Abortion Discussion

lazygal

Nick Park wrote: »

Really? So the only people who have ever shown any compassion to those in such a position are those who advocate abortion?

Don't you see that such hysterical hyperbole is only another demonstration of how low the quality of debate has sunk?

Here's an idea. Why not admit that there are lots of people who are greatly moved by the plight of a girl or a woman who has an unwanted pregnancy? Some of those people think abortion is a good answer. Others don't. But once you start suggesting that only your side has any compassion, then you've the plot.

When someone's 'solution' to every single woman who is pregnant but doesn't want to be is to remain pregnant, it is very difficult to see the compassion in that.

Loafing Oaf

Nick Park wrote: »

My position is that I oppose all taking of human life. That is why I am a pacifist, why I oppose capital punishment, and why I oppose abortion.

I believe a civilised society cares for its weakest and most vulnerable members - and you don't get much weaker or more vulnerable than an unborn child.

And the morning-after pill and the destruction of embryos as part of IVF? You can't get anything 'weaker' or 'more vulnerable' than those embryos surely...

lazygal

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

And the morning-after pill and the destruction of embryos as part of IVF? You can't get anything 'weaker' or 'more vulnerable' than those embryos surely...

Frozen embryos don't even have a chance at life, they're not even near a uterus.

eviltwin

Nick Park wrote: »

Really? So the only people who have ever shown any compassion to those in such a position are those who advocate abortion?

Don't you see that such hysterical hyperbole is only another demonstration of how low the quality of debate has sunk?

Here's an idea. Why not admit that there are lots of people who are greatly moved by the plight of a girl or a woman who has an unwanted pregnancy? Some of those people think abortion is a good answer. Others don't. But once you start suggesting that only your side has any compassion, then you've the plot.

If you are unwilling to help a girl who has become pregnant as a result of rape and wants an abortion then you lack compassion. Forcing her to carry a pregnancy that she doesn't want is the very opposite of compassion.

Nick Park

lazygal wrote: »

Waoh there Nick. We already prevent people from travelling if their intent is to abuse children in other countries. Surely there's no greater abuse than killing a child. So you're a-ok with women taking unborn children abroad to kill them, no matter what the circumstances are? Seems a funny position to take, seeing as if a woman doesn't go abroad to kill her child her only option, unless as you said there's a certain level of incompatibility with life, she has to stay pregnant. Even if she's a child herself and a victim of rape.
How compassionate. You're ok with killing the born elsewhere, but women in Ireland can't do it here, even if they're not pregnant through choice.

Why don't you address what I post, rather than saying things about me that are untrue?

I am not ok with killing the unborn elsewhere, just as I am not ok with people being executed in Texas, or ok with anyone fighting for ISIS. But I don't think restricting travel on the basis of what people might or might do is an appropriate way to deal with the problem.

Are my views so outrageous that you can't address them sensibly without resorting to misrepresentation? This makes me despair of having any kind of reasoned debate.

lazygal

Nick Park wrote: »

Why don't you address what I post, rather than saying things about me that are untrue?

I am not ok with killing the unborn elsewhere, just as I am not ok with people being executed in Texas, or ok with anyone fighting for ISIS. But I don't think restricting travel on the basis of what people might or might do is an appropriate way to deal with the problem.

Are my views so outrageous that you can't address them sensibly without resorting to misrepresentation? This makes me despair of having any kind of reasoned debate.

Nick, the only one claiming the debate isn't reasonable is you. This is a common anti abortion tactic, claiming that the other side is biased or hysterical or won't listen.
Why is it ok for women to take unborn children to be killed out of Ireland but its not ok to kill them here? Do you think the law should be changed to prevent this from happening? What would happen in Ireland if women weren't allowed to travel to kill the unborn? Would there be 4,000 fewer abortions a year?
I think it is outrageous for the solution to every crisis pregnancy to be the same.

Shrap

Ok, can you just answer me this one question Nick, because I was trying to get my head around why people think a human foetus should have "full human rights" and was discussing this yesterday...

How do you make out that one human foetus life (one out of a huge number of potential fertilisations for a woman) is so much more important than the woman's choice to have it or not?

Nick Park

eviltwin wrote: »

All of the above is fine Nick. For you.

But what decisions you make don't impact on me and my life just as mine don't impact on you.

And the decisions that both of us make do impact on unborn children who don't have the power to make any decisions for themselves.

And that is where the concept of a civilised society comes in. There is, at some level, a responsibility to protect the powerless from being negatively impacted by the choices of the powerful.

eviltwin

Nick what is your opinion of IVF?

lazygal

Nick Park wrote: »

And the decisions that both of us make do impact on unborn children who don't have the power to make any decisions for themselves.

And that is where the concept of a civilised society comes in. There is, at some level, a responsibility to protect the powerless from being negatively impacted by the choices of the powerful.

Some people are fine will killing the unborn. I'm one of them. There is no comparison between my two born children and an eight week foetus and if I decided to abort a pregnancy it would not be the same as killing one of my children, legally or morally.

eviltwin

Nick Park wrote: »

And the decisions that both of us make do impact on unborn children who don't have the power to make any decisions for themselves.

And that is where the concept of a civilised society comes in. There is, at some level, a responsibility to protect the powerless from being negatively impacted by the choices of the powerful.

That's fine. I imagine then you believe pregnant women shouldn't be allowed to drink, smoke, do anything that could put their child in danger and such women should be sanctioned.

And what about the vulnerable unborn in our IVF clinics. Are they not as important?

Nick Park

lazygal wrote: »

Nick, the only one claiming the debate isn't reasonable is you. This is a common anti abortion tactic, claiming that the other side is biased or hysterical or won't listen.
Why is it ok for women to take unborn children to be killed out of Ireland but its not ok to kill them here? Do you think the law should be changed to prevent this from happening? What would happen in Ireland if women weren't allowed to travel to kill the unborn? Would there be 4,000 fewer abortions a year?
I think it is outrageous for the solution to every crisis pregnancy to be the same.

Once again, I never said it was ok for women to take unborn children to be killed out of Ireland. It's not ok at all. It's barbaric.

All I said was it is unreasonable to restrict them legally from doing so on the basis of what they might be about to do.

You ever see the movie Minority Report?

Shrap

Nick Park wrote: »

And the decisions that both of us make do impact on unborn children who don't have the power to make any decisions for themselves.

And that is where the concept of a civilised society comes in. There is, at some level, a responsibility to protect the powerless from being negatively impacted by the choices of the powerful.

Y'know, you keep referring to being civilised as if all us proponents of choice are only one step away from murdering. What is that step Nick? I mean, if we all are valuing human life so little, it's surprising there's so few murders of born people really, eh?

Could it be that abortion is not seen as murder in the eyes of MOST country's laws because there is a worldwide (civilised) understanding that a foetus is actually not considered to be important enough to have full human rights?

Nick Park

lazygal wrote: »

Some people are fine will killing the unborn. I'm one of them. There is no comparison between my two born children and an eight week foetus and if I decided to abort a pregnancy it would not be the same as killing one of my children, legally or morally.

And you have a perfect right to hold that opinion. My intervention in this thread was to encourage you, and others who share your view, to publicly voice it loudly and often that you are fine with killing the unborn.

Nick Park

Shrap wrote: »

Y'know, you keep referring to being civilised as if all us proponents of choice are only one step away from murdering. What is that step Nick? I mean, if we all are valuing human life so little, it's surprising there's so few murders of born people really, eh?

Could it be that abortion is not seen as murder in the eyes of MOST country's laws because there is a worldwide (civilised) understanding that a foetus is actually not considered to be important enough to have full human rights?

We all have different ideas of what constitutes civilised behaviour. You and I have an equal right to express our opinion about how a civilised society should behave.

lazygal

Nick Park wrote: »

Once again, I never said it was ok for women to take unborn children to be killed out of Ireland. It's not ok at all. It's barbaric.

All I said was it is unreasonable to restrict them legally from doing so on the basis of what they might be about to do.

You ever see the movie Minority Report?

But we restrict others from travelling to abuse born children. Why don't the unborn deserve such protection?

Shrap

Nick Park wrote: »

We all have different ideas of what constitutes civilised behaviour. You and I have an equal right to express our opinion about how a civilised society should behave.

Never said we didn't have equal right to express our opinions - wouldn't have it any other way. Could you please answer my question though, as I'm struggling with why anyone would see a foetus as deserving of full human rights.

This one: How do you make out that one human foetus (one out of a huge number of potential fertilisations for a woman) is so much more important than the woman's choice to have it or not?

volchitsa

Nick Park wrote: »

Once again, I never said it was ok for women to take unborn children to be killed out of Ireland. It's not ok at all. It's barbaric.

All I said was it is unreasonable to restrict them legally from doing so on the basis of what they might be about to do.

You ever see the movie Minority Report?

But you are only considering the notion of preventing a crime - exactly the same problem arises with premeditated murder. It isn't necessarily possible to prevent murder, and it certainly isn't possible to imprison someone who may have been intending to commit murder or he may not - but that isn't a reason not to punish the ones that actually do take place.

Do you imagine that none of the women who have abortions abroad ever need treatment immediately after, when they return home? Of course they do. And just as if your child disappeared you wouldn't be able to get away with just denying you had done anything to them, there is no reason why a woman who was pregnant and now isn't shouldn't have to give some evidence that she had a miscarriage and not an abortion. If it is really the same as killing a child that is.

In the past, women suspected of having had abortions were put on trial. With modern technology it should actually be easier to prove, so even it still isn't always possible, it would certainly be feasible in some cases.

eviltwin

If I contact one of the helplines and tell them I plan to abuse my child then they are legally obliged to contact the authorities. Its a child protection issue and they have to act. But I can walk into any of the family planning clinics and tell them I will be having an abortion and nothing happens. And that's not just abuse, that's murder right :eek: Why aren't they covered by the same laws? Why is it that we say on the one hand that the unborn have the same right to life as everybody else but when that life is taken its not classed as murder?

Nick Park

lazygal wrote: »

But we restrict others from travelling to abuse born children. Why don't the unborn deserve such protection?

Not everyone agrees that restricting child abusers from travelling is an appropriate way to respond to the problem of child abuse. Some people see a real potential there for future infringement of civil liberties.

I know a few people who work fulltime with organisations that combat child abuse in Asia, and they say such travel bans do little or nothing to deal with the problem. The real solution is to tackle the root causes of the problem in Asia, which is why they run programmes to help educate families whose children are likely to be targetted (apparently it costs €11 to effectively educate a child to make them less susceptible to being abused, but €8000 to rehabilitate an abused child).

You see this is part of the problem. People advocate one solution (travel bans for child abuse, abortion for unwanted pregnancy) and then pretend that anyone who doesn't agree with their solution is thereby lacking in compassion.

So, for example, Margaret Sanger and Marie Stopes both opposed abortion. But they were pioneers in the area of contraception, believing that increased access to contraception was a more civilised and compassionate way to tackle the problem.

Nick Park

Shrap wrote: »

This one: How do you make out that one human foetus (one out of a huge number of potential fertilisations for a woman) is so much more important than the woman's choice to have it or not?

For the same reason that the life of a 6-month old baby is more important than its mother's choice whether to kill it or not.

Freedom of choice is important, but our choices are limited at times, particularly when they have adverse effects on others.

eviltwin

Gee Nick, I don't know what to say to you. I mean, you're entitled to your point of view and if you don't agree with abortion then I respect that. I just get so frustrated sometimes. Heard in work today about a family with kids in the area who are having major issues re neglect and they have been waiting over a year for a social worker to visit. Everyone seems to care so much about the unborn and not give a toss about the rights of the living child who is just as vulnerable as one in the womb. What about their right to life? Where's their Youth Defence?

Nick Park

eviltwin wrote: »

Gee Nick, I don't know what to say to you. I mean, you're entitled to your point of view and if you don't agree with abortion then I respect that. I just get so frustrated sometimes. Heard in work today about a family with kids in the area who are having major issues re neglect and they have been waiting over a year for a social worker to visit. Everyone seems to care so much about the unborn and not give a toss about the rights of the living child who is just as vulnerable as one in the womb. What about their right to life? Where's their Youth Defence?

I think you're creating a false dichotomy there. Do you think if we change the abortion laws tomorrow then that is going to make the State and the HSE provide a properly funded social work service that is fit for purpose?

I think it is a national scandal that such families and children are neglected in a wealthy society like Ireland. That is of course, an entirely separate issue from whether I oppose killing unborn children or, like Lazygal, am fine with it.

Shrap

Nick Park wrote: »

You see this is part of the problem. People advocate one solution (travel bans for child abuse, abortion for unwanted pregnancy) and then pretend that anyone who doesn't agree with their solution is thereby lacking in compassion.

So, for example, Margaret Sanger and Marie Stopes both opposed abortion. But they were pioneers in the area of contraception, believing that increased access to contraception was a more civilised and compassionate way to tackle the problem.

Well, that's fair enough. I agree that increased access to contraception is a better way to tackle the sheer NUMBER unwanted pregnancies, but seeing as a slip up (even in well educated folk in the area of contraception) accounts for many unwanted pregnancies, it's not the only answer. And I also take exception to the word civilised. It is not uncivilised to kill a cow (unless you are vegetarian), and the cow has considerably more going for it than a non-sentient foetus. WHY is it uncivilised to kill a foetus?

Nick Park wrote: »

For the same reason that the life of a 6-month old baby is more important than its mother's choice whether to kill it or not.

Freedom of choice is important, but our choices are limited at times, particularly when they have adverse effects on others.

And yet you don't see many women killing their 6-month old babies. Could it be that there is ACTUALLY a distinction between a 12 week old foetus and a 6 month old baby that isn't just developmental? Could it be that women who make the distinction (regularly, and you will know some of these uncivilised, barbaric murderers) are making the distinction based on it not being as worthy of the right to life as a born baby? You must make the distinction as well, or you'd genuinely think you were surrounded by 100's of thousands of murderers.

It's not good enough to say "for the same reason", if you can't reason it any further than that. Why IS a non-sentient foetus with no central nervous system more important than the chicken you may be eating for dinner? Seriously. It is just another life not being given a chance, and not a thinking/feeling one at that.

Nick Park

Shrap wrote: »

It is not uncivilised to kill a cow (unless you are vegetarian), and the cow has considerably more going for it than a non-sentient foetus. WHY is it uncivilised to kill a foetus?

Why IS a non-sentient foetus with no central nervous system more important than the chicken you may be eating for dinner? Seriously. It is just another life not being given a chance, and not a thinking/feeling one at that.

And that brings me back to the reason why I posted in this thread.

If you actually believe that an unborn child is no more important than a chicken, then I encourage you to say so as loudly and as often as possible. That would help make an honest public debate.

lazygal

Nick Park wrote: »

And that brings me back to the reason why I posted in this thread.

If you actually believe that an unborn child is no more important than a chicken, then I encourage you to say so as loudly and as often as possible. That would help make an honest public debate.

Do you think the debate isn't honest Nick? Is there anything those who oppose abortion should be saying that they aren't? Like how it's fine that the law allows unborn children to be killed elsewhere and frozen embryos have no legal protection? Or that the solution to every single pregnancy is to remain pregnant?

PopePalpatine

Don't forget that rape victims must have their bodily integrity violated again.

Morag

Nick Park wrote: »

If this is how you really feel, then I would strongly encourage this.

Dump mealy mouthed phrases like 'pro-choice' and say loud and clear "I am pro-abortion and I think abortions are a great thing."

Stop putting all the focus on the small percentage of cases involving drastic foetal abnormailities or rape victims and speak out proud and loud that you want laws where perfectly healthy foetuses can be aborted for any reason whatsoever.

If that's really what you want then that is the honest debate we should be having. Use the media as much as possible and shout your message from the rooftops.

I am prochoice, I am pro abortion rights, I am pro health care, I am pro family.

I do think abortion is a great thing, esp when it saves women's lives and safe guards their health, gives them choice on continuing a pregnancy with fatal fetal abnormalities, and I think it is especially awesome that we have pills which can end a pregnancy in the first 9 weeks, giving women a choice and control of their reproduction.

If I could change the world tomorrow so no one would ever want or need an abortion then I would, but as I can't do that, I will keep working towards free safe, legal abortion here in Ireland for those who need it.

volchitsa

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Don't forget that rape victims must have their bodily integrity violated again.

Remember when we were told that it was unwarranted fear mongering to suggest that a suicidal woman might be physically restrained in order to prevent her killing herself and therefore her unborn child?

And yet that is exactly what the HSE proposed to do. And some people actually support that action.

So what does Nick think about the respect shown to Miss Y?

And should she not perhaps have been forcibly hydrated and/or force fed to protect her fetus a little longer? (You realize, I assume, that it is more likely than not to have permanent disabilities due to its extreme prematurity)

eviltwin

Nick Park wrote: »

I think you're creating a false dichotomy there. Do you think if we change the abortion laws tomorrow then that is going to make the State and the HSE provide a properly funded social work service that is fit for purpose?

I think it is a national scandal that such families and children are neglected in a wealthy society like Ireland. That is of course, an entirely separate issue from whether I oppose killing unborn children or, like Lazygal, am fine with it.

I'd take that point if so much time and effort and money wasn't spent by pro life groups. These people are very vocal when it comes to the unborn, or rather, the unborn in the womb. They don't seem as outraged by children who are living and breathing or the unborn in IVF clinics. Why not put their time and money towards helping out in the local community?