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
-
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.
What status do you attach to the discarded embryos discussed here? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9772233/1.7-million-human-embryos-created-for-IVF-thrown-away.html
Probably up on 2 million of them if we project the figures forward. A crime crying out to heaven for vengeance surely?0 -
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.
Well can't you hear me from there?! But to say that ALL unborn children are no more important than chickens is to disregard my distinction of a foetus that is non-sentient and with no central nervous system. Yes, if nobody actually involved in the making of this foetus has any emotional attachment to it, then it is no more important a life than a chicken's.
However, there are degrees of importance, aren't there? After all, if a zygote in a test tube isn't even important enough to have a law written about it regarding it's death, and an embryo is non-sentient, then there are following degrees of importance that it attains as it grows. At a certain stage, it grows a central nervous system and can feel pain. As I would not be unfeeling towards any living creature, this would alter it's importance to me. It becomes important to make sure it wouldn't suffer.
At what point do I say it has achieved equal importance to the mother or a 6 month old baby though...and therefore an equal right to life? Personally, I'd put that at a point where it could live independently of the womb. Unless of course it was discovered past that point that it would suffer/die shortly after birth, in which case the choice should still be the parent's choice.
BTW, you still didn't answer my question.0 -
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)
I don't know all the details of the case, and I doubt if you do either. I have serious questions about how she might have been treated, but I don't have an ideological need to rush to a conclusion without hearing the facts.
I am glad that her baby is alive. If it has permanent disabilities then I grieve for that. I nursed a disabled daughter for the five years that she lived, and do not take the issue of disability lightly.
Miss Y appears to have been caught in a perfect storm of horrific circumstances. Her situation will continue to be painful. That would be also be true if she had had an abortion. There is no magic wand to fix her screwed up world.0 -
This question: 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.
If you don't mind? Your last reply didn't actually answer any of it.0 -
If as the case suggested she had a non surgical abortion at eight weeks there would be no disabled children and no rape victim forced to remain pregnant.I don't know all the details of the case, and I doubt if you do either. I have serious questions about how she might have been treated, but I don't have an ideological need to rush to a conclusion without hearing the facts.
I am glad that her baby is alive. If it has permanent disabilities then I grieve for that. I nursed a disabled daughter for the five years that she lived, and do not take the issue of disability lightly.
Miss Y appears to have been caught in a perfect storm of horrific circumstances. Her situation will continue to be painful. That would be also be true if she had had an abortion. There is no magic wand to fix her screwed up world.
What should children and women who don't want to remain pregnant do, Nick?0 -
Advertisement
-
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?
I think that is very poor logic.
By that reasoning nobody should spend time or money on anything other than one issue. You could use the same argument to condemn advocacy of atheism, vegetarianism, feminism or any other cause.
The fact is that there will be plenty of people in the pro-life movement who help out in their local community just as much as if not more than many of those who are posting from the pro-choice side in this thread.0 -
Miss Y appears to have been caught in a perfect storm of horrific circumstances. Her situation will continue to be painful. That would be also be true if she had had an abortion. There is no magic wand to fix her screwed up world.
There is no magic wand, but who are you to tell her that she had any obligation to bring her rapist's child into the world, still less that it would be better for her to do so?0 -
This question: 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.
If you don't mind? Your last reply didn't actually answer any of it.
Sorry, I think I've been asked 30 or 40 questions here in the space of a few hours. I can't answer them all in depth or as quickly as you might like.
An unborn child is, in my opinion, a human being. That is a view, I believe, that is shared by many, possibly most, people in this country.
A chicken is a different species.0 -
There is no magic wand, but who are you to tell her that she had any obligation to bring her rapist's child into the world, still less that it would be better for her to do so?
And who are you to say her unborn child should have been killed because of the crime of its father?
The fact is that both of us have an equal right to hold an opinion, and an equal right to express it. That's the purpose of discussion boards like this.
So why not cut out the "Who are you to tell her ...?" bluster?0 -
An unborn child is, in my opinion, a human being. That is a view, I believe, that is shared by many, possibly most, people in this country.
Do you think that is a fact, or that it is only your opinion, however widely held?
If it is a fact, when does the unborn child become a human being? At conception? Or later? And again, is that point basically an opinion or a fact - and based on what science?0 -
Advertisement
-
And who are you to say her unborn child should have been killed because of the crime of its father?
The fact is that both of us have an equal right to hold an opinion, and an equal right to express it. That's the purpose of discussion boards like this.
So why not cut out the "Who are you to tell her ...?" bluster?
But I don't say.
All I say is that she should be the one whose opinion is listened to.
That's not bluster, that's just recognizing that the woman herself is the only one whose opinion matters. Not yours or mine. We can of course post on any boards we wish, but I'm talking about who gets to make the decision about her body.0 -
Sorry, I think I've been asked 30 or 40 questions here in the space of a few hours. I can't answer them all in depth or as quickly as you might like.
An unborn child is, in my opinion, a human being. That is a view, I believe, that is shared by many, possibly most, people in this country.
A chicken is a different species.
Yes, I understand you're being asked loads of questions and for what it's worth, you're doing really well to respond to everyone. And yes, a chicken is a different species, but what is it about the human species that makes it's embryo so special?
It is we, humans, who decide how to treat our fellow humans and we make laws based on shared human understanding that the vast majority of us are only too happy to keep. Do not murder anybody is a biggie that we have no difficulty with, so how is it that SO many of us do not consider it murder, or even a big deal to kill a non-sentient human embryo? Well, it's because there is a distinction.
One that you seemingly refuse to acknowledge that it's ok to make, because YOU don't make the distinction. Humans in general, do though. That is acknowledged by most societies. Most humans don't find the human embryo to be as special as the born human, or as deserving of a right to life. Why should we? (next question...when you're ready of course!)0 -
Loafing Oaf wrote: »What status do you attach to the discarded embryos discussed here? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9772233/1.7-million-human-embryos-created-for-IVF-thrown-away.html
Probably up on 2 million of them if we project the figures forward. A crime crying out to heaven for vengeance surely?
I don't pretend to know much about the process of IVF. It certainly sounds a very wasteful way of doing things - but I would rather garner information from somewhere other than a Tory rag like the Daily Telegraph.
Sorry, I understand you would prefer me to have a hard and fast opinion on every subject - but real life is rarely like that.0 -
Do you think that is a fact, or that it is only your opinion, however widely held?
If it is a fact, when does the unborn child become a human being? At conception? Or later? And again, is that point basically an opinion or a fact - and based on what science?
It's an opinion. I'm old enough to have seen things that I was taught were 'facts' to turn out to be something different.
When I was younger I was arrogant enough to think all my opinions were facts.0 -
Yes, I understand you're being asked loads of questions and for what it's worth, you're doing really well to respond to everyone. And yes, a chicken is a different species, but what is it about the human species that makes it's embryo so special?
It is we, humans, who decide how to treat our fellow humans and we make laws based on shared human understanding that the vast majority of us are only too happy to keep. Do not murder anybody is a biggie that we have no difficulty with, so how is it that SO many of us do not consider it murder, or even a big deal to kill a non-sentient human embryo? Well, it's because there is a distinction.
One that you seemingly refuse to acknowledge that it's ok to make, because YOU don't make the distinction. Humans in general, do though. That is acknowledged by most societies. Most humans don't find the human embryo to be as special as the born human, or as deserving of a right to life. Why should we? (next question...when you're ready of course!)
No, I think it's more than that.
Many people are OK with murder so long as it is done at arm's length and we don't have to watch it.
That's why western governments follow economic policies that favour multinational companies that rip off developing nations and thereby condemn children to poor health and early death. Just so long as it's on the other side of the world and not here.
That's why a considerable number of people support capital punishment, even though they would be unable to do the act themselves.
That's why so many people in the west support wars in the Middle East that maim children in horrible ways.
Abortion involves killing human beings whom we cannot see, and don't have to look at. It is, to be frank, easier and cleaner than killing people after birth. And if anyone were to display a picture of an aborted baby - how dare they inflict such mental suffering on us!0 -
I don't pretend to know much about the process of IVF. It certainly sounds a very wasteful way of doing things - but I would rather garner information from somewhere other than a Tory rag like the Daily Telegraph.
Sorry, I understand you would prefer me to have a hard and fast opinion on every subject - but real life is rarely like that.
Well we'll leave aside the ins and outs of IVF, which I don't know a massive amount about either. The core question is, do you regard the pre-implantation, invisible-to-the-naked-eye embryo as a full-fledged human being, entitled to the same legal protection as you or me? And do you accept the logical implication of this position by calling for the banning of the morning-after-pill, the destruction of embryos as a by-product of IVF, embryonic stem cell research and the IUD contraceptive?0 -
It's an opinion. I'm old enough to have seen things that I was taught were 'facts' to turn out to be something different.
When I was younger I was arrogant enough to think all my opinions were facts.
Well maybe when you're a little older again you will realize how arrogant it was of you to be so ready to impose your opinions on people who are far more directly involved than you. By which I mean the individual woman involved, not women in general, of course.0 -
Abortion involves killing human beings whom we cannot see, and don't have to look at. It is, to be frank, easier and cleaner than killing people after birth. And if anyone were to display a picture of an aborted baby - how dare they inflict such mental suffering on us!
You see this, to my mind, discredits your argument utterly. I've had an abortion, and much as I would have preferred not to have had to experience it, the actual process is far less bloody and disgusting than giving birth. I've done that too, so I do know what I'm talking about. I had a haemorrhage after giving birth, and could easily have died - would that be a good argument for early abortion? It's certainly safer and a lot less shocking to witness. Ask my husband who was present both times. (And at the births which went OK - but which he still found somewhat harrowing.)
What about showing deformed babies who die shortly after birth? Would it be acceptable to show that as part of the debate over TFMR?
Clearly not. So why do you think your appeal to false emotion has any value?0 -
No, I think it's more than that.
Many people are OK with murder so long as it is done at arm's length and we don't have to watch it.
That's why western governments follow economic policies that favour multinational companies that rip off developing nations and thereby condemn children to poor health and early death. Just so long as it's on the other side of the world and not here.
That's why a considerable number of people support capital punishment, even though they would be unable to do the act themselves.
That's why so many people in the west support wars in the Middle East that maim children in horrible ways.
Abortion involves killing human beings whom we cannot see, and don't have to look at. It is, to be frank, easier and cleaner than killing people after birth. And if anyone were to display a picture of an aborted baby - how dare they inflict such mental suffering on us!
You have a point here, in that being at such a remove from a death makes it easier. I know this because as I've said before, actually killing an animal takes some justification - I've done it plenty and not enjoyed it, but found it necessary.
I don't think it's fair to say that most people are OK with murder. Think of the family of the victim and the way they suffer? I'm not OK with that at all.
You're still not accepting that most people in (Western society at least) make a distinction between a human foetus and a born human being with full human rights.
I have a theory actually, that one day science may prove right for me, you never know! That is that we (or perhaps only women) are biologically wired to see the under 3 month embryo as relatively expendable. This would make total sense, seeing as we are all well advised not to become too attached to a pregnancy before that time due to the rate of miscarriage. Obviously, a woman who wants to become pregnant/is happy about it will have a lot more emotional investment in an under 12 week foetus, but for the most part tbh I think we don't care as much or consider it fully human for quite a long time. I have seen this in myself and it's all natural. Human behaviour.
Makes sense to me anyway.0 -
You see this, to my mind, discredits your argument utterly. I've had an abortion, and much as I would have preferred not to have had to experience it, the actual process is far less bloody and disgusting than giving birth. I've done that too, so I do know what I'm talking about. I had a haemorrhage after giving birth, and could easily have died - would that be a good argument for early abortion? It's certainly safer and a lot less shocking to witness. Ask my husband who was present both times.
What about showing deformed babies who die shortly after birth? Would it be acceptable to show that as part of the debate over TFMR?
Clearly not. So why do you think your appeal to false emotion has any value?
Although I agreed with Nick that most people find death easier at a remove (who wouldn't) and is great for being unaffected by all sorts of deaths, from the messy way sausages start getting to your table to the way a Tsunami wipes out thousands.
It's equally at a remove though to consider that the death of a foetus close up and personal would be so horrific that we'd all be put off the very notion, but as we can clearly see by the 100's of thousands of Irish women who have experienced this, well, we're more pragmatic than that. And yes, giving birth is WAY more messy and gross, I'd say. It's not like we're not able for both these processes.
Pretty sure I could look at an aborted foetus picture with the full knowledge that if I had to, I'd do it my bloody self.0 -
Advertisement
-
Abortion involves killing human beings whom we cannot see, and don't have to look at. It is, to be frank, easier and cleaner than killing people after birth.
To be fair, it's a bit tricky to see something inside you - even a scan only shows a blurry peanut shaped object. Of course, if you're flat on your back in the abortion clinic, you're not actually doing the killing yourself, which would be more difficult but certainly hasn't stopped women from trying.
However, I think there's a lot more to us not caring so much about the human foetus than it just being at that remove (you can't see it) - and btw, not being at a remove at all IS the reason for an abortion if the crisis pregnancy is happening to you - it is your life that has the other life you don't want inside it, and you're not nearly removed enough! How would any woman see it as anything other than actually killing the foetus inside them? Why do you think it's such a massive relief, for most women?
Why don't you ask yourself why women are ok with that, instead of just classing us as uncivilised and barbaric?0 -
What about showing deformed babies who die shortly after birth? Would it be acceptable to show that as part of the debate over TFMR?
Clearly not. So why do you think your appeal to false emotion has any value?
Why 'clearly not'? I don't think that such pictures should be waved around on the streets in front of kids, but I do think they should accompany serious articles that address TFMR. And they should be compulsory viewing for any legislator that votes on the subject.
Emotion should not be summarily dismissed as false. For example, abolitionists were right to appeal to the heart as well as the head when they fought to have slavery repealed.
I do have a problem when emotion is only permitted on one side of the debate. For example, those on the pro-life side are accused of emotional blackmail for calling a foetus a 'baby'. But recently I listened to a pro-choice campaigner share a heartbreaking story about a mother whose foetus had a fatal disability. She traveled to England and had an abortion, and brought the remains home in a box. The pro-choice campaigner loudly exclaimed, "She had to bring her baby home in a box!"
At that point I thought, "Hang on, I thought it was blackmail to call a foetus a baby? How come it's OK for you to do it when it suits you?"0 -
Why don't you ask yourself why women are ok with that, instead of just classing us as uncivilised and barbaric?
Lots of women aren't OK with that. In fact surveys tend to indicate that most women, while seeing abortion as permissable under certain circumstances, think it should not be allowed in an unrestricted or on demand fashion.
Also, for what it's worth, I never said that the women who get abortions are uncivilised and barbaric. Some of them are just scared.
What I believe is uncivilised and barbaric is a society that permits and facilitates widescale abortion.0 -
Ireland does just that by giving women the right in the constitution to take the unborn elsewhere to kill them. Should that right be repealed, alongside the right to information on how and where to kill the unborn?Lots of women aren't OK with that. In fact surveys tend to indicate that most women, while seeing abortion as permissable under certain circumstances, think it should not be allowed in an unrestricted or on demand fashion.
Also, for what it's worth, I never said that the women who get abortions are uncivilised and barbaric. Some of them are just scared.
What I believe is uncivilised and barbaric is a society that permits and facilitates widescale abortion.
Should pictures of all surgery accompany news items on things like open heart surgery and should women have to view footage of vaginal and caesarian births before undergoing birth?0 -
I do have a problem when emotion is only permitted on one side of the debate. For example, those on the pro-life side are accused of emotional blackmail for calling a foetus a 'baby'. But recently I listened to a pro-choice campaigner share a heartbreaking story about a mother whose foetus had a fatal disability. She traveled to England and had an abortion, and brought the remains home in a box. The pro-choice campaigner loudly exclaimed, "She had to bring her baby home in a box!"
At that point I thought, "Hang on, I thought it was blackmail to call a foetus a baby? How come it's OK for you to do it when it suits you?"
That is not currently possible, the remains are retained and then cremated and the ashes sent by courier. It is not possible for them to be home intact to be interred.0 -
Lots of women aren't OK with that. In fact surveys tend to indicate that most women (IN IRELAND), while seeing abortion as permissable under certain circumstances, think it should not be allowed in an unrestricted or on demand fashion.
Also, for what it's worth, I never said that the women who get abortions are uncivilised and barbaric. Some of them are just scared.
What I believe is uncivilised and barbaric is a society that permits and facilitates widescale abortion.
Hope you don't mind, I fixed your post up there. The RCC as you know, has informed our laws and our morality here to a much greater extent than most other European countries.
What I believe is uncivilised and barbaric is a society that doesn't. I am of much the same mind as you regarding how our society should be trying to educate people/provide widespread and easy access to contraception/provide more support for childcare, etc so as to cut down on the NEED for abortion services, but they are a NECESSITY. It is barbaric not to provide them here.
If the women who have abortions are not barbaric or uncivilised, then presumably they are also not murderers (even scared murderers)? Do you indeed (although you keep saying you don't) make a distinction between someone who kills a 12 week old foetus and someone who kills a 6 month old baby?0 -
I do have a problem when emotion is only permitted on one side of the debate. For example, those on the pro-life side are accused of emotional blackmail for calling a foetus a 'baby'. But recently I listened to a pro-choice campaigner share a heartbreaking story about a mother whose foetus had a fatal disability. She traveled to England and had an abortion, and brought the remains home in a box. The pro-choice campaigner loudly exclaimed, "She had to bring her baby home in a box!"
At that point I thought, "Hang on, I thought it was blackmail to call a foetus a baby? How come it's OK for you to do it when it suits you?"
Umm, because it was born?
And because she had wanted the future baby, which is the point Shrap has been tryng to make. Someone who has been raped, who may even feel as Miss Y said that she had the devil inside her, is less likely to feel that it is a baby.
The point being that you don't get to choose for anyone else how they feel.0 -
Why 'clearly not'? I don't think that such pictures should be waved around on the streets in front of kids, but I do think they should accompany serious articles that address TFMR. And they should be compulsory viewing for any legislator that votes on the subject.
Seriously? Why?
What about hip implants then? You know they saw off the top of the joint and then hammer the replacement in, with a metal spike so that it stays in place.
So should that be compulsory viewing for any legislator on regulations over hip replacements?
And I said false emotion because I make a distinction between genuine emotion and fake ones. Fake being when the embryo in a test tube gets no sympathy at all, but the one inside a woman is considered to be the same as a new-born baby. That's patently false since they are identical.0 -
I do mind, actually. It makes a post appear under my name that does not reflect what I believe.Hope you don't mind, I fixed your post up there.
I am informed enough to know that polls in the US and the UK consistently show that a majority of women do not favour unrestricted abortion.If the women who have abortions are not barbaric or uncivilised, then presumably they are also not murderers (even scared murderers)? Do you indeed (although you keep saying you don't) make a distinction between someone who kills a 12 week old foetus and someone who kills a 6 month old baby?
There is an obvious distinction in that one is legal and the other isn't.
Bear in mind that I wouldn't see a soldier who kills in a battle as a murderer, or an executioner who kills a condemned criminal as a murderer. But I do see such killing as immoral and warfare and capital punishment as barbaric and uncivilised. So I think my views are more consistent on this than you give me credit for0 -
Advertisement
-
Umm, because it was born?
And because she had wanted the future baby, which is the point Shrap has been tryng to make. Someone who has been raped, who may even feel as Miss Y said that she had the devil inside her, is less likely to feel that it is a baby.
The point being that you don't get to choose for anyone else how they feel.
Let's get this clear. So it's a baby if you want it, but stops being a baby and becomes a foetus if you don't want it? And, if you decide it's not a baby, then no-one else should be allowed to call it a baby?0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement