Lingua Franca wrote: »

I saw your "Dublin declaration" but dismissed it out of hand since despite what they insist, the panel was made up of notorious pro-lifers with an agenda. I have absolutely no faith in them to be impartial. I bet if you look to see who called for this "international symposium" of just 140 people, it'd be O'Dwyer + friends from the Pro-Life Institute. No one is paying it any mind because it means nothing. Pure propaganda.

I'd say everyone else reading this thread disregarded it once they saw who was on the panel, too.

The panel was made up of medical professionals. Of course you know better?

Lingua Franca

Actor wrote: »

The panel was made up of famously pro-life medical professionals to further their agenda. Of course you know better?

Aim for a bit of accuracy there.

Do you reckon there were any pro-choice doctors invited to give their opinions? Who first called for this symposium and asked for their opinion? Why was it chaired by pro-life activists? Why were there only 140 people at an "international symposium" on maternal health?

If we knew the answers to those questions, then we'd all know better.

Actor

Lingua Franca wrote: »

Aim for a bit of accuracy there.

Do you reckon there were any pro-choice doctors invited to give their opinions? Who first called for this symposium and asked for their opinion? Why was it chaired by pro-life activists? Why were there only 140 people at an "international symposium" on maternal health?

If we knew the answers to those questions, then we'd all know better.

Ever found it strange that there are no "pro-choice" doctors in Ireland who are willing to put themselves forward? The most vocal activists in the "pro-choice" arena tend to be liberal activists with political career ambitions; not medical professionals. Maybe it's something to do with maternal health professionals (who work on the coal face of new life) seeing the wood for the trees.

Lingua Franca

What, you mean apart from Doctors for Choice? Dr Mary Favier? Dr Peadar O’Grady? Aye, very strange that.

robp

Lingua Franca wrote: »

What, you mean apart from Doctors for Choice? Dr Mary Favier? Dr Peadar O’Grady? Aye, very strange that.

There has been no Dublin declaration demanding abortion for medical reasons.

Nor will you find scientific papers verifying a medical need for abortion. Believe me I have looked. Yes some doctors are pro-choice but the leadership of the pro-choice campaign in Ireland are people who support abortion on-demand not for extreme cases. Even the Pro-choice Ireland website when discussing this very topic says they do not claim women are dying in this country because of Irish law. fact.

Lingua Franca

robp wrote: »

There has been no Dublin declaration demanding abortion for medical reasons.

I know. Your point? There's plenty of other demands for abortion for medical reasons. The constitution, for example. The various referendums, too.

Nor will you find scientific papers verifying a medical need for abortion. Believe me I have looked.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10804498
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12879819

Keep looking. I found more but they are PDF files I viewed as google docs.

Yes some doctors are pro-choice but the leadership of the pro-choice campaign in Ireland are people who support abortion on-demand not for extreme cases.

Again, your point? That's just one campaign. There are a few, you know, and they're not all pretending to have nothing to do with each other like all of the anti abortion groups operating independant of one another out of Capel Street. There's now a campaign for termination for medical reasons, for example. I do not know if they support abortion on demand, because they have not come out and said anything on that topic.

Even the Pro-choice Ireland website when discussing this very topic says they do not claim women are dying in this country because of Irish law. fact.

I am looking at their website and can't see where they say this. Could you point it out to me? Thanks.

robp

Lingua Franca wrote: »

I know. Your point? There's plenty of other demands for abortion for medical reasons. The constitution, for example. The various referendums, too.



http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10804498
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12879819



I am looking at their website and can't see where they say this. Could you point it out to me? Thanks.

The constitution is a very old legal document, it can't considered an authority on medical science.

I read both abstracts you linked and their only referring to what occurs or could occur in Ireland.

here is the citation of the choiceireland website I mentioned. It says

We have never claimed that they (women) are somehow dying anyway.

Of course its not an official press release, and they imply women's lives are being saved by English abortions. How exactly is completely unexplained. Still, it hammers down the point that women's health is not risked by Irish law.

Lingua Franca

robp wrote: »

The constitution is a very old legal document, it can't considered an authority on medical science.

Good grief. Are you deliberately being obtuse? I said there are demands for abortion for medical reasons, not "the consitution is indistinguishable from The Lancet". You could have pointed out that the various referendums and the Irish people aren't authorities on medical science, too.

I read both abstracts you linked and their only referring to what occurs or could occur occur in Ireland.

I guess that answers my previous question.

here is the citation of the choiceireland website I mentioned. It says Of course its not an official press release, they imply women's lives are being saved by English abortions. How exactly this is the case is completely unexplained. Still it hammers the point down that women's health is not risked by Irish law.

Oh dearie me. You need to do some work on your reading comprehension. That quote in full:

The latest mantra which has popped up in every anti-choicer interview I’ve heard recently has to do with Ireland’s maternal mortality rate (MMR). It’s one of the lowest in the world, apparently, and for some reason they think this is really really significant in the abortion debate. The first couple times I heard them say this, I dismissed it as being too obviously irrelevant to merit further consideration – after all, who ever suggested that our abortion ban was killing women? Pro-choicers have always pointed to the numbers of women travelling to Britain or further afield (statistics, incidentally, which the antis prefer to ignore) as demonstrating our hypocrisy in using another country’s laws as our safety net so that Irish women don’t die from illegal abortions. We have never claimed that they are somehow dying anyway. So what exactly are the anti-choicers on about?

Was that TL/DR for you? Your selective quote was totally out of context and does not mean what you claim it means.

Sponge25

Woman know contraception isn't failsafe so when they're having sex there's a chance they may become pregnant. Anyone who doesn't know this isn't mature enough to have sex!

If a girl was raped or the baby was gonna die or make the mum very sick I don't think any reasonable person can argue she shouldn't be entitled to make up her own mind with all the right information at hand to have an abortion; But if she has an abortion due to contraception that 'failed' and has an abortion, that is not right at all!

Lingua Franca

That's just, like, your opinion, man. :P

Sponge25 wrote: »

If a girl was raped or the baby was gonna die or make the mum very sick I don't think any reasonable person can argue she shouldn't be entitled to make up her own mind with all the right information at hand to have an abortion;

What you're saying here is "any reasonable person would agree with ME". It's not as clear as that, it's not black and white. Many people believe that a woman carrying a rape baby should not entitled to an abortion. As you can see from previous posts, many people believe that there's no such thing as a need for termination for medical reasons. Some doctors believe that. Some don't. Michelle Harte's doctors believed that she needed one.

The fact is that some people are anti-abortion on demand but want medical exceptions. Some are anti-abortion but want medical, rape and incest exceptions. Some are anti abortion under any circumstances. Some people are for abortion on demand. Everyone has their own reasons for what they believe, and everyone believes that any reasonable person would agree with them.

robp

Lingua Franca wrote: »

Good grief. Are you deliberately being obtuse? I said there are demands for abortion for medical reasons, not "the consitution is indistinguishable from The Lancet". You could have pointed out that the various referendums and the Irish people aren't authorities on medical science, too.



I guess that answers my previous question.



Oh dearie me. You need to do some work on your reading comprehension. That quote in full:



Was that TL/DR for you? Your selective quote was totally out of context and does not mean what you claim it means.

It means exactly what I wrote it means, i.e. she denies choiceireland ever claimed that women's lives are being lost in this jurisdiction due to Ireland's abortion ban. It can't be interpreted in any other way.

Yes the terminology is problematic but what occurs in Irish hospitals is not considered abortion. If the mothers life is at risk almost inherently the unborn's life is at risk. So NO ONE is asking women to risk their lives by keeping a pregnancy. That would be unreasonable.

Millicent

robp wrote: »

Yes the terminology is problematic but what occurs in Irish hospitals is not considered abortion. If the mothers life is at risk almost inherently the unborn's life is at risk. So NO ONE is asking women to risk their lives by keeping a pregnancy. That would be unreasonable.

No, they're just asking them to travel to England to deal with it.

Lingua Franca

robp wrote: »

It means exactly what I wrote it means, i.e. she denies choiceireland ever claimed that women's lives are being lost in this jurisdiction due to Ireland's abortion ban. It can't be interpreted in any other way.

...because they don't need to have illegal abortions, they can get the boat to get safe abortions.

Yes the terminology is problematic but what occurs in Irish hospitals is not considered abortion. If the mothers life is at risk almost inherently the unborn's life is at risk. So NO ONE is asking women to risk their lives by keeping a pregnancy. That would be unreasonable.

Click on the link in my previous post.

robp

Millicent wrote: »

No, they're just asking them to travel to England to deal with it.

That is exactly what I said in my original mention of that quote (see post #1068).

Millicent

robp wrote: »

That is exactly what I said in original mention of that quote (see post #1068).

I'm confused then -- do you think it's right that such women should have to travel to England?

Lingua Franca

robp wrote: »

There has been no Dublin declaration demanding abortion for medical reasons.

Nor will you find scientific papers verifying a medical need for abortion. Believe me I have looked. ... Even the Pro-choice Ireland website when discussing this very topic says they do not claim women are dying in this country because of Irish law. fact.

That article is not discussing medical reasons for abortion. Fact.

robp

Millicent wrote: »

I'm confused then -- do you think it's right that such women should have to travel to England?

They are legally allowed to. Irish law has no standing in the UK. People travel to do all sorts of stuff which isn't permitted here. I don't think the state should interfere with that.

If your asking do I think that this option saves lives no. I believe there is not a shred of evidence for that theory.

Millicent

robp wrote: »

They are legally allowed to. Irish law has no standing in the UK. People travel to do all sorts of stuff which isn't permitted here.

If your asking do I think that this option saves lives no. I believe there is not a shred of evidence for that theory.

You really think our maternal death rates aren't helped by the right to travel for an abortion?

EclipsiumRasa

robp wrote: »

They are legally allowed to. Irish law has no standing in the UK. People travel to do all sorts of stuff which isn't permitted here. I don't think the state should interfere with that.

If your asking do I think that this option saves lives no. I believe there is not a shred of evidence for that theory.

Millicent wrote: »

You really think our maternal death rates aren't helped by the right to travel for an abortion?

Millicent, you're assuming robp has the capacity for thinking here, but based on the level of willful ignorance I've not seen a shred of evidence for that theory. :pac:

robp

Millicent wrote: »

You really think our maternal death rates aren't helped by the right to travel for an abortion?

If this was the case there probably would be some data on this. Maybe this could be true in very under-developed parts of Africa but not here. Maternal mortality is very low in the two big pro-life nations of Europe (Ireland and Poland). In many years its lower than countries with far superior health systems e.g. France, UK and Spain.

I am not trying to say banning abortion will drive the risk down but clearly an abortion ban is entirely compatible with first rate maternal care.

Millicent, you're assuming robp has the capacity for thinking here, but based on the level of willful ignorance I've not seen a shred of evidence for that theory

EclipsiumRasa,
Personal attacks are a sign of a losing argument :pac:

EclipsiumRasa

robp wrote: »

If this was the case there probably would be some data on this. Maybe this could be true in very under-developed parts of Africa but not here. Maternal mortality is very low in the two big pro-life nations of Europe (Ireland and Poland). In many years its lower than countries with far superior health systems e.g. France, UK and Spain.

I am not trying to say banning abortion will drive the risk down but clearly an abortion ban is entirely compatible with first rate maternal care.

EclipsiumRasa,
Personal attacks are a sign of a losing argument :pac:

Truth, but nothing commands someone's complete attention like a bolt out of the blue. So now that I have yours, lets discuss one or two things ...

Maternal mortality is very low in the two big pro-life nations of Europe (Ireland and Poland).

Evidence that Ireland is a pro-life country certainly exists; but I'd argue its anything but conclusive. The number of large scale surveys conducted on the topic of abortion on a large scale is few. This means what data there is remains open to interpretation by you or I.

Granted the results of the Lisbon treaty changed once Cowen had assurances from the EU that Ireland alone would decide its stance on abortion; however

• that was not the sole variable that changed between the first and second run of the treaty
• the Lisbon treaty did not solely address the issue of women's rights or abortion

Additionally, I don't much like the terms pro-life or pro-choice - especially applied at a national level where the term is a blanket denial of the existence of any opposing view.

Both terms are openly manipulative (just as manipulative as my leading personal attack into this debate really) and I resent the amount of pride people take describing themselves as either. Moral superiority is annoyingly distracting to a debate that could revolve around scientific research and health statistics instead.

I am not trying to say banning abortion will drive the risk down but clearly an abortion ban is entirely compatible with first rate maternal care.

A hypothetical but not unrealistic situation: What about situations where mothers are not medically fit to travel to England (due to serious and or long term injury) but desire an abortion?

Such women are not getting first rate medical care; they are not masters of their own destiny. And instead of the law deciding Irish women have a right to be that, they're effectively prisoners in their own country.

___

Oh, one more thing. I'm sorry about the personal attack too. That was plain wrong. Sometimes the most effective ways to make a point are tempting to use, even if they're morally unsound. Doesn't change that it was wrong.

Lingua Franca

Four out of five voters would back a change in our laws to allow for abortion in line with the X-case ruling according to a new opinion poll.

Interesting.

Actor

Lingua Franca wrote: »

Four out of five voters would back a change in our laws to allow for abortion in line with the X-case ruling according to a new opinion poll.

Interesting.

Thin end of the wedge stuff.

Lingua Franca

Actor wrote: »

Thin end of the wedge stuff.

Well, we can but hope. It certainly gives lie to the "we don't want it here" mantra repeated in this thread.


By the way, you never responded after I corrected you when you said

Actor wrote: »

Ever found it strange that there are no "pro-choice" doctors in Ireland who are willing to put themselves forward?

Funny, that. :pac:

Actor

Lingua Franca wrote: »

Well, we can but hope. It certainly gives lie to the "we don't want it here" mantra repeated in this thread.

So you "hope" for abortion on demand? At least we know what we're dealing with here.

Lingua Franca wrote: »

By the way, you never responded after I corrected you when you said

Funny, that. :pac:

How many of the said doctors are consultants? A motley lot of cranks who got passed over for promotion. That's whose side you're on.

Pace2008

cynder wrote: »

Cancer is never going to be an independent human life form.

How do they kill the zygotes?

I would presume the zygote fails to implant it's nothing to do with having a medical procedure to kill it. Many people would not know the zygote failed to implant. They wouldnt know there was a zygote inside them, not every sex session results in a zygote. They would be non the wiser and it wouldn't be her fault that the zygote didn't implant.

I don't think you're really getting my point so I'm going to out it simply:

You, and every other pro-lifer I've ever known, find it acceptable for two parents to get pregnant and allow a zygote to die without any intervention, but once the child is born, or has reached a certain stage in development you would not (I assume) find it acceptable for the same parents to allow their child to die of an illness while they sit idly by. Do you not see a pretty big inconsistency there?

Lingua Franca

Actor wrote: »

So you "hope" for abortion on demand? At least we know what we're dealing with here.

Yes.

How many of the said doctors are consultants? A motley lot of cranks who got passed over for promotion. That's whose side you're on.

You absolutely cannot admit that you were wrong even in the face of proof. At least we know what we're dealing with here. :pac:

(edit: or perhaps not since you're now thanking pro-choice posts )

Please provide your evidence of said crankishness and your proof that they were passed over for promotion, along with corresponding impartial evidence that the Dublin declaration panel are a homogenous crowd all totally sane and promoted to the maximum, or we'll all just have to assume that you are making stuff up again.

Marie Stopes to provide abortions at new private clinic in Belfast

The Marie Stopes organisation says it will begin its services from next Thursday and that Dawn Purvis, a former leader of the Progressive Unionist Party, will be the centre's programme director.
Marie Stopes said it will be Belfast's first integrated sexual and reproductive health centre.
It will be located at a suite of offices in Great Victoria Street.

Full story here

summerskin

Deleted User wrote: »

Marie Stopes to provide abortions at new private clinic in Belfast




Full story here

irish ferries and ryanair will not be amused...

gosuckonalemon

About time! Only for medical abortions and not surgical abortions so pregnancy must be less than 9 weeks gestation.

gosuckonalemon

summerskin wrote: »

irish ferries and ryanair will not be amused...

On the other hand, Bus Eireann and Irish Rail will!

Lollipops23

Deleted User wrote: »

Marie Stopes to provide abortions at new private clinic in Belfast

Delighted. It's the first step in getting it properly. It'll take much of the mental and financial stress away from the process I'd imagine.

Min

At least the clinic is named after a person that is fitting.

A Marie Stopes clinic is to open in Northern Ireland and will perform abortions on women up to nine weeks pregnant. I wonder what sort of organisation it is which decides to name itself after Marie Stopes (1880-1958)?
As a child she met the eugenicist Francis Galton and in 1912 she attended the inaugural congress of the Eugenics Society. She had decided political opinions and referred to a section of the people who are “inferior, depraved and feeble-minded” and added, “the sterilisation of those unfit for parenthood should be made an immediate possibility, indeed made compulsory.” She announced that she wanted to create “a utopia” by means of “racial purification”.
Other leading lights in the eugenics movement – such as Havelock Ellis – criticised her for her anti-Semitism. This criticism was hardly undeserved, for in 1939 she sent, with her best wishes, a copy of her book “Love Songs for Young Lovers” to Adolf Hitler. And in 1942 she published a verse:

Catholics, Prussians
The Jews and the Russians
Are all a curse
Or something worse.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/petermullen/100184639/marie-stopes-the-clinics-named-after-a-jew-baiting-racist/

robp

Min wrote: »

At least the clinic is named after a person that is fitting.



http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/petermullen/100184639/marie-stopes-the-clinics-named-after-a-jew-baiting-racist/

They even have a plaque to honour her in London. Strange hypocritical world!

c_man

I like the lines they left out above when ripping it from wiki - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marie_Stopes#Advocacy_of_eugenics

Lingua Franca

And this whole section also seems to have been glossed over: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marie_Stopes#Abortion_views

It's almost like they're selectively quoting to push an agenda or something.

poeticseraphim

tomtherobot wrote: »

Now, normally i stay away from abortion debates because i find they're full of extremist types but this morning, i found the country's favorite moral crusader aka Ray D'arcy, preaching on about the rights of women who've had abortions. This led me to the conclusion that there's a general consensus these days that abortion is now acceptable to the majority (ok not just this alone), but if this is the case, i think it raises two issues going forward (as they say)

Firstly, maintenance payments for children? How can a society, or individual, who supports a woman's exclusive right to chose to have an abortion at the same time come to fathers with the paw out looking for money to support children. If a father has no choice whether the child is alive or not how can he be demanded to support that child? Makes no sense whatsoever to me.

