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
1…279280282284285…334

Comments

  • Options
    #8432
    volchitsa
    Registered Users Posts: 7,492 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    But apparently "abortion" (according to you) can mean either "termination of pregnancy" and/or "termination of the foetus". Now if you feel "abortion" can be either/both of these you are straight up admitting you didn't make your position in the slightest bit clear to anybody.

    Sorry, where did I say that?


  • Options
    #8433
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,779 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    Yes, that's what I said.
    So your acceptance of termination of the foetus is entirely dependent on that foetus' ability to survive outside the womb and will change with the advancement of medicine?

    yes, that is correct.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Options
    #8434
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    silverharp wrote: »
    The UK is 24 weeks , which is getting to the viability point and is part of their reasoning for arriving at that point. France have general abortion up to 12 weeks and graduated reasons up to around 24 weeks.
    I did say source; so leaving aside the UK & France not quite making a majority of countries for now, what source shows that either country uses viability as a guide for the main factor in determining when abortion is permissible?


  • Options
    #8435
    silverharp
    Registered Users Posts: 18,274 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    Absolam wrote: »
    I did say source; so leaving aside the UK & France not quite making a majority of countries for now, what source shows that either country uses viability as a guide for the main factor in determining when abortion is permissible?
    For the UK based on reading their media, if they are putting out false reasoning take it up with their press council.

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • Options
    #8436
    volchitsa
    Registered Users Posts: 7,492 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    silverharp wrote: »
    For the UK based on reading their media, if they are putting out false reasoning take it up with their press council.

    Nadine Dorries MP recently tried to get the time limits reduced based on the improved survival rates of very premature fetuses since the original law was passed. her attempt got nowhere very fast. One of the strongest arguments against her view was felt to be that the stats show that even though absolute survival rates have improved, and the very earliest survivors are indeed around the upper time limit of 24 weeks, the outlook for those very premature survivors in terms of permanent and major disabilities has improved very little and doesn't seem to be improving because it may not be improvable.

    IOW, there seems to be a lower limit around 22-24 weeks below which even the most complex high tech (and traumatizing for the neonate) methods can't really help what should still be a fetus become a baby.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #8437
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    silverharp wrote: »
    For the UK based on reading their media, if they are putting out false reasoning take it up with their press council.
    Sure... which of their media exactly says that the UK uses viability as a guide for the main factor in determining when abortion is permissible?
    And the follow on question is obviously can you please link to where they do that...


  • Options
    #8438
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    volchitsa wrote: »
    In the context of this thread, I don't think I misunderstood or misused the term in any way by not specifying that I was using it in reference to pregnancy - but your attempt at redefining it as being about the fetus just isn't one of its many possible uses.
    Of course it is; it is certainly possible to construe an abortion as aborting the life of a foetus, in fact I doubt there are many people who would say an abortion doesn't abort the life of a foetus.
    volchitsa wrote: »
    In the context of pregnancy, btw, it doesn't even mean only artificially ending a pregnancy before the baby is viable - it also refers to early miscarriage. The fact that many people prefer the euphemism of miscarriage for what is actually too early to be, technically, a miscarriage, doesn't make you any righter.
    However, practically no one would refer to a miscarraige as an abortion, despite the fact it technically is. Common usage would consider the former to be an accidental or undesired event, and the latter to be a deliberate and sought event.
    volchitsa wrote: »
    And as I said, the problem I have is that you are simultaneously guilty of gross misuse of language and of reproaching others for minor imprecisions in theirs.
    Gross misuse? Hardly :-) I suspect the problem you have is his stance, which renders minor imprecision's gross from your point of view....


  • Options
    #8439
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    SW wrote: »
    yes, that is correct.
    While my reasoning is that currently the viability outside the womb stage currently roughly matches the development of the foetus into what I consider to be a human, do you think that survivability is the correct criteria to decide whether the foetus is a human or not? That seems pretty arbitrary and no real basis for a moral stance on termination of the foetus at that stage.


  • Options
    #8440
    silverharp
    Registered Users Posts: 18,274 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    volchitsa wrote: »
    Nadine Dorries MP recently tried to get the time limits reduced based on the improved survival rates of very premature fetuses since the original law was passed. her attempt got nowhere very fast. One of the strongest arguments against her view was felt to be that the stats show that even though absolute survival rates have improved, and the very earliest survivors are indeed around the upper time limit of 24 weeks, the outlook for those very premature survivors in terms of permanent and major disabilities has improved very little and doesn't seem to be improving because it may not be improvable.

    IOW, there seems to be a lower limit around 22-24 weeks below which even the most complex high tech (and traumatizing for the neonate) methods can't really help what should still be a fetus become a baby.
    The UK used to be 28 weeks when it was introduced in the 60's but yeah there is a point where an incubator can't do the job of a womb and the risk of disabilities are high

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • Options
    #8441
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    silverharp wrote: »
    For the UK based on reading their media, if they are putting out false reasoning take it up with their press council.
    Source?
    If that is their criteria I still don't see how it has a moral leg to stand on. If you consider a foetus at some stage becomes a human, why is the application of human rights to the foetus dependent on the advancement of medical technology?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #8442
    silverharp
    Registered Users Posts: 18,274 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    Absolam wrote: »
    Sure... which of their media exactly says that the UK uses viability as a guide for the main factor in determining when abortion is permissible?
    And the follow on question is obviously can you please link to where they do that...

    I'm on a phone so not in a position to link but look at the Telegraph with a header of "abortion 24 week limit : q&a." It states it clearly enough

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • Options
    #8443
    silverharp
    Registered Users Posts: 18,274 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    Source?
    If that is their criteria I still don't see how it has a moral leg to stand on. If you consider a foetus at some stage becomes a human, why is the application of human rights to the foetus dependent on the advancement of medical technology?
    It depends how you argue it . my position has nothing to do with the perceived "humaness" of the foetus but the right of the mother to "disconnect" from it.

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • Options
    #8444
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    silverharp wrote: »
    It depends how you argue it . my position has nothing to do with the perceived "humaness" of the foetus but the right of the mother to "disconnect" from it.
    Then do you think the mother (or society) has any responsibility to support a foetus/child if the mother can disconnect or remove her direct support for it at will?


  • Options
    #8445
    silverharp
    Registered Users Posts: 18,274 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    Then do you think the mother (or society) has any responsibility to support a foetus/child if the mother can disconnect or remove her direct support for it at will?

    I'd expect society to step in much the same way that societies tend to have formal fostering and adoption.

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • Options
    #8446
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    silverharp wrote: »
    I'd expect society to step in much the same way that societies tend to have formal fostering and adoption.
    But doesn't this mean you are essentially granting human-ness to the foetus at the point where it it medically possible to sustain it outside the womb? I currently think these two stages of foetal development align, but for moral purposes should not the human-ness be the defining criteria for an on-request termination of the foetus rather than the current capabilities of medicine?


  • Options
    #8447
    silverharp
    Registered Users Posts: 18,274 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    But doesn't this mean you are essentially granting human-ness to the foetus at the point where it it medically possible to sustain it outside the womb? I currently think these two stages of foetal development align, but for moral purposes should not the human-ness be the defining criteria for an on-request termination of the foetus rather than the current capabilities of medicine?
    I believe firstly that people own their own bodies. You can't force people to keep other people alive. If for some reason you had the only kidney that would keep a particular individual alive ,the state or society at most can ask you to donate but not put a gun to you head and tie you down and take it. The humanness of the other person or "calculated" utility doesn't come into it. It might be a generous thing to do

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • Options
    #8448
    alaimacerc
    Registered Users Posts: 7,224 ✭✭✭alaimacerc


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    but for moral purposes should not the human-ness be the defining criteria for an on-request termination of the foetus rather than the current capabilities of medicine?
    And any sign of a definition of "human-ness" being arrived at other than by taking the desired answer, and arm-waving furiously as desired?


  • Options
    #8449
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    alaimacerc wrote: »
    And any sign of a definition of "human-ness" being arrived at other than by taking the desired answer, and arm-waving furiously as desired?
    Why, because that is your own preferred method of debate? Judging others by your own standards is never an attractive trait.
    Higher cortical function is the usual criteria, which is 22-24 weeks.
    I notice you have yet again failed to give anything even close to your own definition, but perhaps it's just another one of those terms you are not interested in any fixed definition for.


  • Options
    #8450
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    silverharp wrote: »
    I believe firstly that people own their own bodies. You can't force people to keep other people alive.
    In the case of a parent's responsibility to their children there most certainly are sanctions for failing to do so. If a mother doesn't feed her baby after it is born I could just as easily say she can't be "forced to keep it alive" as you have.


  • Options
    #8451
    silverharp
    Registered Users Posts: 18,274 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    In the case of a parent's responsibility to their children there most certainly are sanctions for failing to do so. If a mother doesn't feed her baby after it is born I could just as easily say she can't be "forced to keep it alive" as you have.

    I cant say im up to speed on child abandonment laws and I fully agree that a parent cant just stop feeding their kids. But regardless of actual laws a parent is in a position to give up their parenting rights and pass them on to someone else and they would be expected to go though a process.

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #8452
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    silverharp wrote: »
    I cant say im up to speed on child abandonment laws and I fully agree that a parent cant just stop feeding their kids. But regardless of actual laws a parent is in a position to give up their parenting rights and pass them on to someone else and they would be expected to go though a process.
    So she is indeed forced to support them by arranging such support from a third party, a friend/relative or the state. Morally (to me) and legally.
    Why should this not apply to pre-birth entities we have decided are human?


  • Options
    #8453
    silverharp
    Registered Users Posts: 18,274 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    So she is indeed forced to support them by arranging such support from a third party, a friend/relative or the state. Morally (to me) and legally.
    Why should this not apply to pre-birth entities we have decided are human?

    Deciding something is "human" or not doesn't solve the situaton from the mother's perspective. The mother's goal is to separate the foetus from herself. On the other side of the fence is whether it should be by termination or early delivery. In saying that the vast majority should be prior to the 24 week mark.
    Also the doctors can't have their hands tied by the patient , if they think it is unethical to deliver a 29 week old baby for example for non medical reasons then the patient might have to accept the situation that there is a window where medical staff are not comfortable delivering babies which creates a high risk of disability.
    In practice my thinking matches the current UK system give or take without trying to figure out how many angels fit on the end of a pin

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • Options
    #8454
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    silverharp wrote: »
    Deciding something is "human" or not doesn't solve the situaton from the mother's perspective. The mother's goal is to separate the foetus from herself. On the other side of the fence is whether it should be by termination or early delivery. In saying that the vast majority should be prior to the 24 week mark.
    In my thinking, whether the foetus is a human or not is the most fundamental part of deciding whether the foetus/human deserves the support of the mother and wider society. Not when current medical practise is capable of of delivering such support.
    silverharp wrote: »
    Also the doctors can't have their hands tied by the patient , if they think it is unethical to deliver a 29 week old baby for example for non medical reasons then the patient might have to accept the situation that there is a window where medical staff are not comfortable delivering babies which creates a high risk of disability.
    If there are no medical considerations it is absolutely not the physicians business to interfere with the wishes of the woman, so long as they are adhering to the law. You could as easily say that if doctors have decided it is unethical to abort at 12 weeks then there should be no abortion. It's not up to them. It's up to regulations provided by consensus at national level.
    silverharp wrote: »
    In practice my thinking matches the current UK system give or take without trying to figure out how many angels fit on the end of a pin
    I equally find laws based purely on practical considerations to be wrong. The moral case has to come first, and then we deal with the reality of it as best fits the morality. Not the other way around.


  • Options
    #8455
    qo2cj1dsne8y4k
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,646 ✭✭✭✭qo2cj1dsne8y4k


    Some doctors still think it's unethical to prescribe the pill or the morning after pill


  • Options
    #8456
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    LexieOnRale wrote: »
    Some doctors still think it's unethical to prescribe the pill or the morning after pill
    What individual doctors think isn't really relevant to their requirement to adhere to the patient's wishes within the confines of the law though.


  • Options
    #8457
    silverharp
    Registered Users Posts: 18,274 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    In my thinking, whether the foetus is a human or not is the most fundamental part of deciding whether the foetus/human deserves the support of the mother and wider society. Not when current medical practise is capable of of delivering such support.
    If there are no medical considerations it is absolutely not the physicians business to interfere with the wishes of the woman, so long as they are adhering to the law. You could as easily say that if doctors have decided it is unethical to abort at 12 weeks then there should be no abortion. It's not up to them. It's up to regulations provided by consensus at national level.I equally find laws based purely on practical considerations to be wrong. The moral case has to come first, and then we deal with the reality of it as best fits the morality. Not the other way around.

    given that I spent some time arguing with creationists that there was no first human ,I wouldnt be happy arguing when a foetus becomes human :pac:

    medical ethics come into it and they should have an input into the process as they are the ones that have to do the job. given the experience around the world doctors are obviously comfortable of a process of up to 24ish weeks. I would wager that they might be uncomfortable delivering or aborting in the "it could go either way" window. I dont think a baby should be terminated after say 26 weeks and I dont think a baby should be delivered from 26-33ish weeks all things being equal.

    Ive given you my moral framework , which is based on the privacy of the woman which at least is reasonably consistent between pre and post birth situations and doesnt have a foetus arbitrarily change status at a magic point in time.

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • Options
    #8458
    silverharp
    Registered Users Posts: 18,274 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    LexieOnRale wrote: »
    Some doctors still think it's unethical to prescribe the pill or the morning after pill

    I have no time for that , they work in a regulated profession. Its a jumped up version of a nun working in a condom factory and getting uppity.

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • Options
    #8459
    Brian Shanahan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


    silverharp wrote: »
    As for the man's rights, the DNA connection is irreverent as its not an issue of ownership of the foetus , simply the mother's right to disconnect from the foetus. If in the future medicine could transfer a 1mth foetus then society could decide to take over the abandoned rights to the foetus if there was demand.

    Speaking as a man (last time I checked my willy was still swinging), a man can only have a right to stop an abortion if he's willing and able to carry the foetus to term, and only then. In any other case he should support the woman in her decision no matter what.

    He's not the one with the task of carrying a growing organism around in him for nine months or more.


  • Options
    #8460
    Brian Shanahan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


    robindch wrote: »
    Mod:The terms "anti-abort"

    Not trying to go against a mod ruling, just seeking clarification. So what are we going to call them, then, anti-abortionist is a perfectly accurate description of what they are about, and their preferred term "pro-life" is an outright lie so I'm definitiely not going to dignify their position by giving credence to the lie.

    I simply started using the term "anti-abort" because I was lazy the same night. So if I caused offence by this shortening then I apologise for my laziness.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #8461
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    Brian Shanahan wrote: »
    Not trying to go against a mod ruling, just seeking clarification. So what are we going to call them, then, anti-abortionist is a perfectly accurate description of what they are about, and their preferred term "pro-life" is an outright lie so I'm definitiely not going to dignify their position by giving credence to the lie.

    I simply started using the term "anti-abort" because I was lazy the same night. So if I caused offence by this shortening then I apologise for my laziness.
    This adds nothing really as you have, as other before you, continued to refuse to define who "they" are in the first place. It's meaningless.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement