Abortion Discussion

Tim Robbins

lazygal wrote: »

Ever heard of wet nurses? Women throughout history have avoided breastfeeding. And I breastfeed two children. I'm not legally obliged to do so however.

But following your logic no-one is obliged to that so the baby dies.

lazygal

J C wrote: »

What should happen if she is healthy and pregnant and doesn't want to pay tax ... or a thousand other things that society deems to be legally important?

Can you tell me what you'd do with women who are pregnant and no longer wish to remain pregnant?

Paying taxes is surely much lower on the list of priorities than allowing women to take unborn children to other countries to be ... killed.

lazygal

Tim Robbins wrote: »

But following your logic no-one is obliged to that so the baby dies.

My point is no one is legally obliged to violate their bodily integrity to ensure a born child lives. Ms Y no longer has to take any interest in the baby she was forced to gestate. And no law requires her to feed it.

keane2097

iwantmydinner wrote: »

After all these words (So. Many. Words.), I really still don't understand the mindset that thinks it's preferable for society to force women and girls who are unwilling or unable to be pregnant or become mothers to just go ahead and remain pregnant and become mothers, regardless of any and all considerations outside of imminent death. It makes no sense. What does it actually achieve?

Does anyone honestly think the answer to this doesn't have to do with letting young ones know we don't like the idea of them having sex?

swampgas

J C wrote: »

Donating bone marrow or blood isn't a natural process ... pregnancy is.

Dying during childbirth is perfectly natural, medicine, electricity and the computer you are using right now are not. I don't see what "natural" has to do with it?

It is also natural for large numbers of fertilized eggs to fail to implant, or to abort spontaneously very early in the pregnancy, so Mother Nature doesn't seem too bothered about abortion herself. Many animals will ignore, kill or even eat their own young when times are tough, so again nature doesn't seem to be a great reference point there either.

Or are you simply saying that it is a woman's role to be pregnant, whether she likes it or not? Is that what you mean by "natural" ?

J C

lazygal wrote: »

Can you tell me what you'd do with women who are pregnant and no longer wish to remain pregnant?

Provide them with proper support (both medical and financial) to maintain their pregnancies ... and when the baby is born give them the option of keeping it or having it adopted. We cannot condone killing people as the solution to personal issues.

lazygal wrote: »

Paying taxes is surely much lower on the list of priorities than allowing women to take unborn children to other countries to be ... killed.

... yet clearly the societies that allow abortion on demand, appear to place paying tax as a higher priority than not killing your child.

lazygal

J C wrote: »

Provide them with proper support (both medical and financial) to maintain their pregnancies ... and when the baby is born give them the option of keeping it or having it adopted. We cannot condone killing people as the solution to personal issues.

... yet clearly the societies that allow abortion on demand, appear to place paying tax as a higher priority than not killing your child.

So your solution to women who don't want to remain pregnant is to ... remain pregnant? Should they be prevented from leaving the country to kill unborn children? Should women who try to induce miscarriage be prosecuted?

swampgas

J C wrote: »

Provide them with proper support (both medical and financial) to maintain their pregnancies ... and when the baby is born give them the option of keeping it or having it adopted. We cannot condone killing people as the solution to personal issues.

And yet you condone allowing women to travel abroad to do exactly that.

J C

swampgas wrote: »

Dying during childbirth is perfectly natural, medicine, electricity and the computer you are using right now are not. I don't see what "natural" has to do with it?
It is also natural for large numbers of fertilized eggs to fail to implant, or to abort spontaneously very early in the pregnancy, so Mother Nature doesn't seem too bothered about abortion herself. Many animals will ignore, kill or even eat their own young when times are tough, so again nature doesn't seem to be a great reference point there either.

By 'natural' I mean that, for most women, pregnancy is an uneventful and relatively easy process, that her body is adapted to support.
Pregnancy, like any other natural process sets in train an automatic sequence of physiological and physical events that will normally result in the birth of a healthy baby. Obviously, things can go wrong with this process ... and if or when they do, medical intervention may be necessary in order to protect the health or the life of the woman and/or the baby.

swampgas wrote: »

Or are you simply saying that it is a woman's role to be pregnant, whether she likes it or not? Is that what you mean by "natural" ?

It's not her role to become pregnant, if she doesn't want to ... but when she is pregnant she has ethical obligations to care for her child as well as herself.

swampgas

J C wrote: »

It's not her role to become pregnant, if she doesn't want to ... but when she is pregnant she has ethical obligations to care for her child as well as herself.

The problem here, as everyone knows, is that she cannot always do both. If she is ill, for example, her health may suffer from being pregnant. Or she may simply not want to be pregnant, so that forcing her to continue the pregnancy is mentally distressing.

Unfortunately it's an either/or situation: either the woman gets her way and is allowed to abort, or else she is forced to endure an unwanted pregnancy. You can't expect her to care for both, she has to choose one or the other. However you would try to force her to continue the pregnancy no matter how much she didn't want it, correct? Even at say 8 weeks?

J C

lazygal wrote: »

So your solution to women who don't want to remain pregnant is to ... remain pregnant? Should they be prevented from leaving the country to kill unborn children?

I've already said that I'm in agreement with women travelling freely, whether pregnant or not. What they get up to when abroad has logically to be between themselves and the authorities in the state they are visiting.

lazygal wrote: »

Should women who try to induce miscarriage be prosecuted?

In general, I don't think so.
Women is such dire situations need our help and our compassion and not our condemnation.

lazygal

J C wrote: »

I've already said that I'm in agreement with women travelling freely, whether pregnant or not. What they get up to when abroad has logically to be between themselves and the authorities in the state they are visiting.

In general, I don't think so.
Women is such dire situations need our help and our compassion and not our condemnation.

But we prosecute other offences committed in other jurisdiction in a person's home state such as sexual offences. You're ok with women being allowed to travel to kill the unborn, which is constitutionally prohibited in Ireland, and don't want to protect the unborn being brought abroad to be killed? I'm shocked that you're perfectly happy with women bringing children abroad to kill them and don't want the law changed to protect children.

J C

swampgas wrote: »

The problem here, as everyone knows, is that she cannot always do both. If she is ill, for example, her health may suffer from being pregnant. Or she may simply not want to be pregnant, so that forcing her to continue the pregnancy is mentally distressing.

Unfortunately it's an either/or situation: either the woman gets her way and is allowed to abort, or else she is forced to endure an unwanted pregnancy. You can't expect her to care for both, she has to choose one or the other. However you would try to force her to continue the pregnancy no matter how much she didn't want it, correct? Even at say 8 weeks?

I would certainly encourage her to continue with the pregnancy ... and ultimately that is all that can be done, in many situations.
Abortion isn't as panacea ... it too has possible medical complications and kills one of the parties to the pregnancy.

lazygal

J C wrote: »

I would certainly encourage her to continue with the pregnancy ... and ultimately that is all that can be done, in many situations.
Abortion isn't as panacea ... it too has possible medical complications and kills one of the parties to the pregnancy.

Early non surgical abortion is statistically safer than remaining pregnant and giving birth.

professore

The argument about the woman not wanting to remain pregnant or being distressed because of the pregnancy as a reason for abortion don't make sense to me. If I have a neighbour who makes my life hell I don't have the right to kill him or her.

The argument about the foetus not being viable also makes no sense. A baby isn't viable on its own until it gets to school age at least ... Should we kill those too if they are difficult?

I would condone the morning after pill, and perhaps 1-2 weeks at a push, or in the case of children that won't survive outside the womb,, but other than that, I view it as murder. Denying someone a life is murder to me. Foetuses are viable now at 20 weeks and it's moving back all the time.

As an atheist I put a very high value on human life, as it is the only chance one gets. Denying another that chance for any reason is very wrong IMO.

Euthanasia, OTOH, I would be in favour of, as the person themself chooses their own fate.

swampgas

J C wrote: »

I would certainly encourage her to continue with the pregnancy ... and ultimately that is all that can be done, in many situations.

And if, despite your encouragement, she still wants to abort? What's your answer to that? Suppose she can't travel to the UK or elsewhere?

My guess is you will sit back and "let nature take its course", right? And hope that once the baby is born that she will magically bond with it and change her mind?

And if in the meantime she commits suicide or causes herself a grave injury by trying to induce an abortion herself, will your conscience be clear?

lazygal

professore wrote: »

The argument about the woman not wanting to remain pregnant or being distressed because of the pregnancy as a reason for abortion don't make sense to me. If I have a neighbour who makes my life hell I don't have the right to kill him or her.

The argument about the foetus not being viable also makes no sense. A baby isn't viable on its own until it gets to school age at least ... Should we kill those too if they are difficult?

I would condone the morning after pill, and perhaps 1-2 weeks at a push, or in the case of children that won't survive outside the womb,, but other than that, I view it as murder. Denying someone a life is murder to me. Foetuses are viable now at 20 weeks and it's moving back all the time.

As an atheist I put a very high value on human life, as it is the only chance one gets. Denying another that chance for any reason is very wrong IMO.

Euthanasia, OTOH, I would be in favour of, as the person themself chooses their own fate.

Your neighbours won't take up residence in your uterus and have to be pushed out through your vagina or surgically removed via c section no matter how irritating they are. Do you think women should be prevented from travelling to kill the unborn?

J C

lazygal wrote: »

But we prosecute other offences committed in other jurisdiction in a person's home state such as sexual offences. You're ok with women being allowed to travel to kill the unborn, which is constitutionally prohibited in Ireland, and don't want to protect the unborn being brought abroad to be killed? I'm shocked that you're perfectly happy with women bringing children abroad to kill them and don't want the law changed to protect children.

Why are you shocked ... I recognize that that there are limits to all laws ... and I have compassion for both the women and the children in problem pregnancies.

swampgas

professore wrote: »

The argument about the woman not wanting to remain pregnant or being distressed because of the pregnancy as a reason for abortion don't make sense to me. If I have a neighbour who makes my life hell I don't have the right to kill him or her.

Suppose I implant a seed in your belly that will grow into a new neighbour, say over 9 months time? Would you be happy to carry this new neighbour around in your belly, or would you like the option of saying no?

lazygal

swampgas wrote: »

And if, despite your encouragement, she still wants to abort? What's your answer to that? Suppose she can't travel to the UK or elsewhere?

My guess is you will sit back and "let nature take its course", right? And hope that once the baby is born that she will magically bond with it and change her mind?

And if in the meantime she commits suicide or causes herself a grave injury by trying to induce an abortion herself, will your conscience be clear?

Or the woman can have the chance of a lifetime to make some childless couple happy by her selfless act of gestation.

swampgas

J C wrote: »

Why are you shocked ... I recognize that that there are limits to all laws ... and I have compassion for both the women and the children in problem pregnancies.

Your "compassion" for women seems to be the offer of encouragement to stay pregnant and very little else. Some idea of compassion.

J C

swampgas wrote: »

And if, despite your encouragement, she still wants to abort? What's your answer to that? Suppose she can't travel to the UK or elsewhere?

My guess is you will sit back and "let nature take its course", right? And hope that once the baby is born that she will magically bond with it and change her mind?

And if in the meantime she commits suicide or causes herself a grave injury by trying to induce an abortion herself, will your conscience be clear?

What would you do if she wanted to commit suicide and she wasn't pregnant?

lazygal

J C wrote: »

Why are you shocked ... I recognize that that there are limits to all laws ... and I have compassion for both the women and the children in problem pregnancies.

But you oppose abortion ... Yet don't worry a bit about the ... 150,000 unborn children killed outside Ireland since the eighth amendment.... Maybe you're not opposed to abortion or worried about the unborn seeing as you're happy for women to take them away to be .... Killed

lazygal

J C wrote: »

What would you do if she wanted to commit suicide and she wasn't pregnant?

What does that have to do with abortion? Someone who isn't pregnant doesn't need an abortion.

swampgas

J C wrote: »

What would you do if she wanted to commit suicide and she wasn't pregnant?

That's a massive red herring. If she is suicidal because she is pregnant and can't get the abortion she desperately wants, I would suggest she have an abortion.

If she isn't pregnant, it's a completely different issue, so don't try that bit of misdirection thanks very much.

Stark

J C wrote: »

What would you do if she wanted to commit suicide and she wasn't pregnant?

I hear they impregnate you and then give you an abortion in that scenario :rolleyes:

J C

swampgas wrote: »

Suppose I implant a seed in your belly that will grow into a new neighbour, say over 9 months time? Would you be happy to carry this new neighbour around in your belly, or would you like the option of saying no?

Although all analogies have weaknesses ... it is more analogous to getting a puppy for Christmas, and the first time it causes you any discomfort, having it killed.

If you don't want a puppy ... or a child ... don't get one.
... if you do ... you then have responsibilities to the puppy and the child ... and these responsibilities cannot be ethically extinguished by having them killed.

swampgas

J C wrote: »

Although all analogies have weaknesses ... it is more analogous to getting a puppy for Christmas, and the first time it causes you any discomfort, having it killed.

If you don't want a puppy ... or a child ... don't get one.
... if you do ... you then have responsibilities to the puppy and the child ... and these responsibilities cannot be ethically extinguished by having them killed.

You're right, that's one of the weakest analogies yet.

lazygal

J C wrote: »

Although all analogies have weaknesses ... it is more analogous to getting a puppy for Christmas, and the first time it causes you any discomfort, having it killed.

If you don't want a puppy ... or a child ... don't get one.
... if you do ... you then have responsibilities to the puppy and the child ... and these responsibilities cannot be ethically extinguished by having them killed.

But you're perfectly happy with women bringing unborn children abroad to kill them and have no ethical difficulties with the law allowing them to do so?

professore

lazygal wrote: »

Your neighbours won't take up residence in your uterus and have to be pushed out through your vagina or surgically removed via c section no matter how irritating they are. Do you think women should be prevented from travelling to kill the unborn?

Don't see how that makes a difference.

On being prevented from traveling, it's legal for them to travel, so no. Personally I think the law is wrong on this though.