Secondly, the Ray D'arcy show this morning was talking about counseling for women after abortion. Seemingly the HSE already pays for this. I can't understand how state support for counseling for women who've had abortions is justified. On one side of the debate, pro abortionists say it's a procedure to remove a physical growth which isn't alive. If that's the case why the need for counseling? On the other side, anti-abortionists say it's murder, so why would the state be counseling murderers? Did I miss something, do we not still have old folk being left to rot on trolleys, surely the HSE has greater priorities now than counseling women who've chose to have an abortion.

As you may have guessed, i'm anti-abortion. I'm not religious I just believe that an unborn child is alive. Why else would people mourn the loss of unborn or stillborn children? Or require counseling after 'terminating' one? Given that i believe that an unborn child is alive I think killing one is wrong and cannot be justified above the social or material needs of the parent(s). No more or less than i think it would be ok to kill your elderly parents just because they don't suit where you are in you're life right snow.....

To me it does not matter if it is alive. It has not right to my body under any circumstances. It is deeply immoral to not respect the complete ownership relationship awoman has of her body.

Not having abortion is damaging to society.

Not giving abortion on demand is immoral and an abuse on human rights.


The foetus is owned by the mother until birth....we oppose forced abortion no???

Abortion is an ethical practise by doctors doing good humane work to millions of women everyday.
Long may it continue!

I wish our mothers had this option in their day. I want the next generation of women to have it.I would never want to come into this world against my mothers will. It is against motherhood. My mother knows what is right for me as a foetus. No one has the right to intervene.



I have never had an abortion but i imagine it is something you mourn too that would be natural. Just because the woman did the right thing does not mean it was the easy thing. Sometimes abortion is more moral than giving birth. But i cant imagine it's easy.So these women should have support. I can imagine a time when society is more open about abortion and we allow women to mourne. Why would their pain mean that the decision to have an abortion is not a moral one?

Should drug addicts give birth?

poeticseraphim

Also when people say they speak for the unborn child it annoys me.

Most people are pro choice ....you did not speak for the majority walking about now when they were in the womb did you?

I would not have wanted to grow up a product of a womans fear and suffering.

Maybe you are not respecting the rights of the unborn foetus for claiming you are it's voice.

There is a reason it has no voice.....because it has not formed a view of life or a will for or against it.

And if it has..well you have no idea what that is. Maybe a child dos not want to be born terminally ill destined to die in minutes.

Maybe people don't want to b brought into the world unless they are loved and card for.

Some of the unborn grow up to have a voice in opposition to those who claim to speak for them...funny that.

Min

poeticseraphim wrote: »

Also when people say they speak for the unborn child it annoys me.

Most people are pro choice ....you did not speak for the majority walking about now when they were in the womb did you?

I would not have wanted to grow up a product of a womans fear and suffering.

Maybe you are not respecting the rights of the unborn foetus for claiming you are it's voice.

There is a reason it has no voice.....because it has not formed a view of life or a will for or against it.

And if it has..well you have no idea what that is. Maybe a child dos not want to be born terminally ill destined to die in minutes.

Maybe people don't want to b brought into the world unless they are loved and card for.

Some of the unborn grow up to have a voice in opposition to those who claim to speak for them...funny that.

We all lived in the womb once upon a time, we can speak out for the unborn if we want, given we were once the unborn, and we were allowed to have a voice to speak out.

The people who say they are pro-choice, always seem to want to allow someone's elses life to be terminated in the womb...funny that.
But at least they were allowed to live to have that opinion.

AnonoBoy

Min wrote: »

The people who say they are pro-choice, always seem to want to allow someone's elses life to be terminated in the womb...funny that.

It's not really that funny.

Being pro-choice is exactly that, being pro choice.

If they were against choice but called themselves pro-choice it'd be funny.

Like the dudes who murder abortion doctors but call themselves pro-life. That's funny you see because they're actually doing the exact same thing that they proclaim to be against.