Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Abortion Discussion
Options
Comments
-
Possibly I was even more unclear then. The 'abducting' I was referring to is what someone would be doing if they tried to prevent someone from traveling abroad for an abortion.Loafing Oaf wrote: »Sorry if I wasn't clear, the 'abducting' is what the pregant woman is doing to her own 'unborn child', according to the pro-life worldview. If people really wanted to disrupt the 'abortion trail' to the UK, they would be lobbying to change the law to prosecute women who have abortions abroad, in the way some countries prosecute child sex tourists.0 -
Sorry. I've looked at this for a while, and I've no idea what you're trying to say.aloyisious wrote: »@Absolom: do you mean by this, your quote; And my point was the State (via the constitution) never offered citizens that right in the first place. It (we) could; it would take a referendum to do it. unquote: it is your opinion that, by dint of it not been stated in the constitution, citizens DO NOT have any right to make a personal decision and choice on a matter that does NOT affect the vast majority of the other citizens..... or were you making reference to a citizen's personal decision to have a particular medical procedure?
Originally Posted by aloyisious..... My point really was that the state (via the constitution) is denying citizens the right to make a personal decision and choice on a private matter that does NOT affect the vast majority of the other citizens.0 -
But it seems there's not a lot of pro-choicers engaging with it either?
I've no doubt it's a difficult area to legislate, particularly if you're not sure how voters might swing on it.
I don't think any pro choice person sees a victory for their cause in the fact that ivf embryos can be destroyed without any punitive action, but on the other hand perhaps it's difficult for pro choice advocates to empathise with an embryo created in a tube.
So perhaps:
a) it's a tough field to legislate.
b) there's potentially not much political upside to proposing legislation, but huge potential downside.
c) there's no one in the pro choice area who believes driving an anti ivf agenda is likely to garner much support from the general public.
It is actually true that I don't empathise with embryos all that much. They are tiny, non-sentient and relatively expendable whether created in a tube or a human. I do empathise with the parent's feelings about an embryo. If it is wanted, I would feel pain for them if it died. If it is not wanted, I would feel pain for their predicament.
I have no wish to drive and anti IVF agenda, and I can't quite believe that you wouldn't have spotted that already and are just being obtuse. What fascinates me is the hypocrisy of people who are FULL of empathy for an embryo that's in a woman, and haven't GOT an opinion on one that isn't.0 -
Sorry if it appears I'm being obtuse; I have neither an anti or pro ivf agenda. It seems like a good idea, it certainly appears to help people. I've never considered whether or not a foetus that is created but not used in the course of a treatment ought to have a right to life, and a certainly wouldn't leap to a conclusion just so I can give an opinion. I'm fascinated that my empathy for an embryo in a woman has been promoted to FULL just to juxtapose the opinion I haven't GOT (and it's the first time I've been pilloried for not having an opinion). If my position appears hypocritical (though lets be honest, you're having to stretch to see it that way), I can live with the oppobrium until I make up my mind.I have no wish to drive and anti IVF agenda, and I can't quite believe that you wouldn't have spotted that already and are just being obtuse. What fascinates me is the hypocrisy of people who are FULL of empathy for an embryo that's in a woman, and haven't GOT an opinion on one that isn't.0 -
I'm fascinated that my empathy for an embryo in a woman has been promoted to FULL just to juxtapose the opinion I haven't GOT (and it's the first time I've been pilloried for not having an opinion). If my position appears hypocritical (though lets be honest, you're having to stretch to see it that way), I can live with the oppobrium until I make up my mind.
Well now, I did say "people" who were FULL of empathy for embryos created in women. There has been a total lack of response to my question re this hypocrisy from even the extreme pro-life elements I have discussed abortion with up here - I certainly wasn't singling you out, and you don't seem to be extremely pro-life.
I don't mind you not having formed an opinion on the IVF question yet but you must admit it's an interesting exception to the pro-life rule? Anyone would think that it's symbolic of the kind of moral standpoint that would punish women for not wanting a family....but perhaps that's just in my mind.0 -
Advertisement
-
Assuming extreme pro-life elements are RCC or similar, it doesn't seem that strange or hypocritical. The church says ivf is wrong, so the issue of ivf is wrong (I didn't google long enough to find out if ivf babies have souls or not). No point in arguing over what happens to the leftovers of ivf which have no business existing anyways, when you actually need to get rid of ivf entirely. But there's no point in battling ivf and thereby alienating potential supporters for the battle against abortion; better to win the battle against abortion and then take on ivf clinics.
From a more secular point of view, some pro life people might see implantation as a significant step from undifferentiated living material to human living material; it may be easier to consider an unimplanted embryo as not being even on the way to being a person yet, and doubly so if it's never even been in a womb. So not quite abortion, and not worth fighting over. Still others may draw the line much later; when the neural tube develops, or when human features are identifiable. For any pro life advocate with views like this, the destruction (or killing) of unused ivf embryos is a non-issue, without any hypocrisy at all.0 -
Assuming extreme pro-life elements are RCC or similar, it doesn't seem that strange or hypocritical. The church says ivf is wrong, so the issue of ivf is wrong (I didn't google long enough to find out if ivf babies have souls or not). No point in arguing over what happens to the leftovers of ivf which have no business existing anyways, when you actually need to get rid of ivf entirely. But there's no point in battling ivf and thereby alienating potential supporters for the battle against abortion; better to win the battle against abortion and then take on ivf clinics.
I don't believe that for a minute. I've never even heard it mentioned as an issue at all, never mind one to put off for another day. I'd say it's a non-issue because, as I suggested and you have mentioned there, good Catholics trying for families would be alienated.From a more secular point of view, some pro life people might see implantation as a significant step from undifferentiated living material to human living material; it may be easier to consider an unimplanted embryo as not being even on the way to being a person yet, and doubly so if it's never even been in a womb. So not quite abortion, and not worth fighting over. Still others may draw the line much later; when the neural tube develops, or when human features are identifiable. For any pro life advocate with views like this, the destruction (or killing) of unused ivf embryos is a non-issue, without any hypocrisy at all.
So an embryo's right to life and indeed, it's individual worth is dependent on whether it's implanted in a woman or not? Not in whether human life at all it's stages is intrinsically too valuable to decide to dispatch? I think we're getting to a point now where it's clear to see that a woman's decision to have an abortion is crucial to the difficulties pro-life but secular people are having with it. That the element of implantation (whether it has/hasn't occurred through choice) is determining whether they feel they need a say in the outcome or not.
Edit: "you" to "they". You haven't said if this is your opinion, just indicated that it's a possible thought pattern of the secular pro-life.0 -
In the second part, probably, though good catholics trying for families should know ivf isn't part of gods plan. In the first part, maybe. If I were directing a tactical campaign, that's how I'd look at it, and I wouldn't be looking to forewarn anyone either, which would defeat the purpose.I don't believe that for a minute. I've never even heard it mentioned as an issue at all, never mind one to put off for another day. I'd say it's a non-issue because, as I suggested and you have mentioned there, good Catholics trying for families would be alienated.
It's a potential line one might choose to draw; as is the line that life is intrinsically too valuable to decide to dispatch. There is no definitive answer here; as far as I can see it's purely an emotive or intuitive choice, since the closest thing to a logical choice is absolutes.So an embryo's right to life and indeed, it's individual worth is dependent on whether it's implanted in a woman or not? Not in whether human life at all it's stages is intrinsically too valuable to decide to dispatch?
Are you saying it's the fact that it's a woman making the choice that's crucial? I don't see how that has become clear? Or are you saying that it's the fact that a decision is being made is crucial, in which case I think that was clear all along?I think we're getting to a point now where it's clear to see that a woman's decision to have an abortion is crucial to the difficulties pro-life but secular people are having with it.
Again I'm not sure what you mean.. do you mean that whether the implantation has occurred through choice determines whether secular pro lifeThat the element of implantation (whether it has/hasn't occurred through choice) is determining whether they feel they need a say in the outcome or not.
individuals feel they should have a say in whether there should be abortion or not? If so, I think you're drawing a large conclusion from a small point (and I think your conclusion is incorrect). If not, I'm afraid I don't know what you meant.0 -
It's a potential line one might choose to draw; as is the line that life is intrinsically too valuable to decide to dispatch. There is no definitive answer here; as far as I can see it's purely an emotive or intuitive choice, since the closest thing to a logical choice is absolutes.
This is my point. To choose to draw the line about dispatching embryos where it is implanted in a woman, you include all women who do not want to remain pregnant. That line is entirely arbitrary, and as a result, punishes women who want abortions in an entirely emotive or intuitive fashion, against their own intuitions and emotional connection with the embryo.Are you saying it's the fact that it's a woman making the choice that's crucial? I don't see how that has become clear? Or are you saying that it's the fact that a decision is being made is crucial, in which case I think that was clear all along?
I'm saying that as soon as it's apparent that pro-lifers have no difficulty with the dispatch of embryos created through IVF, we can see that the only difficulty they have with abortion (at an early stage) is the choice that the woman makes, not the death of the embryo. So, it was your second question. But it's unclear why anyone would make a difference of the respective deaths of the embryos.0 -
I don't believe that for a minute. I've never even heard it mentioned as an issue at all, never mind one to put off for another day.
It very much was an issue for the pro-life no campaign in the last abortion referendum. Their biggest beef with the amendment was that it offered no protection to the pre-implantation embryo, something that would entail outlawing the morning-after pill, the IUD and the destruction of embryos in IVF.0 -
Advertisement
-
Loafing Oaf wrote: »It very much was an issue for the pro-life no campaign in the last abortion referendum. Their biggest beef with the amendment was that it offered no protection to the pre-implantation embryo, something that would entail outlawing the morning-after pill, the IUD and the destruction of embryos in IVF.
Oh fair enough! I may have just shut my ears at that point
I wasn't in the country at the time either.... 0 -
aloyisious wrote: »My point really was that the state (via the constitution) is denying citizens the right to make a personal decision and choice on a private matter that does NOT affect the vast majority of the other citizens.
Not just one matter, it effects more then just abortion with 40.3.3 being cited in the draft of the bill which deals with the capacity to consent which is being drawn up to but in effect living wills.0 -
Not just one matter, it effects more then just abortion with 40.3.3 being cited in the draft of the bill which deals with the capacity to consent which is being drawn up to but in effect living wills.
I don't get the "in effect living wills" part, but I do remember now the kerfuffle about Mary Roche wanting to have the embryos implanted that her estranged husband wouldn't give consent for. http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/the-problems-of-defining-the-unborn-posed-by-article-4033-26375684.html
It's a can of worms alright, article 40.3.3.0 -
I expect it is something to do with the potential for a woman that has no desire to be kept alive on a ventilator, and says as much in a living will, being kept on a ventilator, against her wishes, because she happens to be pregnant.I don't get the "in effect living wills" part [...]
Basically reducing the woman to an organic incubator.
MrP0 -
Wait a sec... fair enough it's an arbitrary line, insofar as any line other than conception and birth is equally arbitrary. I'm not saying it's necessarily the most compelling arbitrary line that could be drawn, but I'd be interested in what other arbitrary line you think is more compelling and why? All options should be up for consideration.This is my point. To choose to draw the line about dispatching embryos where it is implanted in a woman, you include all women who do not want to remain pregnant. That line is entirely arbitrary, and as a result, punishes women who want abortions in an entirely emotive or intuitive fashion, against their own intuitions and emotional connection with the embryo.
I can't see how drawing the line there punishes women who want abortions in an entirely emotive or intuitive fashion; where is the connection?
The worst thing I can see about it is it excludes women who know they're pregnant; it restricts 'abortion' to emergency measures taken within about the first week of pregnancy. That could be seen as a positive to some as there's practically no possibilty of even knowing that you are in fact pregnant, but I suspect insufficient window for those who would want to abort after discovering for certain the failure of contraceptive measures etc.
I think you're leaping to a huge conclusion there. So anyone who opposes abortion for the stated reason that it results in a death, but does not believe that the destruction of an ivf embryro is a death (which may not be any number of pro life individuals at all, since I , must necessarily not object because it results in a death but because they don't want a woman to make a choice? There's no logic to what you're saying; it's as if you're starting with a conclusion and trying to work backwards. There's just no way to reasonably ascribe a misogynistic motivation based on the information presented.I'm saying that as soon as it's apparent that pro-lifers have no difficulty with the dispatch of embryos created through IVF, we can see that the only difficulty they have with abortion (at an early stage) is the choice that the woman makes, not the death of the embryo. So, it was your second question. But it's unclear why anyone would make a difference of the respective deaths of the embryos.0 -
Wait a sec... fair enough it's an arbitrary line, insofar as any line other than conception and birth is equally arbitrary. I'm not saying it's necessarily the most compelling arbitrary line that could be drawn, but I'd be interested in what other arbitrary line you think is more compelling and why? All options should be up for consideration.
Well, as an arbitrary line, it blows out of the water the other arbitrary line that dates from conception. In fact, it seems to miss the point of "a life is a life, is a life" altogether. Which is really why I wonder what is the big ramp up in emotional feeling about an implanted embryo for the moderate pro-lifers? Are we back to potential again? In spite of there not being any realistic potential for an embryo in a pregnancy heading for abortion.....
And I gave you my arbitrary lines a while back - remember? The essential difference between your's and mine was that mine included choice to end a pregnancy?I think you're leaping to a huge conclusion there. So anyone who opposes abortion for the stated reason that it results in a death, but does not believe that the destruction of an ivf embryro is a death (which may not be any number of pro life individuals at all, since I , must necessarily not object because it results in a death but because they don't want a woman to make a choice? There's no logic to what you're saying; it's as if you're starting with a conclusion and trying to work backwards. There's just no way to reasonably ascribe a misogynistic motivation based on the information presented.
Yes, I am often starting with a conclusion that I don't understand and trying to work it backwards to find out what kind of logic lead towards that conclusion. No worse than you, who yourself tends to make leaps towards assumptions all the time - here's a doozy. Who the hell mentioned misogyny? You.
The pregnant person's choice is less favoured than the life of the tiny wee embryo, yes? That is the conclusion? I am trying very hard to work out how pro-life people* have concluded that the pregnant person (jesus wept..) making a choice to kill an embryo is unacceptable, but the IVF person making a choice to kill an embryo is fine.
*(although I have been reminded that many extreme pro-lifers do not think that's fine at all - I still want to know about the "moderates" though)0 -
I expect it is something to do with the potential for a woman that has no desire to be kept alive on a ventilator, and says as much in a living will, being kept on a ventilator, against her wishes, because she happens to be pregnant.
Basically reducing the woman to an organic incubator.
MrP
Spot on.
http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/bills28/bills/2013/8313/b8313d.pdf21
also reflects the approach taken in Subhead 5
above, which favours thepreservation of life in cases where doubts about the validity and applicability of an advance healthcare directive cannot be resolved.
However, Subhead (6)(b) clarifies that the presumption in favour of providing or continuing treatment for pregnant women may be rebutted if the woman has anticipated becoming pregnant and has explicitly stated in her advance healthcare directive that she would want her treatment refusal to apply despite being pregnant. Given that the woman has consi
dered the potential change in her circumstances relating to pregnancy, but still wants her directive to apply, then her will and preferences must be taken into consideration during the decision making process regarding treatment. It is also important to note that not all treatment refusals outlined in an advance healthcare directive would, necessarily,
threaten the life of or have a deleterious effect on the foetus.
However, where it is considered that the treatment refusal outlined in the directive would have a deleterious effect on the pregnancy, the case should automatically be referred to the High Court to determine if the directive is valid and applicable and whether or not the treatment refusal outlined therein should be upheld given that the woman is
pregnant.
This process of considering treatment refusals would be conducted in
the same way for all pregnant women, including those suffering from a mentalillness.Referral of such cases to the High Court enables the specific details of the case to be considered and the relevant benefits and burdens of the decision to treat or not to be weighed against each other.
Application to the High Court is considered
the most appropriate mechanism of balancing the woman’s right to refuse treatment with the right to life of the unborn. Resolving such issues in this way effectively maintains the status quo established under common law, where a contemporaneous refusal of treatment by a pregnant woman would be referred to the courts.
A similar provision exists under Head 9, in relation to cases where there is a doubt about the validity and applicability of an advance healthcare directive,such cases can be referred to the High Court to make a declaration as to whether a directive exists, is valid, and is applicable to a specific treatment.
The role ofSubhead (6)(b)is to effectively extend this provision for cases involving pregnancy , where a balance has to be struck between the rights of the woman and the right to life of the unborn.0 -
How so? It's a different point on the timeline, but how does it blow any other point out of the water?Well, as an arbitrary line, it blows out of the water the other arbitrary line that dates from conception.
Presumably anyone advocating this particular line isn't actually interested in the point "a life is a life, is a life"?In fact, it seems to miss the point of "a life is a life, is a life" altogether.
Why do you imagine there's a big ramp up in emotional feeling rather a dispassionate decision to draw a line at a particular point as being the most apparently appropriate?Which is really why I wonder what is the big ramp up in emotional feeling about an implanted embryo for the moderate pro-lifers? Are we back to potential again? In spite of there not being any realistic potential for an embryo in a pregnancy heading for abortion.....
Actually, you said that most of us can understand that the loss of a person is too tremendous to contemplate carrying out the act of killing, and followed up with your belief that your line isn't a whole lot further down the road than my own, but crucially, yours makes room for choice. That doesn't really say where your arbitrary lines are (especially considering that I never said where mine are). You specified that you feel there should be room for choice until such a time as a person could be reasonably sure that there has been sufficient time to make the decision if they want to have a child or not. That would incline me to think that you feel there is no line in the foetus' development that cannot be crossed, as your criteria is dependent entirely on the decision of the person carrying the foetus to carry it to term or not; essentially that position draws the line at birth, and any point before that a termination is acceptable should that person choose not to continue. Would that be accurate?And I gave you my arbitrary lines a while back - remember? The essential difference between your's and mine was that mine included choice to end a pregnancy?
Not exactly a huge leap though? If you specify that pro lifers aren't objecting to an embryos death but to a woman making a choice, it's a pretty clear line to pro lifers disagree with women making choices, they're not disagreeing to men making choices, so their disagreement is necessarily based on gender, therefore it is definitively misogynistic. Those are dots relatively simple to join up, it's the 'if there's a point where you don't disagree with embryoes dying then you must disagree with women making choices' that I found difficult to join up.Yes, I am often starting with a conclusion that I don't understand and trying to work it backwards to find out what kind of logic lead towards that conclusion. No worse than you, who yourself tends to make leaps towards assumptions all the time - here's a doozy. Who the hell mentioned misogyny? You.
The 'tiny wee' suggests we're heading back into soapbox territory again. When you say a pregnant persons choice is less favoured than the life of a (tiny wee) embryo, what is that supposed to mean? If I said the psychotic axe murderers choice is less favoured than the (enormous giant) bricklayers life, would it be a similar statement? Would it be the same conclusiion?The pregnant person's choice is less favoured than the life of the tiny wee embryo, yes? That is the conclusion?
When did we arrive at IVF people making a choice to kill embryos being fine? I thought it was all about couples taking home boxes of unwanted embryos to do with as they pleased?I am trying very hard to work out how pro-life people* have concluded that the pregnant person (jesus wept..) making a choice to kill an embryo is unacceptable, but the IVF person making a choice to kill an embryo is fine. *(although I have been reminded that many extreme pro-lifers do not think that's fine at all - I still want to know about the "moderates" though)
Anyways, I'd suggest you find those pro-life people who've made that conclusion, and ask them, if there are any.
If they say "Oh, it's because IVF people have special training" would it make a difference? Actually, what would make a difference? Is there any justification for such a stance that would make you say it was reasonable and should be respected, or would any any answer agreeing that this is an appropriate stance simply be a reason to dismiss that point of view?0 -
Presumably anyone advocating this particular line isn't actually interested in the point "a life is a life, is a life"?
Why do you imagine there's a big ramp up in emotional feeling rather a dispassionate decision to draw a line at a particular point as being the most apparently appropriate?
Why on earth do you imagine that line is apparently appropriate? It causes needless suffering in adult humans. A non-sentient embryo does not suffer what it does not know or feel.That would incline me to think that you feel there is no line in the foetus' development that cannot be crossed, as your criteria is dependent entirely on the decision of the person carrying the foetus to carry it to term or not; essentially that position draws the line at birth, and any point before that a termination is acceptable should that person choose not to continue. Would that be accurate?
That's some jump, and if you think that's an accurate reflection of the kind of person you're discussing this with, then our discussion is over. Look at my post again where I clearly outlined my thoughts on it, because that's an ignorant portrayal of me. Properly ignorant and offensive. Please take it back.The 'tiny wee' suggests we're heading back into soapbox territory again. When you say a pregnant persons choice is less favoured than the life of a (tiny wee) embryo, what is that supposed to mean? If I said the psychotic axe murderers choice is less favoured than the (enormous giant) bricklayers life, would it be a similar statement? Would it be the same conclusiion?
No, that would be you massively exaggerating by use of hyperbole again, whilst ignoring the obvious which is that in one scenario the choice is to kill a non-sentient embryo not a born human.Actually, what would make a difference? Is there any justification for such a stance that would make you say it was reasonable and should be respected, or would any any answer agreeing that this is an appropriate stance simply be a reason to dismiss that point of view?
I don't know. I haven't heard a reasonable explanation yet as to why there is so much more feeling expressed around abortion embryo death than IVF embryo death.0 -
My point exactly. Abortion is a fix for an unwanted pregnancy. Dental care is a fix for bad teeth.
I don't agree that it is a fix for an unwanted pregnancy. If the woman ends up more desperate than she was before, then the situation isn't fixed.Tell me now why you think an acceptable level of struggle is one where pregnant women are so utterly desperate to terminate a pregnancy that they would try to operate on themselves, or have it done in appallingly unsafe circumstances?
I never used the term "acceptable level of struggle". My point was that some struggles just have to be worked through, hard and all as this to do. There isn't always a quick fix (I only think of a fix as being something which isn't worse than the problem).0 -
Advertisement
-
Adversity doesn't always build character, in fact it can be hugely damaging to the person involved and I speak from personal experience on that. Life is not a movie where what doesn't kill you makes you stronger and its incredibly patronising to women in complete despair over an unwanted pregnancy when you know nothing of the lives and won't be forced to live with the consequences.
I agree that adversity doesn't always build character however I don't believe that there is a solution to every ill, which does no harm.0 -
Richard Bingham wrote: »I don't agree that it is a fix for an unwanted pregnancy. If the woman ends up more desperate than she was before, then the situation isn't fixed.
I never used the term "acceptable level of struggle". My point was that some struggles just have to be worked through, hard and all as this to do. There isn't always a quick fix (I only think of a fix as being something which isn't worse than the problem).
Abortion, many times more often than not, is not worse than the problem of a crisis pregnancy no matter how many examples of people who regret their's you give. There are huge percentages who don't regret.0 -
How about this: how about we let adult women decide for themselves which medical treatments they should or shouldn't have, seeing as they are the ones with the medical condition?
Your treating this as if we were talking about the use of tanning salons (which do no harm to anyone but the person who uses them). This is not the case with abortion.0 -
Richard Bingham wrote: »Your treating this as if we were talking about the use of tanning salons (which do no harm to anyone but the person who uses them). This is not the case with abortion.
How do you know Richard? Have you known anyone who has had an abortion and regretted it? I'm sure we can all play tit for tat with abortion stories all night if we want. For every woman who regrets it there is a woman who thinks it was the right choice for her.0 -
How do you know Richard? Have you known anyone who has had an abortion and regretted it? I'm sure we can all play tit for tat with abortion stories all night if we want. For every woman who regrets it there is a woman who thinks it was the right choice for her.
Exactly... How about some statistics...?
MYTH: Many women come to regret their abortions later.
"Research indicates that relief is the most common emotional response following abortion, and that psychological distress appears to be greatest before, rather than after, an abortion.
There are undoubtedly some women who, in hindsight, wish that they had made different choices, and the majority would prefer never to have become pregnant when the circumstances were not right for them. When a wanted pregnancy is ended (for medical reasons, for example) women may experience a sense of loss and grief. As with any major change or decision involving loss, a crisis later in life sometimes leads to a temporary resurfacing of sad feelings surrounding the abortion. Women at risk for poor post-abortion adjustment are those who do not get the support they need, or whose abortion decisions are actively opposed by people who are important to them."
from...
Psychological Responses Following Abortion. Reproductive Choice and Abortion: A Resource Packet. Washington, DC: American Pyschological Association, 1990. Statistical information in this fact sheet is based on research by the Guttmacher Institute and other members of the National Abortion Federation.0 -
The following is a rather nice piece on the same subject
Study: Women Actually Don't Regret Their Abortions
I particularly liked the picture of the man holding up the sign saying he did not regret his abortion...!? Huh!0 -
I'd love to know what the stats are for countries like Ireland where abortion is illegal. Countries that have legal abortion tend to have better options in terms of pre and post abortion counselling. What is available here is pretty lame really and it not widely available. Abortion from an Irish point of view is shrouded in stigma and secrecy which doesn't promote positive mental health.0
-
It could be considered appropriate if you held the point of view that post implantation an embryo constituted a person, but pre implantation did not. I'm not saying you should hold that point of view, only that someone might. However if you are to draw the line based on suffering in aduult humans, that line could arguably go right up to the point where the child becomes an adult themselves, or beyond... which I imagine is even less appropriate.Why on earth do you imagine that line is apparently appropriate? It causes needless suffering in adult humans. A non-sentient embryo does not suffer what it does not know or feel.
If you're offended by what I concluded from what you posted, I unreservedly apologise, and I'm happy to accept whatever corrections you feel are appropriate. In my defense, perhaps you didn't outline your thoughts as clearly as you thought you did.That's some jump, and if you think that's an accurate reflection of the kind of person you're discussing this with, then our discussion is over. Look at my post again where I clearly outlined my thoughts on it, because that's an ignorant portrayal of me. Properly ignorant and offensive. Please take it back.
You said that most of us can understand that the loss of a person is too tremendous to contemplate carrying out the act of killing, and followed up with your belief that your line isn't a whole lot further down the road than my own, but crucially, yours makes room for choice. That doesn't really say where your arbitrary lines are. You specified that you feel there should be room for choice until such a time as a person could be reasonably sure that there has been sufficient time to make the decision if they want to have a child or not.
From this, I can't see that you are drawing a line at any point of a childs development in utero; the only point you are specifying is the point where the person carrying the foetus makes a choice not to continue. So is there a point in development where you feel it is no longer appropriate to terminate the life of the foetus? Aside from events when the person carrying the foetus has their own life placed at risk by continuing the pregnancy, which I think is really a separate issue.
I'll agree it's exaggeration, but in fairness no more hyperbolic than 'wee tiny baby'. But are you simply saying it's ok to kill something that's not sentient? Is that the final yardstick? In which case abortion should be permissible up until the foetus can be shown to experience subjectively, and (possibly?) again once a born person can no longer experience subjectively. That's an attractively scientific yardstick, if we could arrive at acceptably definitive way of measuring current sentience, albeit it evades the whole 'potentiality' aspect of the discussion.No, that would be you massively exaggerating by use of hyperbole again, whilst ignoring the obvious which is that in one scenario the choice is to kill a non-sentient embryo not a born human.
I don't know that I've heard a great deal of feeling expressed on the subject, though other posters have pointed out in the last few pages that IVF embryo death does not seem to have lacked expression of opinions. If there were less opinions on the subject than on the overall subject of abortion, that may simply be because it's considered only a part of a wider discussion?I don't know. I haven't heard a reasonable explanation yet as to why there is so much more feeling expressed around abortion embryo death than IVF embryo death.0 -
If you're offended by what I concluded from what you posted, I unreservedly apologise, and I'm happy to accept whatever corrections you feel are appropriate. In my defense, perhaps you didn't outline your thoughts as clearly as you thought you did.
You said that most of us can understand that the loss of a person is too tremendous to contemplate carrying out the act of killing, and followed up with your belief that your line isn't a whole lot further down the road than my own, but crucially, yours makes room for choice. That doesn't really say where your arbitrary lines are.
I'm off to bed now and I'm tiring of our discussion anyway. In order to have quoted me quite accurately above, you must have read the rest of my posts and I'm certainly not excusing your illogical leaps to me thinking abortion up until birth is fine. Here is the relevant section again, complete with my arbitrary lines:
"Yes, and my line isn't a whole lot further down the road than your own, but crucially, mine makes room for choice. Until such a time as you could be reasonably sure that there has been sufficient time to make the decision if you want to have a child or not, like before 12 weeks, I don't see the need for any reason other than not wanting to be pregnant to have an abortion. After that is more of a health matter IMO, as I'm certainly uncomfortable with the idea of a larger foetus being euthanised for the sake of lifestyle. But that's me."0 -
Advertisement
-
There's clearly an echo in here. From a week and a half ago:Richard Bingham wrote: »Your treating this as if we were talking about the use of tanning salons (which do no harm to anyone but the person who uses them). This is not the case with abortion.Richard Bingham wrote: »Your treating this like it was a debate about tanning salons. Tanning salons don't harm anyone except the people who use them, therefore I don't care if someone wants to use them every day.
Same offensively trite slogan (and even the same you're/your error). Didn't we spend the time in between unpicking your (lack of an actual) definition of "personhood", among other things? To say nothing about flagging up the problematic nature of the comparison itself.
Conducting a dialog of the deaf is one thing, but this is getting perilously close to megaphone stuff.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement